Delhi Court February 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.
Hafiz Zahoor UddIn Vs. the Custodian of Evacuee Property
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-17-1969
Reported in: 5(1969)DLT559
V.S. Deshpande, J.(1) The suit property was Wakfalal-aulad (Trust for the benefit of the family members] held by the appellant as the Mutwalli (Trustee) for the benefit of himself and other members of the family. Some of the beneficiaries having migrated to Pakistan, their beneficial interest in the property became 'evacuee property within the meaning of Section 2(f) of the Administration of Evacuee Property Act, 1950, thereinafter called the Act of 1950) and vested in the Custodian under Section 11(2)(b) of the Act on a notification being issued under section 7(1) thereof The evacuee property being an undivided 63/140 share of the property, only constructive possession of it could be taken by the Custodian under Rule 10(3) of the Administration of Evacuee Property Central) Rules 1950 (hereinafter called the Rules of 1950). Under Section 10(2)(b) of the Act, the Assistant Custodian (Judicial) passed an order on 20th November, 1952 that the appellant being the Mutwalli was entitled to m...
Chander Prabha Vs. Prem Nath Kapur
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-14-1969
Reported in: AIR1969Delhi283; ILR1969Delhi291
1. The appellant in this appeal assails the order dated 7-9-1968 made by a learned Subordinate Judge 1st Class, Delhi, dismissing her application under Section 26 of the Hindu Marriage Act for the custody of her minor male child below five years of age, the application having been made in the course of the proceedings for judicial separation initiated by her under Section 10 of the said Act 2. The Court below has observed in the impugned order that there is nothing on the record to show that the father has nto been properly maintaining and keeping the child and that the bare affidavit filed by the wife is insufficient to establish the contrary. The Court emphasised the fact that when the child was brought to the Court and was questioned as to whether he was happy with his father, he replied in the affirmative, and from the face of the child, the Court gto the impression that he was quite happy with his father. The Court also asked the wife to go back to her husband at least for the sak...
Assistant Collector of Customs, Customs House, Indraprastha Estate, Ne ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-14-1969
Reported in: AIR1969Delhi301; 1969CriLJ1245
ORDER1. The facts, out of which this revision petition against an order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge has arisen are as follows :--The Customs Preventive Staff, New Delhi had, on the 29th August, 1968 intercepted a car No. MHJ-1116, near Yamuna Bridge, Bal Kishan Khnnna and other persons were traveling in that car. On the personal search of Bal Kishan Khanna, 13 bars of gold weighing Iso tolas with foreign markings were recovered. The Customs Preventive Staff believed that the 18 bars of gold had been imported into India without a permit as required under law and were liable to be confiscated and that the car was also liable to be confiscated. The Customs Preventive Staff had, thereforee, taken the 13 bars of gold and the car into possession.2. On the 4th September, 1968, Tilak Raj respondent brother of Bal Kishan Khanna, made an application, in the Court of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, praying that the car seized may De returned to him. The application was opposed on beha...
M.R. Dhawan Vs. Madan Mohan and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-13-1969
Reported in: AIR1969Delhi313; ILR1969Delhi405
P.N. Khanna, J. 1. The only question involved in this appeal is whether the appellant, who is the pawner of certain shares in favor of respondent No. 5-Bank, is entitled to the dividends and the right, and bonus shares issued, in respect of the said pledged shares.2. The facts giving rise to this appeal are as follows: 101 shares of the Punjab National Bank Limited of the value of Rs.100 per share originally stood in the joint names of respondent No. 2 and his brothers respondents Nos. 3 and 4. Respondent No. 2 entered into a partnership with the appellant under the name of New Shares Corporation.3. This firm, New Shares Corporation, had an overdraft account with the Hindustan Commercial Bank Ltd., respondent No. 5. As a security in the said account, 91 shares out of the said 101 shares of the Punjab National Bank Ltd. were pledged by the said firm with respondent No. 5, who, in a suit for the recovery of money due, obtained a decree for the amount found due to it.It was however, held ...
Firm Khushi Ram Behari Lal Vs. Firm Jagan Nath Kuthiala
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-10-1969
Reported in: ILR1969Delhi487
H.R. Khanna, J.(1) This is regular first appeal filed by Messrs Khushi Ram Behari Lal defendant-firm is directed against the judgment and decree of the learned Subordinate Judge, Delhi, whereby a decree for recovery of Rs. 10,700.00 was awarded in favor of firm Jagan Nath Kuthiala Arhati plaintiff-respondent(2) The plaintiff-firm which is carrying on business at Simla, filed the present suit for recovery of Rs. 10,725/6/6 against the defendant-firm which was previously carrying on business at Lyallpur, on the allegation that the plaintiff placed on order for the purchase of 1400 maunds of wheat with the defendant at Lyallpur in the beginning of June, 1947. The defendant wrote back to the plaintiff on June 18, 1947 that the wheat would be dispatched to the plaintiff after obtaining the necessary permit from the food grain authorities. The plaintiff was asked to send at least Rs. 5,000.00 in advance. It was added that for the balance of price a hundi would be drawn on the plaintiff and w...
Shiv Dutt Sharma Vs. Prem Kumar Bhatia
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-10-1969
Reported in: 5(1969)DLT394
V.S. Deshpande, J.(1) The appellant, Shiv Dutt Sharma is tenant of the respondent Prem Kumar, in quarter No. 1on the preliminary ground that a period of five years had nto expired after acquisition of the premises by Prem Kumar and, thereforee, the proceedings for eviction of Shiv Dutt premature in view of Sub-Section (6) of Section 14. The Rent Controller upheld the preliminary objection and dismissed the application but the Rent Control Tribunal reversed the finding of the Rent Controller and remanded the proceedings to the Rent Controller for trial on merits. Hence this second appeal by Shiv Dutt.(2) Prem Kumar, respondent has raised the preliminary objection that this second appeal is barred by time mainly because the memorandum of appeal was nto accompanied by a certified copy of the order of the Rent Controller, which was filed after the expiry of the period of limitation. The appellant has nto made any application for the extension of period of limitation on the ground that ther...
Lachhman Dass Vs. Veer Finance Co. and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-06-1969
Reported in: 5(1969)DLT306
S.N. Andley, J. (1) This appeal is against the order dated June 13, 1968, of Mr. S. C. AhuJa, Sub-Judge First Class, Delhi, whereby he dismissed the application which had been filed by the appellant for setting aside the ex-parte decree passed by the trial Court on 13th May, 1966. (2) The short facts relevant to the controversy which has been raised in this appeal are that the appellant is one of the guarantors in respect of the motor vehicle bearing registered No. U. P. D. 8312 for the purchase of which an advance was made by respondent No. 1 to one Devka Partap Singh. Since disputes had arisen between the parties, reference was made to an arbitrator and, upon the making of the award, respondent No. 1 filed an application in the trial Court to make the award a rule of the Court. (3) Notices of this application and of the filing of the award were issued to the various parties. In so far as the appellant is concerned notices were issued to him on 13th January, 1966 and 16th February, 19...
Chiranji Lal Vs. Bhiko
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-06-1969
Reported in: 5(1969)DLT430; ILR1969Delhi296
Hardayal Hardy, J.(1) This is a puzzling little case in which I must confess my mind has fluctuated some-what and thereforee although counsel's arguments were heard by me as far back as January 16, 1969, I took time to pronounce judgment. The facts are nto many and are also nto in dispute.(2) One Ram Nath obtained a money decree against Dalip Singh and in execution of the decree the property in dispute was put to sale by court auction and was purchased by one Babu Ram on 21-4-1953. The sale certificate was issued on 15-6-1953 and about a week later the auction purchaser sold .the property by a registered deed of sale to one Chiranji Lal. The latter applied to the executing court for delivery of possession and succeeded in obtaining possession of the upper floor of the property on 24-11-1955. Thereafter Smt. Bhiko mother of the original judgment-debtor Dalip Singh moved an application before the executing Court under Order 21 rule 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure for possession being ...
The Official Liquidator Majestic Financiers (P) Ltd. Vs. Hargurchet Si ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-04-1969
Reported in: ILR1969Delhi839
Audrey, J.(1) Out of the Issues framed on October 25, 1968, Issues Nos. 1, 2 and 5 have been ordered to be treated as preliminary Issues and it is these Issues which are being disposed of by this order. (2) These Issues are:- Issue (1) Is the application nto competent on the ground that the Official Liquidator should have filed a suit Issue (2) Should Court-fees on the petition have been paid as upon a suit in accordance with Schedule 1 of the Court-fees Act Issue (5) Can the respondents question the correctness of the amounts shown to their debit in the books of account of the company (3) Mr. H. R. Sawhney, who appears for the Official Liquidator, has stated that it will be open to the respondents to question the correctness of the amounts shown to their debit in the books of account of the company and, thereforee, Issue No. 5 be decided against the petitioner. In view of the confession which has been rightly made, Issue No. 5 is decided against the petitioner. (4) The other two Issue...
Ram Lal Khanna Vs. Gulab Devi
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-04-1969
Reported in: 5(1969)DLT412
(1) This second appeal from order under section 39 of the Delhi Rent Control Act of 1958 is directed against the order of the Rent Control Tribunal dated 8-5-1968 allowing Smt. Gulab Devi's appeal from the order of the Additional Rent Controller dated 13-12-1966 dismissing her ejectment applications.(2) Two ejectment applications had been filed by Smt. Gulab Devi against Smt. D. P. Sinha and her children as legal representatives of the deceased tenant Shri D. P. Sinha and against Shri Ram Lal. The plea in ejectment application No. 1018 of 1964 was based on the averments that the premises had been sublet, assigned or that the premises were otherwise parted with to another person without obtaining the consent of the owner in writing. The premises were alleged to have been let out for residential purposes and required bonafide by the petitioner-landlady who was the owner and also as residence for herself and for other members of her family upon whom she depended. Her son Arjan Saxena, acc...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »