Delhi Court May 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.
Rakshit Khosla Vs. the State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-30-1969
Reported in: ILR1969Delhi653
Om Parkash, J. (1) This judgment will dispose of Criminal Appeal No. 219 of 1967 and Criminal Revision No. 205 of 1968, which have arisen out of the same case and are directed against the same judgment of the learned Additional Sessions Judge. By that judgment, the learned Additional Sessions Judge had convicted Rakshit Khosla for various offences and had acquitted Naresh Satia, Ashok Chaddah and Madan Mohan Chopra. The prosecution case was as follows (2) Kumari Neerja Public Witness 19 is the daughter of Shri Onkar Singh P.W. 6 and Smt. Shanti Devi Public Witness 21, who were residing at D-1/2 Hauz Khas Enclave, New Delhi. Kumari Neerja was born on the 6th November 1949. In March 1966, she was appearing in the metriculation Examination, from a private college, known as Prakash College, Delhi. On the 17th March 1966, at about 10 A.M., she, accompanied by Smt. Wasdevi Public Witness 16. Onkar Singh's sister, had gone to Prakash College. Wasdevi had come back, leaving Kumari Neerja at th...
S. Harnam Singh and ors. Vs. Lieutenant Governor, Delhi and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-29-1969
Reported in: AIR1970Delhi66
ORDER1. This writ petition has been filed by S. Harnam Singh and his four sons, namely, Nirmal Singh, Ishar Singh, Harminder Singh and Jagjit Singh (petitioners 1 to 5), against the Lt. Governor, Delhi (respondent No. 1) and Shri B. N. Tandon, Collector, Delhi (respondent No. 2) praying for the issuance of a writ of certiorari quashing an order of respondent No. 1, dated 12-5-1967, and an order of respondent No. 2, dated 13-9-1966.2. The petitioners constitute a Joint Hindu Family, and Harnam Singh (petitioner No. 1) is the 'Karta' of the said joint family. The petitioners are the owners of house property No. 9760/XVI/IC/36, Rohtak Road, New Delhi. On 15-7-1966, the petitioners Nos. 2, 4 and 5 were served with a notice (Annexure 1) by respondent No. 2 under Section 3 of the Requisitioning and Acquisition of Immoveable Property Act (No. 30 of 1952) requiring them to show cause why a portion of the said property described in the schedule to the notice should not be requisitioned for the ...
Raj Kumar and ors. Vs. the New Delhi Municipal Committee, New Delhi an ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-29-1969
Reported in: ILR1970Delhi244
Deshpande, J.(1) The petitioners are displaced persons occupying stalls constructed by the respondent. New Delhi Municipal Committee, on the Irwin Road, New Delhi. The respondent has recently constructed a new market called the Mohan Singh Place. The land for the construction of the new market was given to the respondent on concessional terms by the Central Government, inasmuch as the petitioners who were displaced persons were to the allotted shops in this new market. Accordingly the petitioners were allotted shops in the new market by the letter dated 27-2-69 at annexure 'B' to the writ petition on the following conditions :- (1)The trade was to be carried on according to the bye-laws of the Committee; (2) Though formal possession was to be giv (2) Accordingly, the petitioners paid the license tee (though under protest) and occupied the shops allotted to them. When the license deeds in the form at annexure 'C' to the writ petition were presented to them for execution, the petitioners...
Shankar and ors. Vs. Ram Saran and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-23-1969
Reported in: ILR1970Delhi94
S.N. Shankar, J.(1) This appeal under clause 10 of Letters Patent is directed against the order of the learned single Judge of this Court accepting the two Second Appeals of the respondents (RSA. Nos. 133 and 134 of 1967) from the judgment and decree of the senior Subordinate Judge, Kangra, and directing that civil suits for possession filed against them by the present appellants in the Court of Subordinate Judge, Iv Class, Hamirpur, be dismissed. (2) The appellants before us and their predecessors-in-interest (hereinafter called the tenants) held lands which formed the subject matter of the civil suits, out of which this appeal has arisen, as tenants of the respondents and their predecessors-in-interest (who are hereinafter called the landlords) under the provisions of Punjab Tenancy (Act Svi of 1887). On the allegations that they were forcibly dispossessed by the landlords on October 6, 1958, the tenants filed suit No. 1 of 1958 under section 50 of the Punjab Tenancy Act, 1887 (herei...
Urvinder Estate Private Ltd. Vs. Karam Chand Prem Chand Private Ltd. a ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-22-1969
Reported in: ILR1970Delhi210
Jagjit Singh, J.(1) Messrs Karan Chand Prem Chand Private Limited known as Sarabhai Chemicals are occupying as tenants a portion of the ground floor, including a loft. of building No. 12. Block No. 3. Asaf Ali Road. New Delhi. At first rent was being paid at the rate of Rs. 1,250.00 per month besides house-tax and actual charges for water and electricity. With effect from February 1. 1958, the rent was increased to Rs. 1,750.00 per month. House-tax and actual charges for water and electricity were in addition to that. (2) On January 4. 1961. Sarabhai Chemicals applied, under section 9 of the Delhi Rent Control Act. 1958 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') for fixation of standard rent. At that time the premises belonged to Sardar Bahadur Mohan Singh and his wife. Shrimati Lajwanti. and their son Gurbachan Singh. During the pendency of the proceedings the property was purchased by Messrs Urvinder Estates Private Limited. Afterwards Sardar Bahadur Mohan Singh also died. (3) The new la...
Mangal Sen Vs. Union of India
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-20-1969
Reported in: AIR1970Delhi44; 6(1970)DLT473
Hardayal Hardy, J.1. This appeal is directed against an award made by an arbitrator appointed under Section 7 of the Resettlement of Displaced Persons (Land Acquisition) Act 60 of 1958, hereinafter to be called the Act. The appeal which should ordinarily have been heard by a Single Bench, was ordered by the Hon'ble the Chief Justice to be placed before the Division Bench for reasons mentioned in his order dated October 26, 1967 and that is how it was laid before us.2. The appellant is the owner of certain land in village Basai Darapur which along with the land of some other owners, was acquired under Government's notification No. F-1 (136) 48 Lsg dated 1-1-1949 published in the Delhi State Gazette for the purpose of re-settlement of displaced persons. The project for which the acquisition of land was made is known as 'The Industrial Area Scheme.'3. As the controversy in this case relates to the quantum of compensation, the provision of the Act with which we are concerned is Section 7 w...
State Vs. Raghubir Das
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-20-1969
Reported in: 1970CriLJ1051; 5(1969)DLT678
I.D. Dua, C.J. (1) On 1st May, 1969 I recorded an order in this case that the respondent was desirous of challenging his conviction and he was at that time desirous of concentrating his challenge to the validity of the appointment of the Public Analyst. Of course, he did nto limit his challenge to that objection and also expressed his inclination to attack the legality of the trial. As the points sought to be raised ceemed to me to be of importance which were likely to take some time, I directed this case to be set down for hearing on my next visit. (2) The learned counsel for the respondent has, in the first instance, submitted that title accused was summoned by the trial Magistrate for 14th October, 1968 and on the same day he was convicted. The grievance ventilated by the learned counsel is that the provisions of section 204(IB), Criminal Procedure Code, were nto complied with in as much as a copy of the complaint was nto attached with the process issued to him. (3) The next challen...
Management, National Productivity Council Vs. S.N. Kaul
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-20-1969
Reported in: ILR1969Delhi509; (1969)IILLJ186Del
S.K. Kapur, J. (1) The question arising for decision in this Letters Patent Appeal against the judgment of T.V.R. Tatachari, J. dated 23rd January, 1968, may be formulated as under: Where an employee is dismissed or discharged or his services terminated before the enactment of Section 2-A of the Industrial Disputes Act on 1-12-1965, can a dispute arising out of such dismissal or discharge etc. be referred to a Labour Court under section 10 for adjudication even though the cause of the Workman is nto supported by other workmen. The facts have been set out in detail in the order of the learned Single Judge and it is unnecessary to elaborate on the same. I will only confine any statement of facts within a very narrow compass.(2) Respondent S. N. Kaul was employed as a Press Operator by the appellants on December 5, 1960. According to Kaul his services were arbitrarily and illegally terminated by the management of the National Productivity Council (hereafter referred to as 'the appellants'...
Sujan Singh and anr. Vs. the Appellate Assistant Commisoner, Sales Tax
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-20-1969
Reported in: 6(1970)DLT12; [1969]24STC504(Delhi)
S. Rangarajn, J.(1) The short question for decision in the civil writ petition is whether additional demand of Rs. 35,211.40 for sales tax in respect of the motor-bodies built by the petitioner is valid. The decision of this question would depend upon the interpretation of item I of the First Schedule of the Bengal Finance (Sales Tax) Act 1941, as extended to the Union Territory of Delhi (hereinafter called the Act), as it stood prior to the amendment of the same by notification dated the 31st August 1966. It then read as follows:- 'Motor Vehicles, including chasis of motor vehicles, motor tyres and tubes and spare parts of Motor vehicles.'The expression 'accessories' was introduced' after motor tyres and tubes' but before 'and spare parts of motor vehicles' with effect from 1st September, 1966 by the aforesaid notification. Since the assessment in question in this writ petition deals with the period prior to the said notification of the year 1966, we are nto concerned, in this writ pe...
Shabir Rashid Vs. the State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-16-1969
Reported in: 1969CriLJ1282
Om Parkash, J.1. This appeal, from jail, is directed, against an order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, convicting and sentencing the appellant, under Sections 366 and 876, Indian Penal Code. The prosecution case against the appellant was as under:2. Shanti P. W. 2 was living with her parents, Rajbir Singh P. W. 5 and Smt. Padma P. W. 6, in the village Silampur, Delhi. The appellant, a boy of 16 or 17 years, was a neighbour of Shanti in that village. On the 27th December, 1967, at about 10 or 11 a.m. Shanti and his younger brother Thakar Das P.W. 7, aged about 9 years, had gone to Shahdara to purchase vegetables. The appellant had met them on the way. He had told shanti that she should accompany him to Chandani Chowk and that he would get Chappals and good clothes and good food for her: Shanti had agreed to go with the appellant. The appellant had taken Shanti and her brother Thakar Das to Qutab Minar and had then taken them to the Zoo. He did nto purchase any clothes for Shan...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »