Delhi Court July 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.
Ved Parkash Vs. Chuni Lal
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-20-1970
Reported in: 7(1971)DLT59
P.S. Safeer, J.(1) This appeal turns on an interpretation of clause (h) of the proviso to sub-section (1) of section 14 of Act 59 of 1958 (hereinafter called 'the Act'). Sub-section (1) of section 14 of the Act with the proviso and the relevant clause is :- '14. Protection of tenant against eviction :- (1) Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in any other law or contract to order or decree for the recovery of possession of any premises shall be made by any court or Controller in favor of the landlord against a tenant : Provided that the Controller may, on an application made to him in the prescribed manner, make an order for the recovery of the premises on one or more of the following grounds only, namely :- ***** (h) that the tenant has, whether before or after the commencement of the Act, built, acquired vacant possession of, or been allotted, a residence '(2) The elementary principle of statutory interpretation is that the words employed should be given their plain mea...
Surinder Nath Vs. State and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-16-1970
Reported in: 7(1971)DLT377
Jagjit Singh, J.(1) On August 14, 1967 Shri Kashmir Sindhu, Additional Sessions Judge, Delhi, made three reports recommending that the charges framed(2) Before the partition of the country Choudhary Bhagat Ram and his five sons, Surinder Nath Rajinder Nath, Narinder Nath, Waseshwar Nath and Joginder Nath, had a joint Hindu family business of stock and share brokers at Rawalpindi. After the death of Bhagat Ram his sons started a partnership firm for doing the same business at Delhi. Though the partnership business was commenced by them from November 1, 1947 yet a formal partnership deed was exeted only on August 27, 1951. No capital was contributed by any partner. Surinder Nath, who is the eldest out of the brothers, was, according to the terms of the partnership deed, to be in charge of the office and was to operate upon the bank accounts in the name of the firm. The other partners were to be 'the field workers'.(3) Unfortunately differences arose between the brothers, more particularl...
Prabhati Chuni and ors. Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-13-1970
Reported in: AIR1970Delhi264; 1970CriLJ1618; 6(1970)DLT464
1. Hukam Singh, Bal Kishan, Ram Singh, Rattan, Lekhan and Prabhati alias Parshadi were tried by Shri Jagdish Chander, Assistant Sessions Judge, Delhi. They were alleged to have committed dacoity on the night between the 21st and the 22nd October, 1965, while armed with deadly weapons in the house of Neel Kanth in Radhapuri Colony, Hukan Singh, Ram Singh, Rattan and Prabhati alias Parshadi were found guilty under Section 397 of the Indian Peanal Code and each one of them was sentenced to seven years rigorous imprisonment. Bal Kishan and Lekhan were given benefits of doubt and were acquitted. 2. Four separate appeals were filed by the convicted persons, which were registered as Nos. 99, 101 and 102 of 1969.3. It may be mentioned that on the night of the occurrence Neel Kanth was sleeping in a room of his house. His wife and their five children, including Geeta a girl of about 19 years of age, were in an adjoining room. The elder brother of Geeta, Ramesh Chander, was lying in a separate r...
Nanak Chand and ors. Vs. Toti
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-08-1970
Reported in: ILR1970Delhi113
Hardayal Hardy, J.(1) This second appeal is directed against the judgment of the District Judge, Mandi, affirming the judgment and decree of the trial Court whereby the suit for joint possession and declaration filed by the plaintiff-respondent was decreed. The decision of the appeal should ordinarily have been concluded against the defendant-appellants by concurrent findings of fact by the two Courts below but the counsel for the appellants submitted that the appeal was under paragraph 32 of the Himachal Pradesh (Courts) Order, 1948, and as such it was open to him to canvass facts. He also submitted that the case involved questions of law on which the Courts below had gone wrong. The arguments in appeal have, thereforee, covered a wider range.(2) The facts as to which there is no dispute may first be stated - Smt. Toti is the widow of one Gokal and has been wrongly described by the learned District Judge as the sister-in-law of Nanak Chand, defendant-appellant No. 1. Actually she is t...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›