Delhi Court October 1969 Judgments
Browse smarter
Turn browsing into brief-ready notes
Open any judgment and get a structured AI Brief in seconds — plus Semantic Search when you need to hunt by meaning, not keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed — log in to pick up where you left off.
Voginder Pal Vs. Competent Authority and Etc.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-30-1969
Reported in: ILR1970Delhi892
V.S. Deshpande, J.(1) The common questions arising for decision in both these Writ Petitions are:- (1) whether a finding under section 14(1)(g) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (hereinafter called the Act of 1958) (corresponding to section 13(1)(g) of the Delhi and Ajmer Rent Control Act, 1952) that the premises are unfit for human habitation and have to be demolished for reconstruction acts as rest indicate in a subsequent proceeding before the competent authority acting under section 19(4)(b) of the Slum Areas (Improvement and Clearance) Act, 1956, (hereinafter called the Act of 1956) and (2) if so, does this finding preclude the competent authority from acting under section 19(4)(a) of the Act of 1956. (2) In Civil Writ 708 of 1969, the landlord (Respondent No. 2) obtained an order of eviction against the tenant (petitioner) under section 14(1)(g) of the Act of 1958 on the ground that the landlord required the premises bona fide for the purpose of rebuilding the same and such wor...
B.G. Goswami Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-29-1969
Reported in: AIR1970Delhi95; 1970CriLJ667
1. The appellant B. G Goswami was employed as a Storekeeper in the Sewa Kendra run by the Delhi Administration for the benefit of destitutes and beggars. He has been convicted by the Special Judge for an offence under Section 5(2) read with Section 5(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 and has been sentenced to 15 months' R.L. and a fine of Rs. 200/- or in default of payment of fine to further imprisonment for a period of three months. He has also been found guilty under Section 161 Indian Penal Code and has been ordered to suffer 15 months' R.I. for the said offence. The substantive sentences of imprisonment have been ordered to run concurrently. According to the prosecution, Madan Singh complainant (P.W. 1) held a contract for the supply of vegetables to the Sewa Kendra. The accused Goswami told him that if he paid him a bribe of Rs. 50/- all sorts of vegetables supplied by him would be accepted but if he did not do so the vegetables brought by him would be rejected. The ...
Om Prakash Gupta Vs. Puspa Kumari
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-28-1969
Reported in: ILR1969Delhi953
V.S. Deshpande, J.(1) What is the meaning of 'an idiot' in section 5(ii) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (hereinafter called the Act) and how to determine whether a person is such an idito on the medical and other evidence in this case-are the two important questions for decision in this appeal by the husband whose petition under section 12(1)(b) of the Act for a decree of nullity against the respondent wife has been dismissed by the learned lower Court on the ground that the husband has failed to prove that wife, at the time of the marriage, was 'an idiot'.(2) The two provisions of the Act to be considered are : Section 5(ii) : 'Amarriage may be solemnized between any two Hindus, if the following conditions are fulfillled, namely : (I).. (II)neither party is an idito or a lunatic at the time of the marriage.' AND section 12(1) (b) :12.(1) Any marriage solemnized, whether before or after the commencement of this Act, shall be voidable and may be annulled by a decree of nullity on any o...
New Delhi Municipal Committee Vs. the Punjab National Bank Limited
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-28-1969
Reported in: ILR1986Delhi292
Hardayal Hardy, J.(1) The question for decision in this appeal is whether a property which was nto included in the assessment list in the previous year although it was in existence in that year can be added to the list by amendment under Section 67 of the Punjab Municipal Act, 1911 in the year for which house-tax is payable. The question involves the interpretation of Sections 61 to 68 of the said Act.(2) The circumstances in which the question has arisen are briefly these :- The Punjab National Bank Limited is the owner of a building known as 5 Parliament Street New Delhi. It is a newly erected building, the construction of which was completed in the year 1958 and it was first occupied by its owner on 1st July 1958. The building was nto entered in the assessment list prepared during the period 1-4-1958 to 31-3-1959. On September 4, 1959 the New Delhi Municipal Committee purporting to act under Section 67 of the Punjab Municipal Act, 1911, hereafter referred to as the Act, issued the f...
Delhi Vs. Chhote Lal
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-23-1969
Reported in: ILR1969Delhi885
H.R. Khanna, J.(1) The question whether the provisions of sub-rule (3) of Rule 7 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules (hereinafter referred to as the Rules) are mandatory, noncompliance with which would prove fatal to the prosecution, or whether they are directory, non-compliance with which would nto prove fatal in the absence of prejudice to the accused, arises for determination in this appeal by special leave by the Municipal Corporation of Delhi against the judgment of Magistrate I Class, Delhi, whereby he acquitted Chhote Lal respondent in a case under section 7 read with section 16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (No. 37 of 1954), hereinafter referred to as the Act. The matter was referred to Full Bench in view of the conflict of opinion expressed by two Division Benches of this Court.(2) The prosecution case is that on May 1, 1968 at about 7 A.M., Food Inspector V. B. Sharma went to the shop of the accused in Gali No. 12, Kailash Nagar, Gandhi Nagar, Delh...
Sumer Chand Vs. Sulekh Chand
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-17-1969
Reported in: 1970CriLJ1550; 6(1970)DLT149
V.D. Misra, J. (1) The petitioner has moved this application for expunging certain remarks made by the Magistrate against him while acquitting the respondent-accused. (2) The material facts may be given in brief. Sumer Chand's sister is married to Sulekh Chand A hire-purchase agreement was executed by Sumer Chand and his sister Kasturi Devi on 29th June, 1965. Later on certain disputes arose and Kasturi Devi claimed the dues under this agreement from Surner Chand who refused to pay any amount. It was alleged that on 11th April, 1967, at about 9 A. M. at Mori Gate Sulekh Chand, husband of Kasturi Devi. approached Sumer Chand and threatened to kill him if he would nto pay the amount due. Sumer Chand reported the matter to the police and Sulekh Chand was challaned under section 506 of the Indian Penal Code After recording the evidence, the Magistrate acquitted the accused but while doing so he passed adverse remarks on Sumer Chand, complainant. Out of those remarks the petitioner has rais...
D.P. Sinha Vs. E.T. Sen
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-14-1969
Reported in: 6(1970)DLT87
Hardayal Hardy, J. (1) The petitioner in this case is the printer and publisher of a pamphlet entitled 'I was a C.I.A. Agent in India' by John D. Smith. He is being prosecuted by Shri E. T. Sen, a former Brigadier in the Indian Army, for offences under sections 500, 501 and 502 Indian Penal Code on the allegations that the pamphlet contains imputations concerning the complainant which are absolutely baseless 'and false and have been made without any justification or lawful excuse with full knowledge that they are false and with intention to harm the reputation of the complainant. (2) The petitioner's defense, as stated before me by his counsel, is one of justification under the First, Second and Ninth Exceptions in section 499 Indian Penal Code. (3) The case, though instituted in early April last year has nto even reached the stage of charge uptil now as the complainant whose examination-in-chief was concluded in two hearings on 18-5-1968 and 7-6-1968 is still under cross-examination s...
Workmen of Edward Keventer (Successors) Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Delhi Administra ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-14-1969
Reported in: ILR1969Delhi767
H.R. Khanna, J. (1) Question about the scope of sub-section (3) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (Act 14 of 1947), hereinafter referred to as the Act, relating to the prohibition of strike arises for determination in this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India filed by Workmen of Edward Keventer (Successors) Private Ltd., represented by Keventers Employees Union (Registered) against Delhi Administration respondent No. 1 and Edward Keventer (Successors) Private Ltd., respondent No. 2 (hereinafter referred to as the respondent-company). The petitioners by this petition have prayed for the issuance of a writ for quashing the following order which was issued on August 18, 1966 :- 'NO.F.26(276)/66-Lab(ii):-Whereas it has been made to appear to the Chief Commissioner, Delhi, that the workmen employed by the Management of Edward Keventer (Successors) Private Ltd., Keventer Lane, Sardar Patel Road, New Delhi, have reported to strike in connection wit...
Union of India Vs. Bishan Devi and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-12-1969
Reported in: ILR1970Delhi1
H.R. Khanna, C.J. (1) This appeal under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent by Union of India, Chief Settlement Commissioner and Regional Settlement Commissioner, is directed against the judgment of learned Single Judge whereby he accepted the writ petition filed by Shrimati Bishan Devi respondent quashed the order dated 14/3/1967 of Joint Chief Settlement Commissioner and the auction-sale, in respect of the property in dispute, held on 9/03/1967. Order was also made that ShrimatiBishan Devi was entitled to the transfer of the property in dispute in her favor.(2) Brief facts giving rise to this appeal are that Shrimati BishanDevi and her husband Buta Rani were displaced persons from Gujranwala in Pakistan. Bisharn Devi and Buta Ram made separate claims for properties left in Pakistan. The claim of Bishan Devi was verified on 7/03/1951 for Rs. 24,000.00.On revision the amount was enhanced on 18/06/1951 tors. 29,784.00. The claim of Buta Ram was verified for an amount of Rs. 31,900.00. The p...
The National Small Industries Corporation Ltd. Vs. R. Siegward and Soh ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-10-1969
Reported in: ILR1970Delhi632
ORDERV, Rules 1 and 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure)'(8) The summons is addressed to the defendant No. 1 and-starts by saying as under : 'WHEREASplaintiff has instituted a suit against you for recovery of Rs. 1,72,070.00 vide plaint copy attached herewith, you are hereby summoned to appear in this Court inperson or by pleader duly instructed, and able to answer all material questions relating to the suit, or who shall be accompanied by some other person able to answer all such questions, on the 1st day of November, 1966 at 10 O'clock in the forenoon to answer the claim, and you are directed to produce on that day all the documents upon which you intend to rely in support of your defense. Take notice that in default of your appearance on the day before-mentioned the suit will be heard and determined in your absence.'(9) As the entire language of the process issued has been purpose fully reproduced above, it becomes clear that : (A)a copy of the plaint was attached with the summons. (b)...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »