Delhi Court August 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.
The Vanguard Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Rohini Bhan and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-29-1969
Reported in: ILR1969Delhi775
H.R. Khamia, J. (1) This judgment will dispose of Civil Revisions Nos. 458-D and 459-D of 1961.(2) The revisions arise out of an application filed on July 15, 1959, before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, by Shrimati Robini Bhan widow of J. N. Bhan against Ranjit Surendra Goods Carrier Pvt. Limited Respondent No. 1, Gaja Singh, truck driver, Respondent No. 2 and Vanguard Insurance Company, Limited, Respondent No. 3. According to the allegations of Shrimati Rohini Bhan, her husband J. N. Bhan while driving a scooter on April 30, 1959, was knocked down by truck No. DLD-5628 belonging to Ranjit Surendra Goods Carrier Pvt. Ltd. Gaja Singh was the driver of the truck at that time. It is alleged that Gaja Singh was an employee of Ranjit Surendra Goods Carrier Pvt. Ltd., and the accident occurred during the course of his employment. It is further stated that the above accident was due to reckless, rash and negligent driving of the truck by Gaja Singh. J. N. Bhan died as a result of the in...
Ram Kishore Rastogi Vs. the Appellate Officer, Jaisalmer House
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-26-1969
Reported in: ILR1969Delhi989
Hardayal Hardy, J. (1) This is an application under Order Xxii Rule 4(3) and Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure in which the prayer of the applicants who are respondents 3 to 5 in a petiton under Articles 226 and 227 of the Consitution (being Civil Writ Petition No. 292-D of 1960) is that the said writ petition has abated on account of the failure of the petitioner to bring on record the legal representatives of Dr. Mohammed Azim Ahmed Siddiquee who was respondent No. 2 in the petition and died at Lucknow on 7th June, 1968 leaving behind five sons, a widow and three daughters as his heirs.(2) The petitioner denied in his written reply all previous knowledge of the death of Dr. Siddiquee and about his having left any heirs, but submitted that the he had no objection to the alleged heirs being substituted in place of the deceased. He admitted that no application for substitution of the legal representatives was made by him within the period of ninety days. His defense however was...
Shankar and ors. Vs. the State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-21-1969
Reported in: ILR1969Delhi922
Hardayal Hardy, J. (1) This is an appeal by Shankar son of Hira Lal and Parkash son of Mohan Lal residents of Nabi Karim, Delhi who have been convicted of an offence under section 302 I.P.C. read with section 34 Indian Penal Code . and sentenced to imprisonment for life. The accused are said to be friends and have been found guilty of murder of Mohd Yunis son of Shamsuddin resident of the same locality who it is said was also their friend at one time. The prosecution case against the accused is that the deceased had borrowed a sum of Rs. 100.00 from Shanker accused some three months before the occurrence. On October, 12,1968 the two accused approached the deceased's father at his shop and told him that the deceased had nto re-paid the loan. Shamsuddin assured them that the deceased would make the payment and advised them to avoid mutual trouble on that score. The accused left the shop of Shamsuddin stating that they would have to deal with the accused in their own way.(2) At about 4.45...
Hafiz Zahir-ud-dIn Ahmad Vs. Shib Narain
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-21-1969
Reported in: ILR1970Delhi376
S.N. Andley, J.(1) Shop No. 3865/4, Khirki Taffazul Hussain, Urdu Bazar, Delhi was constructed by the appellant in June 1957. On October 1, 1957, it was let to the respondent at a rent of Rs. 30.00 per month. Upon the application of the respondent under the Delhi and Ajmer Rent Control Act, 1952 (hereinafter referred to as the '1952 Act'), the Rent Court by its order dated November 2!, I960 fixed the standard rent of the shop at Rs. 11.46 Paise per month with effect from March 22, 1958. By the time the order fixing the standard rent was passed, the Delhi Rent Control Act 1958 (hereinafter referred to as the '1958 Act') had come into force. By notice dated December 29, 1960 the appellant called upon the respondent to pay the arrears of rent for the months of November and December 1960 failing which an application for eviction of the respondent was threatened to be filed The arrears of rent were demanded at the rate of Rs. 30.00 per month. The respondent replied to the notice on January ...
Union of India Vs. Hans Raj
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-20-1969
Reported in: ILR1969Delhi852
V.S. Deshpande, J.(1) The respondent Hans Raj, was a confirmed Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police, whose name was placed in list 'E' maintained under the Punjab Police Rule 13-10 and who was given an officiating promotion as a Sub-Inspector of Police. On 14-9-1957, the Assistant Inspector General of Police issued a circular laying 'down that all confirmed Assistant Sub-Inspectors of Police and all officiating sub-inspectors of Police and those who have been promoted on probation would be required to take the 'E' List (Clerical) Test. Those who failed to qualify in the examination would be reverted to their substantive rank of Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police. The respondent did net appear in the test at all and was, thereforee, reverted to his substantive rank of Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police and his name was also removed from the 'E' List. He thereupon filed a suit for declaration that the order of his reversion dated 3-2-1958 was bad mainly for the following reasons. The reversio...
The Municipal Corporation of Delhi and ors. Vs. Hukam Chand Jain
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-14-1969
Reported in: 6(1970)DLT165
S.K. Kapur, J. (1) Paradoxical though it may seem that a bulidiag, which according to tile Municipal Engineer's report recorded on April 8, 1958, was considered to be so dangerous as to call for demolition immediately, stands till today after the lapse of about eleven years, yet, in spite of the emphasis in this behalf by the learned counsel for the respondent I do nto propose to let my mind be influenced by this factor in deciding the question that arises in this Letters Patent Appeal, directed against the order of D.K. Mahajan, J. dated January 19, 1965. The fight between the parties is about the validity of an order by the appellant directing demolition of the building in question. (2) .ON April 7, 1958, the Commissioner, Delhi Municipal Corporation, in purported exercise of powers conferred on him by section 491 of the Dilhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957, directed that 'all the powers conferred on mi under the various provisions of the Act shall be exercised also by Shri Ishwar D...
The Municipal Corporation of Delhi Vs. Kundan Lal Sharma
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-12-1969
Reported in: 100(2002)DLT332
S.N. Andley, J. (1) If the suit filed by the respondent is 'a suit for the recovery of immovable properly or for a declaration of title thereto' sub-section (2) of section 478 of the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act 1957 will nto be a bar thereto. The main question, thereforee, to be determined in this appeal is whether the suit out of which this appeal arisesis a suit for the recovery of immovable property or for a declaration of title thereto.(2) The plaintiff-respondent had filed the present suit on 8th June.. 1961 praying for amandatory injunction against the defendant 'to remove the construction of the road already constructed and clearing the above-said plto to bring the same in the original condition and a perpetual injunction restraining the defendants from erecting any other building on the above-said plot.' The only issue which is material for this appeal is whether the suit is barred by limitation under section 478(2) of the said Act and this was the only issue which was deci...
Virender Kumar Vs. Veena
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-11-1969
Reported in: ILR1969Delhi758
S.N. Andley, J.(1) This is a petition for the revision of an order dated March 18, 1969 of Mr. K. S. Sidhu, Additional District Judge, Delhi which he passed in Hindu Marriage Act case No. 21 of 1968. The said case has been instituted by the petitioner under section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act 1955 for restitution of conjugal rights. The petitioner had filed a petition for that purpose which was verified as follows:- 'THEabove-named petitioner states on solemn affirmation 'that paras I to 19 of the petition are true to the best of the petitioner's information and belief. VERIFIEDat Delhi, this, the 10th day of April, 1969.' (2) On objection being raised the learned Additional Distritct Judge passed the impugned order. He was of the opinion that the verification nto being in accordance with rule 15 of Order 6 of the Code of Civil Procedure was nto in accordance with law. He, thereforee, directed the petitioner to amend the petition and verify it according to law and also impesed an amoun...
H.P. Nanda Vs. Union of India Etc.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-07-1969
Reported in: ILR1970Delhi656
P.S. Safeer, J.(1) This petition was filed by Shri H. P. Nanda seeking a writ or order or direction in the nature of certiorari for the quashing of the assessment order dated 31st July, 1962. The said order was confirmed on appeal by an order dated 10th July, 1963. (2) There are two aspects of the matter which the petitioner agitates. The first is that he made a declaration in respect of certain shares owned by him and through that declaration he threw those shares into the hotch pto of his Hindu Undivided Family. The declaration as contained in paragraph 2 of the writ petition is as under :- 'I,Har Parshad Nanda, aforesaid have two minor sons, Rajan Parshad Nanda and Anil Nanda of the ages 17 and 7 respectively. I am the father and natural guardian of my two sons aforesaid and myself and my sons are living together as members of a Hindu Undivided Family. I hereby declare that the shares described hereunder belong to and shall be enjoyed by the Hindu Undivided Family consisting of myse...
Municipal Corporation of Delhi Vs. Ram Prakash
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-06-1969
Reported in: ILR1970Delhi86
Prakash Narain, J. (1) This judgment will dispose of Criminal Appeals Nos. 117-D of 1964 and 118-D of 1964. (2) On 29th December, 1962, at about 3 -25 P.M. Food Inspectors went to the shop of M/s Kahan Ghee laboratories situated at premises No. 2774, Gali No. 14, Beedanpura, Karol Bagh, New Delhi and took separate samples of pure ghee from the respondent Ram Parkash, who was sitting at the sale counter of the above shop. These samples were taken from sealed tins purporting to contain pure ghee after complying with all the formalities required by the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 and the rules framed there under. The tins from which the samples were taken were also taken into custody. Thereafter these samples were sent to the Public Analyst who reported that the samples fulfillled the standards laid down for pure ghee and were unadulterated. Ram Parkash was, however, prosecuted in respect of the tins which were seized for infringing rule 32(b) and (e) of the Prevention of Fo...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »