Delhi Court April 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.
Raj Khanna Vs. Krishan Lal Khanna
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-30-1970
Reported in: 8(1972)DLT60
P.N. Khanna, J.(1) This first appeal under section 28 of the Hindu Marriage Act is directed against the judgment dated June 10, 1968 of the Sub-Judge, 1st Class, Delhi, exercising the powers of a District Court under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1953 (herein called 'the Act') passing a decree for judicial sepiration in favor of the hasband, Krishan Lal Khanna, the respondent herein, against the appellant-wife Smt, Raj Khanna, under siction 10 of the Act. (2) The parties were married on July. 5, 1956 at Delhi. On May 21, 1957 a daughter was born oat of the wedlock According to the husband, ti'e appellant left his house on October 24, 1957onthe plea that she was to visit her parents for the Tikkaf estival the next day. She had stated that she would stay on with her parents till the marriage of her brother in November, 19.17, which however, took place in April 1958. But she never returned, inspire of the several alleged approaches from the respondent's side. The appellant was ins ervice ; and ...
Govind Dass and ors. Vs. Kuldip Singh
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-28-1970
Reported in: AIR1971Delhi151; ILR1970Delhi585
Prakash Narain, J.1. The problem passed in this second appeal is as to the interpretation of proviso (e) of sub-section (1) of S. 14 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 and finding out whether the claim for eviction made by the appellants was covered by the said proviso.2. The appellants, three brothers filed an application under Section 14 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (hereinafter called the Act) seeking eviction of the respondent from the premises under his tenancy comprising of two rooms, a. W.C., and a kitchen on the ground floor in the building bearing No. 48 in Block C. Ramesh Nagar, New Delhi. The Appellants' contention was that they were in occupation of similar accommodation on the first floor but the accommodation occupies by them being insufficient for their needs they required the tenanted premises for occupation by themselves and for members of their family dependent on them. In the eviction petition, the three appellants had claimed to be joint owners of the entire...
Jagjit Singh Sawhney Vs. Dewan Hukamchand
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-28-1970
Reported in: ILR1970Delhi576
S.N. Andley, J.(1) The respondent has made this application in the appeal contending that there is no properly constituted memorandum of appeal as proper court fee has not been paid and the failure of the appellant to pay proper court fee has resulted in the appeal having become time-barred. The appellant contends that the appeal is under section 10 of the Delhi High Court Act, 1966 and the contentions of the respondent are not legally maintainable. (2) It is noticeable that the respondent in his application, has not indicated the particular provision in the Court Fees Act under which court fee is payable. All that has been stated is that the appeal is 'from a decree or at least an order having the force of a decree. In both cases, ad valorem court fee on the value of the suit in the original Court is payable on the memorandum of appeal.' The respondent's contention, thereforee, appears to be that the same court fee should have been paid on this memorandum of appeal under Schedule I Ar...
Jiwan Bal Vs. the Kurukshetra University
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-28-1970
Reported in: ILR1970Delhi194b
Prakash Narain, J. (1) This appeal is directed against the order of Hardy, J. passed on the original side by which he directed the return of the plaint in the suit filed by the appellant for presentation to a proper court on the ground that the Delhi High Court had no territorial jurisdiction to try the. suit. (2) Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the appellant filed a suit for the recovery of Rs. 25,304.24 against the respondent which has its seat in Kurukshetra within the State of Haryana. This claim is for realisation of sales tax on the price of bricks which the appellant supplied to the respondent under a contract dated 30th April, 1960. The finding of the learned Single Judge is that the contract dated 30-4-1960 was executed by the parties, namely, the appellant and the respondent at Delhi where also the appellant had deposited the security for that due fulfillment of the contract. The further finding is that the claim for sales tax is not a claim for payment of mone...
Dalmia Cement Ltd. Vs. the Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-28-1970
Reported in: ILR1970Delhi544; [1971]79ITR196(Delhi)
Prakash Narain, J. (1) This reference has been made by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, (Delhi Branch 'A') under section 66(1) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922. Along with the statement of case forming part thereof the Tribunal has also attached a copy of the original assessment order by the Incometax Officer, a copy of the order of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner upholding the assessment, a copy of the Tribunal's order dated September 13, 1960, remanding the case in the appeal was filed to it to the Income-tax Officer for some further enquiry, a copy of the remand report of the Income-tax Officer dated January 24, 1954 and the final order of the Tribunal in appeal. Thus, the statement of case and other documents attached to it and forming part thereof have all to be seen to find out what are the facts of the case and contentions of the parties. (2) A perusal of the documents placed before us shows that the reference has arisen in the following circumstances. The assessed is a...
Jai Devi and ors. Vs. Jodhi Ram and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-28-1970
Reported in: 6(1970)DLT549
S.N. Andley, J.(1) The first appellant is the mother of appellants Nos. 2 to 4. She is the wife of Babu Ram, one of the two sons of deceased Kalyan Dass. For himself and on behalf of his sons, appellants Nos. 2 to 4 and another son Rattan Lal, Babu Ram instituted suit No. 567 of 1957 in the Court of Subordinate Judge 1st Class, Delhi, for partition of the suit properties and accounts on the ground that the said properties were joint family properties. The defendants to this suit were his brother Jodhi Ram, the latter's sons and his mother. On December 31, 1957, Babu Ram filed an application merely staling that he inttended to withdraw the suit and did not want to pursue the same and prayed that the suit may be consigned to the record room. Both Babu Ram and Jodhi Ram supported this application by their respective statements recorded on the same date and the suit was dismissed. Liberty was not reserved by Babu Ram either in his application or in his statement in Court to institute a fre...
Mohan Singh and ors. Vs. the Lt. Governor Himachal Pradesh and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-28-1970
Reported in: 6(1970)DLT317
Om Prakash, J. (1) The main question, in this writ petition filed by forty-five stall-holders of village Pandoh,Tehsil Sadar, District Mandi, is whether section 163 of the Himachal Pradesh Land Revenue Act (hereinafter referred to as the Himachal Act), is vocative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. The circumstances in which this question has arisen are as under :-(2) The Deputy Commissioner, Mandi had issued notices to the petitioners to demolish their stalls and to vacate the sites there under as they had illegally constructed the stalls on Government lands. The petitioners filed a writ petition, challenging the validity of the notices on various grounds. One of the grounds was that Section 5 of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act. 1958, under which according to the petitioners the Duputy Commissioner appeatred to have initiated action against them was unconstitutional. In the return, filed on behalf of the respondents, it was stated that action agai...
Union of India and anr. Vs. Dina Nath
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-28-1970
Reported in: 7(1971)DLT109
P.N. Khanna, J. (1) This second appeal by the Union of India is directed against the order dated August 28, 1969 of the Additional District Judge, Delhi, who held that the respondents suit for arrears of pay wag within time and accepting the respondents appeal I remanded the suit back to the trial court for decision on merits. (2) The respondent was employed as Labour Supervisor on June 28, 1943 in the C. 0. D., Delhi at Rs 3.00 per day. He was reclassified as Leading Hand in the year 1945 in the scale of 97-4-121. In April, 1947 there was a general strike in which the respondent took part from April 12, 1947 to April 21, 1947. This period was treated by the Government as break in service, although the respondent otherwise continued to remain in service In 1954, the respondent was transferred to the Ammunition Depot, Gurgaon, and his salary was provisionally restricted to Rs. 101.00 per month till the final determination of the question relating to the condensation in the aforesaid bre...
Radhe Shayam Vs. J.M. Raina
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-27-1970
Reported in: ILR1970Delhi381
S. Rangarajan, J.(1) The petitioner and his counsel are absent. I have heard Shri Bishamber Dayal, counsel for the State. (2) The only ground on which the petitioner has filed this revision petition is that the complainant, who was the General Manager of the Delhi Electric Supply Undertaking of the Municipal Corporation of Delhi had not made his personal appearance and, thereforee, the Magistrate had no discretion to adjourn the case at all in the absence of the complainant. It may be noticed that the complaint was presented to the learned Magistrate First Class, who was also the Special Magistrate, Delhi on 29th November 1967. Thereafter the case was adjourned. On 13th March 1968 the learned Magistrate had passed an order in writing as follows :- 'COMPLAINANTis exempted from personal attendance till further orders.'(3) It is seen from the order sheet that even subsequent to 13th , March 1968 the case was adjourned and by May 1969 the stage of defense had been reached; the defense was ...
Bishan Dass Mehta and ors. Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-24-1970
Reported in: AIR1970Delhi267
ORDER1. The question that arises in this petition is whether Katha is included within the meaning of Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) and whether Item A-21 of Appendix B of Rule 5 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules) is ultra views of the Act and the Constitution of India.2. In this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India prayer is made for a writ restraining the respondents. Union of India and the Delhi Municipal Corporation, Delhi, from interfering with the petitioners' trade of Katha (Catechu) and from enforcing the restrictions laid down in Item A-21 of Appendix B under Rule 5 of the Rules framed under the Act.3. The petitioners are members of the Katha Dealers Association, Delhi and they are commission agents and wholesale merchants of the raw material from which Katha of various qualities for different purposes is manufactured. It is alleged that Katha represents two...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »