Delhi Court September 1968 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
Mohinder Lal Bagai Vs. the Delhi Administration
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-19-1968
Reported in: 1970CriLJ793
S.K. Kapur, J.1. The case of the prosecution admits of statement in a very moderate compass, I proceed to state the same. Mohinder Lal bagsi, appellant, was charged under Section 5(2) read with Section 5 (I) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and Section 161 of the Indian Penal Code and was convicted by the learned special Judge, Delhi, on btoh the charges, by judgment, dated August 8, 1967. He was sentenced to three years' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 2,000 under Section 5(2) read with Section 5 (I) (d) of the prevention of Corruption Act and three year's rigorous imprisonment under Section 161, Indian Penal Code. The two sentences were to run concurrently. He was to suffer a further six months' rigorous imprisonment for default in payment of fine.2. The substance of the charge against the appellant is that on March 24, 1966, while a public servant working in the capacity of Demolition Inspector (Building) under Municipal Corporation, Delhi, he obtained illegal gratifi...
Jodhu and ors. Vs. State and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-13-1968
Reported in: 5(1969)DLT68
Hardayal Hardy, J. (1) The appellants (1) Jodbu son of Sarjan Ram (23 years), (2) Chandu Ram son. of Jai Kishan (19 years) and (3) Roshan Lal son of Dheba Ram (16 years) were tried together by the Sessions Judge, Mandi, Kulu and Lahanl & Spiti Districts at Mandi for an offence punishable under section 302 read with section 34 Indian Penal Code, for having committed the murder of one Gulab Singh in the morning hours of August 19, 1966 at village Gahar, Tehsil Sarkaghat, District Mandi, in complicity with one Parma son of Munshi, a young lad of 17 years who was granted pardon and was examined as an approver at the trial. All the three accused have been found guilty and have been sentenced to life imprisonment and also to pay a fine of Rs. 200.00S each; and in default of payment of fine to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three months each. The accased have appealed against their conviction and sentence to this Court. (2) The prosecution case as accepted by the learned Sessio...
R.L. Gupta Vs. H.L. Sehgal
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-12-1968
Reported in: 1969CriLJ727
I.D. Dua, C.J., S.K. Kapur and S.N. Andley, JJ. (1) The contemner Shri H.L.Sebgal has stated before us that he confines his defense to paragraph 1 of the reply dated 27th May, 1968 and that he is sorry to have added the remaining paragraph Nos 2 and 3 in that reply. We are satisfied that the contemner did nto intend to commit contempt of Court and perhaps in him enthusiasm, he was misled into ventilating his grievances in this reply. (2) Action by way of contempt of Court is a serious matter. In this action, the Court is btoh the accuser and the Judge of the accusation. The position is the same whether the alleged contempt is of a subordinate Court or of this Court. It thus behoves the Court to act with due circumspection, making appropriate allowances for common human failings within reasonable limits. Whereas the Court must always be jealous in vindicating its dignity and impartiality, at the same time, the Court must exercise its power with restraint and care, always distinguishing ...
In the Matter Of: Contempt of H.L. Sehgal Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-12-1968
Reported in: ILR1985Delhi921
I.D. Dua, C.J. (1) (ORAL). The eontemner Shri H. L. Sehgal has stated before us that lie confines his defense to paragraph 1 of the reply dated 27-5-1968 and that he is sorry te have added the remaining paragraphs Nos. 2 and 3 in that reply. We arc satsfied that the contemner did nto intend to commit contempt of Court and perhaps in his enthusiasm, he was misled into ventilating his grievances in this reply.(2) Action by way of contempt of Court is a serious matter. In this action, the Court is btoh, the accuser and the judge of the accusation. The position is the same whether the alleged contempt is of a subordinate Court or of this Court. It thus behoves the Court to act with due circumspection, making appropriate allowances for common human failings within reasonable limits. Whereas the Court must always be jealous in vindiCating its dignity and impartiality, at the same: time, the Court must exercise its power with restraint and care, always distinguishing cases where there is a de...
Kailash Nath Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-12-1968
Reported in: ILR1968Delhi486
I.D. Dua, C. J.(1) This application has been presented in this Court on behalf of Shri Kailash Nath under section 528, Criminal Procedure Code ., praying for the transfer of the case from the Court of Shri J. N. Verma, Additional Sessions Judge, to some toher competent Court.(2) It is unnecessary to go into the details of the facts and, circumstances giving rise to the controversy. Suffice it to say that Shri D. N. Kaul and Smt. Kaul started proceedings against the petitioner under section 406, Indian Penal Code . and the petitioner filed a complaint against Smt. Tuisi Kaul and Shri D. N. Kaul in the Court of Shri H. L. Sikka, Sub Divisional Magistrate, under section 420 Indian Penal Code . On 19/3/1968 Shri Sikka convicted the petitioner under section 406, Indian Penal Code . and sentenced him to rigorous imprisonment for one year. The same learned Magistrate dismissed the petitioner's complaint under section 420 Indian Penal code(3) It is averred in this application for transfer that...
Rai Singh Deb Singh Bist and anr. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-09-1968
Reported in: ILR1968Delhi470; [1970]77ITR802(Delhi)
1. Common questions of law and fact arise in Civil Writs Nos. 67 to 79 and they will be disposed of by this judgment.2. The writ petitions have been filed to quash the several ntoices dated 23rd March, 1962, issued by respondent No. 3 under Section 34(1)(a) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, for reopening assessments for the assessment years 1942-43 to 1953-54, and also for prohibiting the respondents fromproceeding further with assessment proceedings in pursuance of the aforesaid ntoices. The several letters under cover of which the several ntoices were sent, bear the date 23/24 March, 1962. The ntoices were, according to the respondents, sent in three sets--one set by registered acknowledgment due post to one address of the petitioners; antoher set also by registered acknowledgment due post to antoher address of the petitioners and the third sent by messenger. It is nto disputed that the ntoices which were sent by registered acknowledgment due post were received by the petitioners o...
Jugal Kishore Vs. Des Raj Seth
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-07-1968
Reported in: 4(1968)DLT571
Inder Dev Dua, J.(1) This revision has been referred to a Bench of three Judges because of a conflict in some reported decisions of some High Courts about the maintainability of a suit for a mandatory injunction directing the defendant to vacate the premises which were held by him as a licensee and has been determined.(2) In the trial Court, the following two preliminary issues were settled on the basis of the preliminary objections : '1. Whether the suit of the plaintiff lies in the present form ? 2. If issue No. 1 is proved in favor of the plaintiff, whether the plaint is nto properly valued for purposes of court-fee and jurisdiction ?'(3) The trial Court held, following the decisions of the Punjab High Court, that the suit was competent in the present form. On issue No. 2, it was held that the present suit being one for injunction, it had been correctly valued for purposes of court-fee and jurisdiction.(4) Before us, Shri Dina Nath Bhasin, the learned counsel for the defendant-petit...
Shamkar Dass and ors. Vs. Shanti Devi and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-02-1968
Reported in: 5(1969)DLT234
V.S. Deshpande, J. (1) This application under section 5 of the Limitation Act and Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure raises the question whether the appellant was prevented by sufficient cause from filing the regular first appeal within the period of limitation and, if so, whether the delay in doing so should be condoned. (2) The appeal was presented on 10th November, 1966 and was received without any objection. It was, however, returned to the appellants' counsel on 1st December, 1966 on the ground that the typing charges of Rs. 50.00 had nto been deposited. The appellants thereupon deposited the said amount on the same day. In the meanwhile, the limitation for the filing of the appeal had expired on 12th November, 1966. The petitioner-appellants thereforee pray that the delay in filing of the appeal between 12th November, 1966 and 1st December, 1966 be condoned. (3) By a Ntoification No. JCIRO/1950 dated 28th June, 1950,the Judicial Commissioner in exercise of the power confe...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›