Delhi Court August 1970 Judgments
Home Cases Delhi 1970 Page 1 of about 24 results (0.021 seconds)inder Singh and ors. Vs. F. Munshi Ram Ram Sawrup
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 7(1971)DLT86
B.C. Misra, J.(1) This execution second appeal under section 100 read with section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure has been filed by the judgment debtors and is directed against the appellate order of the Additional District Judge, Delhi dated 16th September 1967 by which the learned Judge affirmed the finding of the trial court dated 16th April, 1966 in respect of issue No.6, but set aside its order dismissing all the objections and remanded the case to the lower Court for adjudication upon the remaining objections of the judgment debtor.(2) The facts of the case lie in a narrow compass. On 13th June, 1933, a decree for payment of Rs 4,400.00 with further interest and costs was passed in favor of Munshi Ram Sarup (decree-holder respondent before me) against the judgment-debtor, which amount I am informed now stands at more than Rs. l2,000.00. Badri Singh, original judgment-debtor, died on 13th October, 1940 and was succeeded by his Sons who are appellants before me. In execution of ...
Tag this Judgment!Niranjan Singh Vs. the Delhi Administration and ors.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 7(1971)DLT263
M.R.A. Ansari, J. (1) The petitioner who is the Manager of the 'K' Group of the Ithad Motor Transport (Private) Ltd. has ben convicted under section 29 of the Industrial Disputes Act and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 40.00 or in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months.(2) The prosecution case against the petitioner is that there was a dispute between the managemant of the Ithad Motor Transport (Private) Ltd. and and its workers and that this dispute was referred by the Government to the Industrial Tribunal, Delhi, for adjudication. The Tribunal gave its award on 7th May, 1958 One of the terms of the award was that the management shall inform the workers about their duties a week prior to the change in duty save in exceptional circumstances This term of the award was implemented for sometime by the management. But later on the management stopped notifying the workers as requited under the award. This failure on the part of the management in(3) The prosecution examined...
Tag this Judgment!Compagnie De Saint GobaIn Vs. Fertilizer Corporation of India Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: ILR1970Delhi927
P.N. Khanna, J.(1) The petitioner-company, Compagnie de Saint Gobain, is a company incorporatedunder the laws of France with its registered officein Paris. It entered into a contract with Nungal Fertilizer Chemicals Private Limited, the predecessor-ininterest of the present respondent. Fertilizer Corporationof India Limited, which is a Government Companyregistered under the Companies Act, 1956 having itsregistered office in New Delhi, for the construction ofNangal Fertilizer group of plants. The contract wascontained in a letter dated 10/10/1957, issuedby the said respondent-company called 'letter of instructions', which was followed by some subsequentcorrespondence between the parties. In arbitrationclause (para 23) in the said letter read as follows : 'EXCEPTas otherwise provided, all disputesand differences between the purchaser (the respondent) and yourselves (the petitioner) shall besettled by amicable arbitration in confirmity withregulations of the International Chamber of Comme...
Tag this Judgment!Suraj Bhan Kailsh Chand and anr. Vs. Hari Shankar Vashist and anr.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 8(1972)DLT36; 1975RLR574
B.C. Misra, J.(1) This revision petition under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure has been ffiled by defendants and is directed against the order of the Subordinate Judge 1st Class dated 17th April, 1970 by which the learned Judge decided issue No. 4 in (be negative and held that Ramjas College Society was not a necessary party and that the defendants could not lead any evidence to show that the land in dispate vested in the said Society and that the defendants were its tenants. (2) The brief facts of the case giving rise to the dispute are that Suraj Bhan, then a minor, acting through his guardian Deep Chand, took one shop and one Chabutra or open land from the plaintiff on or about 21st August, 1959 on a rent of Rs. 221.00 per month and he executed a rent-note on 5th March, 1960 in favor of the plaintiff. The said shop and Chabuter which are in his tenancy are not in dispute in the suit, but it is the land which is adjacent to the same which is the subject-matter of the dispu...
Tag this Judgment!Saroj Vs. the Registrar of Companies, Delhi and anr.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 7(1971)DLT213
M R.A. Ansari, J. (1) These 8 Revision Petitions can be conveniently disposed of by a common judgment because the points that arise for determination and the facts relevant thereto are common in all the petitions.(2) The Registrar of Companies filed 8 complaints before the Sub- Divisional Magistrate, Delhi, against a private company called M/s. Chinky Private Limited and five other persons who are alleged to be its director(3) In their examination under section 342, Cr. P.C., the three accused who had already pleaded guilty, admitted that they were directors of the company, that they had received notices from the Registrar requiring them to file the annual returns and the balance-sheets, etc. and that they tad failed to file these documents with the Registrar One of these accused, namely, O.P. Bhola, in addition stated that due to disputes inter-se beween the directors of the company, no annual general meeting of the company was ever held since its registration in September, 1960, and ...
Tag this Judgment!Balwant Singh Vs. Mandir Lakshmi Narain
Court: Delhi
Reported in: ILR1970Delhi488
S.N. Andley, J.(1) The records of Criminal Revision No. 16 of 1970 filed by Balwant Singh, petitioner, in the Court of the Additional Sessions Judge, Kangra Division, against the order dated July 19, 1969, of Mr. Shamsher Singh, Magistrate first class, Chamba, purporting to have been passed under section 133 of the Code of Criminal Procedure have been submitted to this Court with the recommendation that the aforesaid order of the learned Magistrate be quashed and the learned Magistrate be directed to proceed in accordance with law. The said revision came to be filed in the circumstances set out hereinafter.(2) On June 5, 1969, Gurdita Mal, Manager of Mandir Laxmi Narayanji, filed an application on behalf(3) The learned Magistrate examined Gurdita Mal, the aforesaid manager, on June 6, 1969, and issued a notice to the petitioner to appear and show cause against the complaint. It does not appear that any conditional order as is contemplated by section 133 of the Code of Criminal Procedur...
Tag this Judgment!Mohd. Rafiq Mohd. Shafiq Vs. Modi Sugar Mills Ltd., Modinagar
Court: Delhi
Reported in: ILR1970Delhi246
B.C. Misra, J. (1) This revision petition under section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure has been filed by the defendants and is directed against the order of the Additional District Judge dated 1st of August, 1968 by which the learned Judge declined to stay the suit, for injunction and other reliefs arising out of an alleged infrigngement of a registered trade mark of the plaintiffs respondents under section 111 of the Trade and Merchandise Marks Act of 1958. (hereinafter referred to as the Trade Marks Act).(2) The brief facts of the case are that on 26th March, 1962, the plaintiffs instituted a suit in the Court of the District Judge, Delhi against the defendants for a permanent injunction, rendition of accounts and damages on the allegations that the plaintiffs were manufacturing and selling lanterns and torches under their trade mark 'SUN BRAND' which was registered as No. 164198 on 19th May, 1961 onwards and that the defendants had started manufactur May 1954 and it had been ren...
Tag this Judgment!Maharani Ram Sundari Vs. the State Himachal Pradesh
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 7(1971)DLT64
T.V.R. Tatachari (1) This second appeal has been filed by Maharani Kamsandari of Dharbhanga, resident of Village Chharabra, Tehsil Kasumpti, Mahasu District, Himachal Pradesh under Section 104 read with section 12 of the Himachal Pradesh Abolition of Big Landed Estates and Land Reforms Act, 1953 (Act No. 15 of 1954), against the order of the District Judge, Mahasu, dated, September 3, 1968, whereby he couarmed the order of the Compensation Officer, Mahasu District, dated December 28, 1967, refusing the grant of proprietary rights to the appellant herein in respect of the suit land. (2) The appellant herein filed an application before the Compensation Officer under Section 11 of the aforesaid Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) for grant of proprietary rights to her in respect of the suit land comprising Khata Khatauni No. 11/16. Khasra No. 10 to 19, measuring 32 Bighasand 7 Biswas,and situated in Village Chharabra, Tehsil Kasumpti, District Mahasu, claimed to be under her tenancy ...
Tag this Judgment!Chand and ors. Vs. Devia
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 7(1971)DLT90
ORDER: The application of Smt. Musarbu is directed against Janta and Smt. Hiri and mortage amount of Rs. 294 has been deposited in favor of Janta, mortgagee vide Challan No. 31, dated 11-5-1955. Smt. Hiri states that she will get her half share redeemed on payment of half the amount of mortgage; because applicant and respondent No. 2 are two widows of Dom. Janta mortgagee states that he has no objection regarding the redemption of the land. thereforee, one-third share of land, subject matter of the mortgage as entered in Khata 427 situated in Deoga, Pargana Manjir is allowed to be redeemed half share each in favor of Smt. Hiri and Smt. Musarbu from 'Rabi' 2013 in lieu of Rs. 294. The order is announced in the presence of the parties. SD.Thakur Dharam Singh.'(19) The contention urged by Mr. Ramesh Chand, learned counsel for the appellants, is that this is clearly an order under section 10 of the Act and the only reasonable interpretation of the order is that while the mortgagor's claim ...
Tag this Judgment!Durga Chand Vs. Administrator and ors.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: AIR1971Delhi73
Hardayal Hardy, J.1. The petitioners Kanwar Durga Chand and Shri Daulat Ram Chauhan, are elected members of the Legislative Assembly for the Union Territory of Himachal Pradesh. They have filed the present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution in which their prayers are as follows:-'(a) to quash notification No. 1222/70 Sectt. Edu. 1, dated 19th February 1970, whereby the respondent No. 2 was nominated as Chairman of the Board of School Education for Himachal Pradesh. (b) to issue a writ in the nature of quo warranto to oust respondent No. 3 from the office of Chairman of the Board, which is held by him without any legal authority as unsurper; (c) to issue a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent No.1 to nominate an eminent educationist having special experience in school education as Chairman of the Board; and to elect a third person as member or the Board from amongst the members of Legislative Assembly of Himachal Pradesh; (d) to direct respondent No. 3 not...
Tag this Judgment!