Delhi Court October 1969 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.
Bhagwan Dass Gupta Vs. Mukat Lal and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-10-1969
Reported in: 6(1970)DLT64
V.S. Deshpande, J.(1) The practice of this Court regarding presentation of second appeals, as laid down in Chapter I of Volume V of the Rules and Orders of this Court, is as follows:- Part A. Paragraph 2 (b): Every memorandum of appeal shall be accompanied by copies of the decree and judgment, as prescribed by Order Xli, Rule I of the Civil Procedure Code. In the case of Second Appeals, in addition to the documents prescribed by Order Xli, Rule I of the Code, memorandum shall be accompanied by a copy of the judgment of the Court of First instance unless the appellate court dispenses therewith. Part E, Paragraph 2: When a memorandum of appeal, cross-objection, petition or application in any proceeding in the High Court contains an assertion of any fact or facts contrary to or outside the record or nto supported by evidence already on record, such assertion shall be supported by one or more affidavits. Part E, Paragraph 6: When upon any application any evidence is to be given, such evide...
Rameshwar Dass Chottey Lal and ors. Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-10-1969
Reported in: ILR1969Delhi1196
S.K. Kapur, J. (1) This judgment will dispose of Civil Writ Petition Nos. 144 of 1968, 139/1967,64/1968, 105/1968, 347/1968. 356/1968, 33/1969 and 1543/1967. I will first take up Civil Writ No. 144 of 1968 and deal also with the common points that arise in all the petitions. CIVILWrit 144 of 1968, (2) The four petitioners stand indicted in the trial Court for offences against Prevention of Food Adulteration Act (hereafter referred to as the said Act.). Two complaints under section 7 read with section 16 of the said Act have been filed against them, one against petitioner Narendra Kurnar and Jiwan Lal and other against petitioners Messrs Rameshwar Das Chhotey Lal 'through partner Shyam Sunder' and Shyam Sunder petitioners. In the first of the aforementioned two complaints, the petitioners have been charged with storing adulterated Aniseed (Saunf) for sale. The adulteration according to the public analyst's report was due to 0 -47 per cent excess in total ash per cent 1 -5 def. in volati...
Singh Brothers and anr. Vs. the Union of India (Uoi)
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-10-1969
Reported in: 6(1970)DLT255
S.K. Kapur, J. 1. Under three railway receipts dated March 22, 1955, April 12, 1955 and May 30, 1955, the Plaintiff consigned arms and ammunition to Messrs Arms & Ammunitions Stores, Town Hall, Bareilly (Defendant Nor 2). For securing the price of the goods, the plaintiff sent (he railway receipts along with hundies to the Punjab National Bank Limited, Bareilly to be retired against payment. The consignee instead of getting the railway receipts against payment from the bank, obtained consignments from the railway against indemnity bonds. The price of the goods in the circumstances nto having been paid, the plaintiff filed suit for the recovery of Rs. 4,983.70 against the Union of India, Arms and Ammunition Stores and Bakhshi Trilochan Singh, proprietor of the second defendant firm. This amount represents the balance of the price of goods (part payment of the price having been made by the second defendant) and interest. The three indemnity bonds are Exhibit D-5 dated March 23, 1955, Exh...
Sohan Lal Vs. State/Municipal Corporation of Delhi
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-09-1969
Reported in: ILR1969Delhi913
Hardayal Hardy, J. (1) This order will dispose of a batch of eight petitions under section 561-A Criminal Procedure Code involving common points. The petitioners are being prosecuted in the Court of a Magistrate for an offence under section 7 read with section 16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (hereafter referred to as the Act), for sale of supari sabat (areca whole-nut). In three cases the result of analysis by the Public Analyst appointed under the Act is said to be as follows:- (1)Cr.M.(M) 203 of 1967 'The sample was in fit condition for analysis. Date of analysis :- 22-5-67. 14.7.8% of the Supari Sabat were found infested. The sample contained Sabat Supari and am of the opinion that the same is adulterated due to infestation to the extent of 14.78 %' (2)Cr.M. (M) 205 of 1967 'The sample was in fit condition for analysis. Date of analysis:- 22-5-67. 39.6 % of the supari sabat were found infested. The sample contained sabat supari and am of the opinion that the same...
The Saraswati Industrial Syndicate Ltd. and anr. Vs. Union of India
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-08-1969
Reported in: AIR1970Delhi257
Jagjit Singh, J.1. Writ Petns. Nos. 699 and 709 were heard together as the facts relating to those cases are nearly the same and the points involved are exactly identical.2. The petitioner company in writ No. 699 is the Saraswati Industrial Syndicate Ltd., Yamunanagar District Ambala in Haryana State. That company owns Saraswati Sugar Mills and is engaged in the manufacture of sugar. The petitioner company in writ No. 709 is the Delhi Cloth & General Mills Co., Ltd., Bara Hindu Rao, Delhi, which is also a public limited company having two sugar factories in the District of Meerut, known as Daurala Sugar Works and Mowana Sugar Works.3. Both the petitioner-companies manufactured sugar, an essential commodity for purposes of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to for facility of reference as 'the Act'), during the sugar season of the year 1968-69. The factores of the companies are situate in what was demarcated as Zone III.4. On December 12, 1968 the Ministry of Food...
Ram Parshad Vs. Onkar Nath
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-06-1969
Reported in: 6(1970)DLT245
S.N. Shankar, J.(1) This second appeal is directed against the order of Shri Des Raj Dhameja, Additional District Judge, Delhi, setting aside the order of the executing Court and accepting the appeal of the respondent-tenant. The learned Judge has held that in respect of the premises covered by the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (hereafter called 'the 1958 Act') but exempted from the operation of Delhi and Ajmer Rent Control Act, 1952 (hereafter called 'the 1952 Act') the tenant was nto liable to be evicted in execution of a decree for eviction passed against him by the civil court before the 1958 Act came ed after the 1st of June, 1951, but before 9th of June, 1955, and the case was, thereforee, covered by section 50 of the 1958 Act and the proceedings for his eviction stood abated and the decree was inexecutable. The landlord contested this application and the parties went on trial. On the basis of evidence produced, the executing court held that the construction of the premises had be...
Union of India Vs. Gulab Singh and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-05-1969
Reported in: ILR1969Delhi831
H.R. Khanna, J. (1) This civil revision filed by the Union of India is directed against the order of learned Senior Subordinate Judge I Class, Delhi, whereby he dismissed the application of Union of India under Section 161B of the Delhi Land Reforms Act for setting aside the decree dated May 10, 1966 which had been awarded in favor of Gulab Singh and two others against Gaon Sabha Sanoth. The matter was referred to a larger Bench in pursuance of the order of Hardy, J., because he found that the question arising for decision in this case was of some importance and was involved in a large number of other cases.(2) The brief facts of the case are that Gulab Singh and two others instituted a suit on February 9, 1965 against Gaon Sabha Sanoth on the allegation that the plaintiffs were the proprietors of agricultural land bearing Khasra No. 720 situated in village Sanoth. It was alleged that the plaintiffs were in possession of the aforesaid land in 1953-54 but due to some mistake the land wa...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›