Delhi Court April 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.
Raymon Engineering Works Vs. the Union of India Through Ministry of In ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-24-1969
Reported in: ILR1969Delhi564
S. Rangarajan, J. (1) A very interesting question with reference to the scope of section 269 and section 637A of the Indian Companies Act (as amended by Act 65 of 1960) arises for consideration, as a case of first impression, in this civil writ petition.(2) A few salient facts alone may be sufficient to notice for deciding this question. The petitioner, called the Raymon Engineering Works Limited, is a public limited company which was incorporated on 30th November, 1954 with an authorised capital of rupees three crores. It was, thereforee, an existing company within the meaning of section 3(2) of the Act.(3) Raymon & Company (India) Private Limited, incorporated in 1951, consisting only of two shareholders (Mrs. and Mr. M.C. Ray) were appointed on 7th February, 1956 as Managing Agents of the petitioner-company for a period of ten years. The Managing Agents negotiated, on 5th September 1955, for the purchase of a Bone Mill from Messrs David Curlenders for Rs. 3,25,000.00 out of which Rs...
Suraj Bhan Goel and ors. Vs. Dhapo Devi and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-24-1969
Reported in: 5(1969)DLT638
I.D. Dua, C.J. (1) This revision has been presented under section 115, Civil P. C. read with Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The competency of the revision under section 115, Civil P. C. is nto pressed and the petitioners' counsel has tried to justify his claim to interference by this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution. (2) I he impugned order merely declined an application for reviewing an earlier order mAde by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal. The grounds on which the prayer for review was disallowed are both on the merits and on the competency oi the application for review. After considering the various dates of the proceedings before the learned Tribunal it was observed that it could nto be said that the evidence of the respondents before Tribunal was closed without giving enough opportunity to them or that the order dated 22nd May, 1968, which was sought to be reviewed, was against law or there was any legal mistake in that order. But this apart, no new fact w...
installment Supply Private Ltd. Vs. Mohd. Shabir Khan and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-19-1969
Reported in: ILR1969Delhi949
Jagjit Singh, J. (1) Shri Sardar Bahadur acting as an arbitrator made an award on December 2, 1967 and filed that award in this Court, through an application, dated March 14, 1968. Notices were issued to the parties concerned regarding theiling of the award. Notice was served on Messrs Installment Supply Private Limited, in whose favor the award was made. on 3-7-1968. Shri K.K. Bhargava was also served personally on 15-7-1968. Mohd. Shabir Khan, Mst. Mustafiya Begum and Abdul Ali Khan were, however, reported to have refused on that date to receive notices meant for them. Copies of the notices were as well reported to have been affixed on the residential houses of the persons who refused personal service.(2) The notices which were issued to the parties concerned had required them to file objections, if any, to the award within thirty days of the date of service.(3) On August 5, 1968, the case came up before the Deputy Registrar (Original). Shri M.S. Khurana appeared for Mohd. Shabir Kha...
A.K.K. Namibiar, Special Inspector General of Police, Hyderabad Vs. th ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-17-1969
Reported in: ILR1969Delhi533
S.N. Andley, J.(1) This petition challenges the order dated July 5, 1968 passed by order and in the name of the President of India suspending the petitioner who was then the Special Inspector General of Police, Civil defense and Fire Services at Hyderabad in the State of Andhra Pradesh. It was passed almost a year after the initiation in July 1967 of an investigation by the Central Bureau of Investigation into various allegations against the petitioner. These investigations were continuing when this petition was filed in this Court in August, 1968. thereforee, in addition to the relief in respect of the aforesaid order of suspension, the petitioner prayed for an appropriate writ against the Union of India (Respondent No. 1) from proceeding further with the investigation. The second Respondent to the petition is the State of Andhra Pradesh.(2) The petitioner was appointed to the Indian Police Service in 1935 when the aforesaid Service was one of the Secretary of State Services. He was a...
K.L. Modi Vs. Union of India Through Secy, Ministry of Home Affairs, G ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-15-1969
Reported in: AIR1970Delhi76
ORDER1. One Shri K. L. Modi s/o Shri court under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India praying for a writ of mandamus and/or a prohibition restraining the Union of India from interfering with the petitioner's fundamental right to enter into India and to continue to stay in this country. In the alternative, it has been prayed that a writ of mandamus be granted directing the Union of India to determine the question as to whether the petitioner could be said to have ceased to be a citizen of India or could be treated a foreigner and also to treat him as a citizen until such determination is made in accordance with law. 2. According to the averments in the writ petition, the petitioner claims to be a citizen of India by virtue of the fact that he was born in 1911 in Palanpur (now in the State of Gujarat). At the time of the commencement of the Constitution of India, the petitioner's domicile was thus within the territories of India. His ordinary place of business and residence is also clai...
Radha Kishan Khandelwal Vs. Assistant Registrar of Trade Marks and ors ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-15-1969
Reported in: AIR1969Delhi324; ILR1969Delhi1227
1. This order will dispose of two appeals viz F. A. O. (T & M) 186 of 1968) and F. A. O. (T & M) 187 of 1968 both of which are directed against the orders made by the Registrar of Trade Marks and are between the same parties. The appellant Shri Radha Kishan Khandelwal claims to be a joint proprietor along with Shri Jai Madho Avasthi and Shri Rama Shanker Avasthi, who have been imp leaded as respondents 3 and 4 respectively, of a registered trade mark 'USHA' in respect of 'fountain pens' under Clause 16 of the Trade and Merchandise Marks Rules, 1959. According to the appellant, an application for registration of the trade mark, signed by Kama Shanker Avasthi (respondent No. 4) was filed on 11-9-1958. The application was advertised on 1-9-1960 and thereafter the trade mark 'USHA' was duly registered in the names of the appellant and respondents 3 and 4 trading as Asia Pen Co., under registration No. 186834. A copy of the certificate of registration has been filed along with the Memorandu...
Sona Ram Vs. Ram Chand and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-15-1969
Reported in: ILR1970Delhi681
Rangarajan, J.(1) This civil writ petition raises an interesting question about the effect of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition Act concerning what was at one time admittedly evacuee property. A few salient facts which help follow the controversy in this case may have to be noticed. (2) The property in question originally belonged to Mohd. Ashraf who left for Pakistan in 1947. The properties, whatever they were (whether it was grove land, as stated by the petitioner, or merely vacant land on which a few trees only were planted by respondents 1 & 2) were sold, as Government acquired property, in an auction held by the Managing Officer on 25th March, 1957, to the petitioner Shri Sona Ram (now deceased) for a sum of Rs.4,600.00. Shri Sona Ram having died an application was made (C.M.-P. No. 1923 of 1968) to bring on record the legal repre- sentatives of Sona Ram. Shri Dalal and Shri Dhawan, represented the legal representatives also; the petition (CMP No. 1923 of 1968) was nto opposed. The fin...
The Uttar Pradesh Samaj Co-operative Housebuilding Society Ltd., New D ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-15-1969
Reported in: 6(1970)DLT554
Khanna and Tatachari, JJ. (1) Uttar Pradesh Samaj Co-operative House Building Society Ltd., New Delhi, by means of this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India has prayed for the issuance of a writ for quashing notifications dated November 13, 1959 and March 7, 1963 under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, and those dated September 15, 1962. November 15, 1965, August 29, 1966 October 22, 1982 and September 12,1962 under section 6 of the said Act with respect to the petitioner's .land in villages Tughlakabad and Tekhand. Prayer has also been made for quashing the awards made by the Land Acquisition Collector with respect to the said land and for restraining the respondents from interfering with the possession and enjoy ment of the said land by the petitioner-society.- The respondents named in the petition are (1) Union of India through the Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs, (2) the Lieut. Governor, State of Delhi, (3) The Land Acquisition collector, (4) Th...
M.L. Ahuja Vs. Lachman Dass
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-10-1969
Reported in: ILR1969Delhi673
S.N. Andley, J.(1) This judgment will dispose of S.A.O. No 5-D and S.A.O. No. 6-D of 1966. I am dealing with these two appeals by a common judgment because some of the facts which have resulted in these two appeals are common (2) Mr. P. C. Saini, Additional Rent Controller, Delhi, had passed an order dated December 8, 1964 dealing with two applications which had been filed before him by the respondent landlord. One application was for an order against the appellant-tenant to deposit in Court arrears of rent in accordance with the standard rent fixed and other application was for an order for payment of the amount deposited by the appellan tenant in pursuance of an order made under sub-section (1) of Section 15 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958, Both these applications were allowed. (3) As there were two separate and independent applications which had been decided by the aforesaid order, the appellant filed two appeals before the Rent Control Tribunal. These two appeals were dismissed...
Gautam Electric Motors Vs. Firm Shantilal and Bros.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-09-1969
Reported in: ILR1969Delhi708
V.S. Deshpande, J.(1) This appeal is directed against the order of Hardy, J. admitting the petition of the respondent-creditor against the appellant-company under Section 433(e) read with clause (a) of sub-section (1) of Section 434 of the Companies Act, 1956 for the winding up of the appellant-company and directing this to be advertised in the newspapers.(2) Both the parties are commercial concerns having dealings with each other. By one transaction the appellant-company had purchased some Super Enameled wire from the respondentcreditor. After paying the major portion of the price for the same, the appellant-company has to pay to the respondent-creditor the remainder of the price which according to the company is Rs. 22,087.27 and according to the respondent-creditor 4 27,484.21. By another separate transaction, the company had given about 30 tonnes of copper bars to the respondent-creditor to be fabricated into copper wire. The creditor deposited about three lakhs rupees as security ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »