Delhi Court August 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.
Dhanna Singh Vs. Chief Commissioner, Delhi Administralon and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-06-1969
Reported in: ILR1969Delhi799
H.R. Khanna, J. (1) This judgment would dispose of six writ petitions Nos. 46-D to 51-D of 1964. Arguments have been addressed before us in Civil Writ No. 46-D of 1964 and it is the common case of the learned counsel for the parties that the material facts in all the writ petitions are the same. We would, consequently, give the facts as stated in Civil Writ No. 46-D of 1964.(2) Dhanna Singh petitioner in this petition has prayed for the issuance of a writ to quash notifications dated September 3, 1967 under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act), dated February 20, 1963 under Section 6 of the Act and the award dated January 15, 1964 of the Land Acquisition Collector respondent No. 2 in the petition. The petitioner claims that he is the owner of a plto of land measuring 320 square yards situated in village Himayunpur. It is stated that after purchasing that plto on August 26, 1957 the petitioner built a residential house and three shops on that plot. ...
Mahaveer Hat Manufacturing Company and ors. Vs. the Union of India and ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-05-1969
Reported in: 5(1969)DLT566
S. Rangarajan , J. (1) The petitioners seek to quash the order passed by the Director General of Supplies & Disposals (Second respondent) on 19th Augast. 1987 black listing the firm which has been described as petitioner No. 1 of which at the relevant time petitioners No. 2 to 4 alone were the partners and in which firm petitioners No. 5 to 10 had also become partners when this writ petition was filed .Though the order which is said to be secret black listing the petitioner-firm has nto been filed it is common ground that the order blacklisting the petitioner-firm was passed. It is contended that the same was passed on the recommendation of the Special Police Establishment who investigated the matter.(2) It is stated in the return, in the affidavit of Shri Dua Ditta, Under Secretary of the Government of India, Ministry of Railway (Railway Board) on behalf of the third respondent namely, the Secretary, Government of India, Ministry of Railways, that tenders were invited for the supply o...
Ram Chand Vs. the State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-05-1969
Reported in: 6(1970)DLT172
Jagjit Singh, J.(1) Four persons, including Ram Chand then agedaboutl7 years, were tried by the judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Kandaghat for an offence under section 394 of the Indian Penal Code. (2) The prosecution case was that on the night between the 7th and 8th of March, 1968 K.apura Ram, after closing his shop was sleeping outside it on a platform(Thari). About midnight Bal Kishan woke him up by saying that he wanted to buy some rice for a person who was ill. As soon as Kapura Ram opened the shop and entered it Bal Kishan and three of his companions grappled with him and when he fell down gave him some blows. Those persons also forcibly removed Rs. 500and then escaped. The hue and cry raised by him attracted the attention of Kishori Lal and Balbir Singh who came to the place of occurrence and helped in removing him to the hospital. (3) The Doctor in charge of the hospital telephoned the nearest police station when AS.I. Babu Ram went to the hospital and recorded the statement of ...
Tej Kiran JaIn and ors. Vs. N. Sanjiva Reddy and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-04-1969
Reported in: AIR1971Delhi86; 7(1971)DLT1
H.R. Khanna, C.J.(1) A discussion took place in the Lok Sabha on April 2, 1969 about certain remarks alleged to have been made by Jagadguru Shankaracharya of Puri regarding untouchability. Shri Tej Kiran Jain and five other plaintiffs have filed the present suit for recovery of Rs. 26,000.00 as damages against Shri N. Sanjiva Reddy, Speaker of the Lok Sabha, defendant No. 1, Shri Narendra Kumar Salve, defendant No. 2, Shri B. Shankaranand, defendant No. 3, Shri S. M. Banerrjee, defendant No. 4 and Shri Y. B. Chavan, defendant No. 5, Members of Lok Sabha on the allegation that the plaintiffs are the admirers and followers of Jagadguru Shankaracharya of Puri. It is alleged that during the course of the above discussion certain remarks were made by the defendants which were defamatory and calculated to lower in public estimation Jagadguru Shankaracharya. The plaintiffs, accordingly, claimed a decree for recovery of Rs. 26,000.00 as damages from the defendants. (2) During the pendency of t...
Raymon Engineering Works Ltd. Vs. the Union of India and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-01-1969
Reported in: ILR1970Delhi126
S.N. Andley, J. (1) This is an appeal against the judgment and order dated April 24, 1969 of Rangarajan J.. whereby he dismissed the appelllants' petition (Civil Writ No. 357 of 1968) which had challenged, inter cilia, orders dated December 31, J964 and February 28, 1967 passed by the Company Law Board in purported exercise of powers under section 269 of the Companies Act, 1956, hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' as amended by the Companies (Amendment) Act, 1960 (Act 65 of 1960), hereinafter referred to as the 'Amendment Act'. Shortly stated, the Company Law Board had, by the first order, imposed various conditions while granting approval to the first appointment of M.C. Ray as Managing Director of the appellant. Two. of the conditions to which objection has been raised are (1) that M.C. Ray will secure repayment of Rs. 2,75,000.00 to the appellants and (2) that approval shall be obtained also to the re-appointment, if any, of the said M. C. Ray after the expiry of the period of his ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›