Delhi Court July 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.
Munshi Lal Vs. Thakur Prem Chand
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-31-1969
Reported in: ILR1970Delhi499
V.S. Deshpande, J.(1) This is a landlord's second appeal against the decision of the Rent Control Tribunal dismissing his application for the eviction of the respondent tenant and reversing the order of the Rent Controller who had ordered the eviction of the tenant on the ground of non-payment of arrears of rent under proviso (a) to section 14(1) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958, (hereinafter called the Act). (2) The landlord filed a petition for eviction of the tenant on the ground that the tenant had failed to pay the contractual rent of Rs. 35.00 per month and that a notice of demand for the arrears of the rent had been given as required by proviso (a) to section 14(1) of the Act. (3) The tenant defended the petition on the ground that the contractual rent was only Rs. 30.00 per month. He also prayed for the fixation of the standard rent. (4) As the rate of the rent was disputed by the parties, the Rent Controller fixed the interim rent at Rs, 30.00 per month under section 15(3) ...
Joginder Nath Vs. Surinder Nath and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-30-1969
Reported in: ILR1970Delhi171
Om Prakash, J. (1) This judgment will dispose of two suits- C.O. 2-D and C.O. 3-D of 1965. The suits were originally instituted in the Court of Subordinate Judges, Delhi, but were transferred to the Punjab High Court, and on the establishment of High Court of Delhi, were transferred to this Court. C.O. 2-D of 1965 was filed by Surinder Nath son of Ch. Bhagat Ram, against his four real brothers-Joginder Nath, Rajinder Nath, Narinder Nath and Washeshar Nath (hereinafter referred to as 'the brothers') for a declaration, cancellation of a document by way of consequential relief and for an injuction. The allegations in the plaint are: Surinder Nath and the brothers were carrying on separate businesses on their individual accounts in Rawalpindi (now in Pakistan). On the partition of the country on the 15th August 1947, Surinder Nath had migrated to Delhi and had set up an independent business of his own of Stock and Share Brokers under the name and style of Ch. Bhagat Ram and Sons. This busi...
Municipal Corporation of Delhi Petitioner Vs. Om Prakash
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-28-1969
Reported in: 1970CriLJ1047; ILR1969Delhi972
S. Rangarajan, J. (1) A sample of cow's milk was taken by the Food Inspector 15th April, 1964 according to the rules. After compliance .with the formalities prescribed by law requisite drops of formalin were also added to the sample and it was sent to the Public Analyst for examination, which was conducted on 16th April, 1964. The sample is said to have been kept in a refrigerator till the examination. In spite of the same, according to the Analyst's report, the solid fat contained in the milk was said to be only 2 .28% as against 3.5%. The complaint, however, was filed, for no accounted reason, as late as 23rd September, 1964. The accused was served on 12th October, 1964. The second sample of the milk left with the accused was sent for examination by the Director, Central Food Laboratory on 17th February, 1965 and was actually examined by him on 16th March, 1965. According to his certificate the solid fat contents were 3 .2 % as against the minimum requirement of 3 .5%. After the rece...
Municipal Corporation of Delhi Vs. Shankar Lal
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-28-1969
Reported in: ILR1970Delhi413
P.N. Khanna, J. (1) This is an appeal against the order dated 7/12/1965 passed by Magistrate 1st Class, Delhi,acquitting the respondent who had been tried under sections 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, hereinafter referred to as the Act.(2) According to the complainant, a sample of ghee had beentaken from the stock of ghee which the respondent was selling as'Pure Desi Ghee.' The said sample on examination by thePublic Analyst proved to be adulterated due to 0 -44 excess ofmoisture per cent. The accused-respondent when examinedunder section 342, Criminal Procedure Code, stated that althoughthe sample was taken from him, his ghee was pure.(3) At the request of the accused the duly sealed bottle of a secondsample given to him was sent to the Director, Central Food Laboratory, Calcutta, who reported that it was adulterated but themoisture was only 0 -14 per cent which was up to the standard. Itwas, however, declared to be adulterated due to added coloringmatter, fain...
The Punjab State Electricity Board Vs. Ram Bansal
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-28-1969
Reported in: 5(1969)DLT699
Jagjit Singh, J. (1) On February 15, 1967, a petition purporting to be under section 8 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 (Act No. 10 of 1940) was filed by Ch. Siri Ram Bansal, a contractor, in the Court of the Subordinate Judge, first class Kandaghat, District Simla. The relief asked for by the petitioner was that an independent arbitrator be appointed to settle the disputes between him and the respondent the Punjab State Electricity Board. The learned Subordinate Judge treated the petition to be one under sections 8 and 20 of Act No, 10 of 1940. He accepted the petition, on December 23, 1907, and appointed Shri T. L. Tandon, a retired Superintending Engineer, as the sole arbitrator. Against that order the respondent preferred the present revision. (2) It was urged by Bakshi Sita Ram, learned counsel for the Punjab State Electricity Board, that the claim of Ch. Siri Ram Bansal being for more than eighty-four thousand rupees, the Subordinate Judge at Kandaghat had no jurisdiction to deal wit...
Siri Ram and anr. Vs. Gram Sabha of Village Khud and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-24-1969
Reported in: 6(1970)DLT390
Jagjit Singh, J. (1) The dispate in this second appeal relates to six mango trees in village Khud. four of which are standing in field Khasra No. 3420 while the remaining two trees are in field Khasra No. 3421. The land under the trees was considered by the Courts below to have vested in the Gram Panchayat of village Khud, Tehsil Una.(2) Most of the land in village Khud, which was recorded as shamilat deh, was partitioned by the village propriety body as long ago as in the year 1920. A portion of the shamilat deh was, however, kept undivided but according to Siri Kam and Telu appellants the mango trees standing on the land of field KhasraNos. 3420 and 3421 were given to their predecessors in- interest at the time of the partition.(3) The Gram Panchayat nto only claimed that the shamilftt deh had vested in it in pursuance of the provisions of the shamilat -law but also asserted its right to the mar go trees and the produce there of. The dispute in respect of the trees between the appell...
Unique Motors and General Insurance Co. Vs. S.K. Vaiyapuri and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-23-1969
Reported in: AIR1970Delhi90; [1970]40CompCas1025(Delhi); 6(1970)DLT52
Jagjit Singh, J.1. The following questions have been referred to the Full Bench by a Division bench of this Court:-'1. Whether Rule 17-H confers power on the Controller of Insurance to cancel the registration of an insurer independently of Section 3(4)(f) of the Act? If so, whether Rule 17-H is ultra virus of Section 110(a) of the Act? 2. Whether Section 64-M(3) of the Act read with Rule 17-H is ultra virus of Article 14 of the Constitution as conferring unbridled, arbitrary and discriminatory powers on the Controller of Insurance?'2. The facts of the case are given in detail in the reference to the Division bench. It may, however, be mentioned that Unique Motor and General Insurance Company Limited, Bombay (hereinafter referred to as the Petitioner-company), is a public limited Company registered and incorporated under the Indian Companies Act, 1913, and was carrying on the business of general insurance and more particularly of motor insurance. On November 6, 1942, the petitioner-comp...
Beli Ram Etc. Vs. Niki Etc.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-23-1969
Reported in: 5(1969)DLT698
I.D. Dua, C.J. (1) This revision appears to be barred by time, The judgment of the learned District Judge is dated September 5, 1967. The revision was presented in this Court on February 27, 1968. After taking account of the time spent in securing certified copies the revision, according to the office calculation, is stated to be barred by limitation by 14 days. It may be pointed out that this Court was closed for winter vacation from January 15, 1968 to February 23. 1968. The Circuit Bench of the High Court reopened on February 24, 1968. When the attention of the learned counsel for the petitioners was drawn by the office to this fact, he recorded a note on the revision on February 28, 1968 that the period of limitation has expired during the vacation and that revision was presented in this Court on the day it reopened. When his attention was drawn to the fact that the Court had actually reopened on February 24, 1968 he replied that he bona fide believed that the Court was to reopen o...
Union of India Vs. Jai Ram
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-21-1969
Reported in: ILR1969Delhi847
I.D. Dua, J. (1) This application under section 5 of the Limitation Act seeks extension of the prescribed period for presenting R.F.A. 170 of 1969 (Union of India v. Jai Ram) in this Court. On 28-4-1969, H.R, Khanna, J., while admitting the appeal, made the following order:- 'NOTICEin appeal and C.M. D.B.C.M. should be put up before the printing of the records.' (2) In spite of a clear direction that the civil miscellaneous was to be placed before a Division Bench, the office placed the same before a learned Single Judge who directed the same to be placed before a Division Bench because refusal to grant extension of time would necessarily mean dismissal of the appeal. (3) The facts as stated in the application may now be noticed. The judgment/award sought to be appealed from was made by a learned Additional District Judge on 23-12-1967. An application for a certified copy thereof was made on 15-1-1968 and it was ready on 22-1-1968. On the appellant's own showing, as stated in the appli...
Krishan Dayal Vs. Chandu Ram
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-08-1969
Reported in: ILR1969Delhi1090
H. R. Khanna, J.(1) This regular second appeal filed by Krishan Dayal plaintiff is directed against the judgment and decree of learned District Judge, Mandi and Chamba, modifying on appeal the decision of the trial Court whereby the suit of the plaintiff against Chandu Ram defendant No. 1 (who died during the pendency of the proceedings and is now represented by his leagal representatives and Munshi Ram defendant No. 2 had been dismissed. As a result of the appeal, the plaintiff has been held entitled to receive Rs. 6,000 out of Rs. 16,000.00 deposited in Court.(2) The brief facts of the case are that on Phalgun 25, 1999 Bikrami Krishan Dayal Plaintiff, Chandu Ram defendant No. 1 and Munshi Ram defendant No. 2 entered into a partnership for extraction and sale of resin in Mandi State. A deed of partnership Exhibit Pa was executed in that connection. According to the terms of the partnership deed the plaintiff was to invest the entire amount for the business of the partnership and was t...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »