Delhi Court November 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.
Bakhshi Ram and ors. Vs. Durga Dass and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-24-1969
Reported in: ILR1970Delhi217
Prakash Narain, J.(1) This second appeal is directed against the judgment and decree of the Senior Subordinate Judge. Kangra at Dharamsala. whereby the appellants' appeal against the dismissal of their suit turn possession based on a right of pre-emption was dismissed by the learned Senior Subordinate Judge although he accepted their appeal in respect of special costs that were originally awarded against the plaintiffs, (2) The facts of the case briefly stated are that 8 Kanals and 11 Marias of land situate in village Bankhar, Tehsil Hamirpur were sold by Gainda and Shiv Rain to the respondents herein on 26-5-1959 for Rs. 3,000.00. The appellants contended that they being co-sharers of the land had a preferential right to purchase the land and so claim it by pre-emption. It was further contended that appellant no. 1. Chiraga. was a tenant of the land in dispute under appellant no. 2. Captain Rajinder Singh, who was the mortgagee of the entire Khata having obtained the mortgagee rights ...
Barnu Vs. Balandansi
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-20-1969
Reported in: 6(1970)DLT94
Pritam Singh Safeer, J. (1) The provisions of Section 27 sub-section (4) of the Himachal Pradesh Abolition of Big Landed Estates and Land Reforms Act, 1953 which will hereinafter be referred to as the Act , Notwithstanding anythg contained in the foregoing provisions of this Chapter, a landowner who holds laud, the annual land revenue of which exceeds Rs. 125 per year, the right, tile and interest of such owner in such land shall be deemed to have been transferred and vested in the State Government free from all encumbrances. (2) Nothing contained in Sub-Section (1) shall apply in respect of such land which is under the personal cultivation of the landowner. (3) The landowner whose rights are acquired under subsection (1) by the State Government, shall be entitled to receive compensation which shall be determined by the Compensation Officer having regard to sections 17 and 18 of this Act, in accor dance with the provisions of Schedule H, but in the case of such occupancy tenant who is ...
Union of India Vs. Mohinder Kaur
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-19-1969
Reported in: ILR1969Delhi1154
S.N. Andley, J. (1) The two main questions that arise for consideration in these two appeals are the constitutional validity of the two provisos to clause (e) of sub-section (1) of section 7 of the Resettlement of Displaced Persons (Land Acquisition) Act, 1948, hereinafter referred to as 'the Act', and the construction of the aforesaid provisos. These appeals had come up for hearing before a Division Bench of this Court (S. K. Kapur and M. R. A. Ansari, JJ.). Reliance was placed upon a decision of another Division Bench of this Court in re. Mongol Sen v. Union of India whereby the said provisos had been struck down. The Division Bench hearing these appeals felt that the judgment in Mangal Sen's case needed reconsideration and the construction of the aforesaid provisos was also an important question. These appeals were thereforee, referred to a larger Bench.(2) R.F.A. No. 51-D of 1961 is the appeal filed by the Union of India and connected with it is F.A.O. No. 56-D of 1961 filed by Shr...
Daulat Ram Vs. Sukhi
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-18-1969
Reported in: 6(1970)DLT393
Prakash Naraia, J.(1) Ln proceedings under Section 483 Criminal Procedure Code, initiated by Smt. Sukhi against her husband Daulat Ram, the latter had been ordered to pay a monthly allowance as maintenance to his wife at the rate of Rs. 80 per mernsem with effect from 6 6-1967. It appers that io spite of these orders Daulat Ram did nto pay the maintenance allowance to his wife. Accordingly on 31-10-1968 Smt. Sukhi moved an application under section 488(3) Criminal Procedure Code, complaining about her husband nto paying the maintenance allowance which till then had accumulated to Rs. 1300 and prayed that the amount of maintance be realized by issue of warrants of attachment or by passing of orders of imprisonment against Daulat Ram. This application came up before the Magistrate first Class, Theog who passed the following order:- 'PRESENTEDby the petitioner with counsel. Be entered. The warrant of attachment be issued and report to come up on 26-11-1968.'(2) On the date fixed, that is,...
B.N. Sinha Vs. Medical Council of India Etc.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-14-1969
Reported in: ILR1969Delhi1077
H.R. Khanna, J.(1) Dr. B. N. Sinha has challenged by means of this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India the election of Dr. Shanti Lal C. Sheth (respondent No. 5) as President of the Medical Council of India (hereinafter referred to as the Council). The other respondents in the petition are the Medical Council of India (respondent No. 1), the Union of India (respondent No. 2), Dr. Tuisi Das (respondent No. 3), Dr. P. K. Duraiswami Director General of Health Sr V. Patel (respondent No. 6) and Dr. R. M. Kasliwal (respondent No. 7). (2) The Council is a statutory body having been constituted under Section 3 of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956 (102 of 1956) (hereinafter referred to as the Act). The Act replaced the Indian Medical Council Act of 1933. According to sub-section (1) of section 3 of Act 102 of 1956, the Central Government shall cause to be constituted a Council consisting of one member from each State and one member from each University. Provision is also...
Chanaya and anr. Vs. Nanka
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-13-1969
Reported in: 6(1970)DLT229
Prakash Narain, J. (1) The plaintiffs-appellants were Benders in possession of 3/8th share of land in Khata No. 1/26 Min. to 28 Min. comprised in 22 plots admeasuring 27 Bighas 9 bids was in village Bated, Tehsil Arki, Mahasu District. The defendants were the owners of this land and subsequently obtained proprietary rights in respect thereof on 9-10-1967 under the provisions of section Ii of the Himachal Pradesh Abolition of Big Landed Estates and Land Reforms Act, hereinafter referred to as the Act'. (2) Prior to the defendants acquiring the proprietary rights the plaintiffs had mortgaged their interest in the said land to the defendants for a sum of Rs. 200.00 taken as a loan but had redeemed that mortgage and, it is contended, obtained physical possession of half the land at the time of the redemption and the other half after some months as at the time of redemption the defendants' wheat crop was standing on the land and was still to be harvested. It is alleged that after the plaint...
Ramesh Chander Vs. Delhi Electric Supply Undertaking Etc.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-13-1969
Reported in: ILR1970Delhi310
V.S. Deshpande, J. (1) This is a dispute between two groups of Executive Engineers appointed by the Delhi Electric Supply Committee (Respondent No. 5) in the Delhi Electric Supply Undertaking (Respondent No. 1) which is vested in the Municipal Corporation of Delhi (Respondent No. 2) and is a part thereof. The petitioners, constituting one group, have been appointed in consultation with the Union Public Service Commission as required by the principal part of section 96 of the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957 (hereinafter called the Act of 1957) which reads as below :- 'NO appointments to the post of the General Manager (Electricity) or the General Manager (Transport) or to any post carrying a minimum monthly salary of three hundred and fifty rupees or more (exclusive of allowance) shall be made except after consultation with the Union Public Service Commission. . . . '(2) Petitioners I to 3 and 5 to 8 were appointed on various dates from 10-5-1962 to 8-4-1964. Petitioner No. 4 is h...
Paras Ram Vs. Raksha Devi
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-11-1969
Reported in: 6(1970)DLT41
P.S. Safeer, J. (1) This regular second appeal under section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure seeks to impugn the decree made by the Additional District Judge, Hoshiarpur, on the 7th of April, 1964. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant places reliance on clause (e) of Section 100(1) of the Code of Civil Procedure. His contention is that there has been a procedural error which has been committed by the Local Commissioner appointed by the trial Court for going into accounts between the parties inasmuch as the Local Commissioner did nto permit Paras Ram, the present appellant, to produce the handwriting expert. My attention has been drawn to the relevant provisions in Order Xxvi of the Code of Civil Procedure and the argument is that the Commissioner in such a situation was exercising the powers of the Court and was bound to examine evidence which might have been sought to be produced. If a reference is made to the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in : [1963]3SCR604...
Bahadur Chand Vs. Ujaggar Singh and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-11-1969
Reported in: 6(1970)DLT217
Pritam Singh Safeer, J. (1) -THIS appeal raises for determination the differentia in respect of ''rashness or Negligence' which may present a clear demarcation between civil negligence i. e. Negligence constituting a tortious act for which compensation may be awarded and negligence or rashness which may have the element of criminality punishable in terms of Sections 279 and 304A of the Indian Penal Code. (2) I must record here that Mr. S. Malhotra who has appeared for the appellants has assisted me with eminent ability in this appeal. He has nto resorted to any irrelevant citation ur any uncalled for argument. (3) An application was filed by Shri Bahadur Chand and his wife Smt. Janki Devi under section 110A of the Motor Vehicles Act against the respondent to this appeal who at the time of filing of the application and the accident mentioned therein was the S. D. M. Kangra. (4) What we really become concerned with in this case is the happening at about 9.05 A. M. on the 26th of March, 1...
Sudek Vs. Sundri and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-07-1969
Reported in: 6(1970)DLT31
P.S. Safeer, J.(1) This Letters Patent Appeal is concerned with the single Bench judgment made by Hon' ble Mr. Justice S. N. Shankar on the 27th September, 1967. Before the Letters Patent Appeal could be disposed of a Full Bench of this Court had to deal with a poser arising in terms of the legal proposition canvassed in terms of Section 63(1)(e) of the Indian Succession Act, 1925.(2) The Full Bench was concerned with the following reference.- 'INwhat circumstances, if any, can the signatures of the sut' Registrar and of the identifying witness upon a will presented for registration under the Indian Registration Act amount to an attestation of the will within the meaning of section 63(1)(e) of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 ?'(3) The reference became necessary of the conflict of authority presented by the decisions of some of the High Courts. The Full Bench reporduced in its judgment section 63 of the Indian Succession Act in its entirety and then converged its attention on the interp...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »