Delhi Court January 1970 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.
Dilbagh Rai Chopra Vs. Krishan Lal and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-30-1970
Reported in: ILR1970Delhi417
V.D. Misra, J. (1) Dilbagh Rai Chopra has filed this appeal against the judgment and decree of the Subordinate Judge 1st Class, Delhi, dismissing his suit for the recovery of Rs. 25,000.00 as compensation and damages. (2) Dilbagh Rai Chopra's family consisted of his wife, Vimla Rani aged 25 years, his daughter, Shashi Kiran, aged 7 years and his sons Sunil Kumar and Pravin Kumar aged 5 years and 1 years respectively. On 10th October, 1955, at about 11 A.M. Vimla Rani accompanied by her brother-in-law, Om Prakash Chopra, and her son Pravin Kumar alighted from a bus at Moti Nagar Bus stand, Delhi. As they were crossing the road, Krishan Lal, respondent who was driving truck No. DLC-9039 struck Vimla Rani who fell down and was run over by the truck resulting in her death. Krishan Lal ran away from the place of accident leaving the truck behind, Om Prakash Chopra removed Vimla Rani to the Hospital and thereafter reported the matter to the police. A case under section 304-A. Indian Penal Co...
Escorts Limited Vs. the Industrial Tribunal, Delhi and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-28-1970
Reported in: 6(1970)DLT323
Dashpande, J. (1) A question of first impression as to the meaning of the expression 'a particular category of workmen' used in section 25-G of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter called the Act) has arisen in this case.(2) The respondent No. 2 was employed as a typist by the Petitioner-company According to a settlement between the petitioner company and its workmen in 1964, the typists employed by the petitioner were classified into two grades, namely, Grade A with the scale of Rs 140-8-'226-EB-11- 324 and Grade b with the seals of Rs. 110-6-172- EB- 8- 236 The respondent No. 2 was in Grade B. As the Spare Parts Division of the petitioner company located at Delhi was closed and reopened at Furidabad, the workmen employed there in were given the option by the petitioner-company of going to Faridabad. The respondent No 2 however, declined to go there.(3) According to the petitioner-company, the respondent No. 2 was the junior most in the Grade B of typists in the whole establ...
Krishna Prasada Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-23-1970
Reported in: 6(1970)DLT282
T.V.R. Tatachari, J. (1) This writ petition has been filed by Shri Krishna Prasada regarding the payment of the uncommuted portion of his annuity. The respondents in the writ petition are: (1) Union of India; and (2) the State of Uttar Pradesh. The petitioner prayed for the issuance of an appropriate writ direction or order directing the respondents to pay him or to his account the uncommuted portion of his annuity ( 500) through the Home Treasury (in the United Kingdom) in pounds sterling as required by Rule or through agency of their own.' In opposition to the writ petition, a counter affidavit of Shri A. N. Batabyal, Under Secretary to the Government of India, Ministry of Home Affairs, has been filed on behalf of respondent No. 1 and a counter-affidavit of Shri A. B. L. Gupta, Superintendent, Appointment (C) Department, Uttar Pradesh, has been filed on behalf of respondent No. 2. (2) The petitioner joined the Indian Civil Service in 1921, having been appointed to it by the Secretear...
Union of India Vs. Suraj Bhan
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-20-1970
Reported in: ILR1970Delhi275
V.S. Deshpande, J.(1) The respondent Suraj Bhan who was officiating as an Assistant Inspector of Police was dismissed from service by the order dated 29-4-1961 after a disciplinary inquiry had been held against him under the Punjab Police Rules. He filed Civil Writ Petition No. 691-D of 1963 challenging the validity of the order of his dismissal on three grounds, namely :- (1)that the same had been instituted without comp liance with the procedure prescribed by rule 16.38 of the Punjab Police Rules: (2) that the dismissal order was passed by the Superintendent of Police while under section 7 of the Police Act, 1861, it could be passed only by a District Superintendent of Police; and (3) that the proceedings of the disciplinary inquiry were conducted in violation of the principles of natural justice and, thereforee, contrary to Article 311(2) of the Constitution.(2) The first two contentions were accepted by a learned Single Judge of the Circuit Bench of the Punjab High Court sitting at...
Jaswantsinghji Ju Deo Vs. the Union of India Through the Secretary, th ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-16-1970
Reported in: AIR1970Delhi190
ORDER1. The petitioner, the son, through the second wife, of the late Maharaja, Ruler of Datia (in Bundelkhand) has filed this writ petition challenging (by way of amendment, which was allowed by my order dated 28th April 1969) the refusal of the Central Government to give permission to sue the present Ruler (being son of the late Maharaja by his first wife) on the basis of a will said to have been executed by the late Maharaja in the year 1936 and a codicil dated 23rd June, 1938; copies of the will and codicil have been made Annexures A and B to the petition. The Maharaja died in Bombay on 3rd September, 1965. The petitioner stated that he learnt of the will and codicil from the present Maharaja of Dharangadhra, the same having been deposited with the father of Maharaja of Dhrangadhra. As per the petitioner's request Her Highness the Maharani Sahiba of Dhrangadhra sent the copies of the will and codicil to the petitioner along with a covering letter, dated the 2nd July, 1963.2. The pe...
Union of India Vs. Behari Lal and Co.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-14-1970
Reported in: 6(1970)DLT497
Rangarajan, J.(1) This judgment will dispose of Letters Patent Appeals (Nos.l07-D of 1966 to 112-D of 1966). The common question of law which arises for determination in all these sixappeals is whether section 74A (as amended by Act 46 of 1949) of the Indian Railways Act applies to a case of short delivery or not. The respon dents (plaintiffs) in these appeals filed suits for recovery of damages for short delivery of part of the consignments G. 1. pipes, black pipes, etc. There is no dispute that in all the relevant Forwarding Notes the following endorsement was made by the sender or his agent:- 'THEconsignment is in had condition and or defectively packed as follows P. 31 not complied with, sockets not packed separately but loosely fitted with pipes. The consignments are tried with......'(2) At the destination station some of the pipes, etc. were found missing. Short delivery certificates in respect of what was missing were furnished to the plaintiffs. (3) The main defense of the Rail...
Narinder Chand Ram Nath and Co. Vs. the Lt. Governor, Himachal Pradesh ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-13-1970
Reported in: AIR1971Delhi123
Pritam Singh Safeer, J1. A very significant question arises on determination whereof would rest the ultimate fate of this Letters Patent appeal. The question is whether any equity calling for adequate relief would arise in favor of a citizen on the basis of representation made on behalf of the State (in this case the respondents to the appeal) which may not be based upon any legal sanction behind it.2. The Letters Patent appeal has been substantially urged on the basis of the observations made by the Hon'ble the Supreme Court of India in Air 1968 Sc 718, union of India v. M/s. Anglo Afghan Agencies. The appellants' counsel was allowed to argue as if he was once again urging the acceptance of his civil writ petition No. 131 of 1967. The writ petition was filed by M/s. Narinder Chand Hem Raj and Company, English Wine Contractor, the Mail, Simla through its partner named Shri Hem Raj. The respondents were the Lieutenant Governor, Administrator, of the Union Territory of Himachal Pradesh, ...
Manohar Lal Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-12-1970
Reported in: AIR1970Delhi178
ORDER1. The petitioner, a resident of Bhiwani, Hissar District in the State of Haryana, has sought the following reliefs:1. That Section 4 and sub-section (b) (ii) of Section 7 and Sections 78, 79 and 80 of the Punjab Reorganization Act 1966 be declared as ultra virus and void. 2. That a suitable writ, order or direction may be issued to implement the Shah Commission Report in toto and that Chandigarh Capital Project as also Lalroo, Darabassi, Pathankot and areas of Gazilka and Malaut be declared as included in the territories of the Haryana State; and 3. That a suitable writ be issued ousting the authority of the Central Government from the conrol and management of the Bhakra Nangal complex and to vest the same in the State of Haryana in order that people of Haryana may have full share in the water of Satluj, Beas and Ravi rivers. 2. The Union of India and the State of Punjab, but not the State of Haryana, have filed returns constesting this petition.3. The two questions argued befor...
Harichand Vs. Gopal Krishan Etc.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-09-1970
Reported in: ILR1970Delhi653
Vyas Dev Misra, J.(1) A recommendation has been made by the Additional Sessions Judge, Delhi, for quashing the order of the Magistrate, dated 17th April. 1969, refusing tore- cord the statement of Parama Nand on behalf of the complainant Hari Chand had filed a complaint under section 323, IP.C against Gopal Krishan and five others. He had submitted a list of witnesses under section 204(1-A) C.r. P. C., before the summons were issued to the accused. In that list the name of Parma Nand was not mentioned. Later on, during the trial on 17th April, 1969, Prem Pal was examined and the complainant requested the Court to examine Parma Nand also who was present in Court. This request of the complainant was turned down by the trial Magistrate on the ground that his name was not mentioned in the list of witnesses. The complainant thereafter went in revision to the Sessions Judge.(2) The only question to be decided by me is whether a person whose name is not mentioned in the list of witnesses put ...
S.P. Arora Vs. Ajit Singh
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-09-1970
Reported in: ILR1970Delhi130
T.V.R. Tatachari, J. (1) This Second Appeal has been filedagainst the order of Shri Pritam Singh Pittar, Rent ControlTribunal, Delhi, dated 22/05/1962, in Rent Control AppealNo. 486 of 1961, dismissing the said 'appeal and confirming the order of Shri B. L. Mago, Rent Controller, Delhi, dated 2 7/10/1961, whereby the Rent Controller dismissed the application filed by S. P. Arora, appellant herein, under section 14(1)(c) and (k) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958, prayingfor the evication of Ajit Singh, the respondent herein from thesuit premises.(2) On 6/05/1943, the father of the appellant herein obtained a perpetual lease (Exhibit A-9) in respect of certain landfrom the Delhi Improvement Trust. One of the terms ofthe lease was that the lessee should erect upon the said landwithin one year from the date of the lease and thereafter atall times during the terms of the lease maintain on the land agood and substantial residential house. Another term was thatthe lessee should not use the ...