Delhi Court November 1971 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.
Shatrughan Badri Singh Vs. Mange Mir Singh
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-30-1971
Reported in: AIR1972Delhi212
1. This execution section appeal has been filed by Shri Satrughan Appellant against the appellate order of the Additional District Judge dated 17th August, 1971 by which he dismissed the appeal and maintained the order of the Court of first instance dated 4th June, 1971 ordering the issue of warrant of possession for restitution of the property which had been delivered to the appellant before me in execution of the decree of the Court.2. The material facts leading to this appeal are not much in dispute. The appellant herein filed a suit for a declaration that the grant of Bhumidari rights by the Revenue Assistant to the respondent was illegal and he sought recovery of the possession. The suit was decree by Shri K.I. Wason, Subordinate Judge on 12th March, 1962. The first appeal against the same failed, but on second appeal, the High Court (S.N. Andley, by judgment and order dated 2nd April, 1971 in R.S.A. 125-D Of 1963) held, upon a decision of the Supreme Court in Hatti v. Sunder Sing...
Yogendra Kumar Jalan Vs. Union of India and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-29-1971
Reported in: AIR1972Delhi234
ORDER1. The petitioner submitted a tender in response to an Invitation to Tender dated 19.10.1968, in respect of the supply of 2,580 Kgs. of rivets brass spear point in inch sizes of 3/4' at the rate of Rs. 13.18 per Kg. and offered to complete the supply by the end of March, 1969. The order had to be placed by the second respondent by 31.12.1968. In other words, the delivery period was to be 3 months from the last date by which the tender could be accepted by the office of the Director of Supplies & Disposals, Kanpur (Ministry of Foreign Trade and Supply). By his letter dated 7.4.1969 (copy of which is R. 8 to the return filed by the respondents) the petitioner had agreed to keep the offer open up to 1.5.1969 as described by the Director of Supplies & Disposals, Kanpur by his Letter dated 1.4.1969. The offer of the petitioner was accepted on 1.5.1969, the tenders having been opened on 30.11.1968. A registered letter containing the said acceptance was duly posted on the same day i.e. o...
Jaspal Singh Vs. Municipal Corporation of Delhi
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-29-1971
Reported in: AIR1972Delhi230; 8(1972)DLT516
P.S. Safeer, J. (1) This petition preferred under Section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code (hereinafter called 'the Code') invites attention to compelling facts. (2) The petitioner instituted a suit for permanent injunction. While the suit was pending, he applied to the District Judge, Delhi, for transferring the suit to another Court of competent jurisdiction. The trial Court had recorded the evidence of one of the plaintiffs witnesses on the 19th of November, 1969, and had adjourned the suit for recording further evidence to the 18th of December, 1969. The following order was passed by the trial Court when the suit was taken up on the adjourned date :- 'counsel for the parties. No P. W. is present. It is stated that the plaintiff has moved a transfer application before the District Judge, Delhi, Adjournment is requested. Put up on 23rd January, 1970. sd/- xx Sub-Judges, 1st Class, Delhi.' is clear that the trial Court referred the recording of evidence and adjourned the suit to 23rd J...
Metro Playing Card Co. Vs. Wazir Chand Kapoor
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-29-1971
Reported in: 9(1973)DLT20
Parkash Narain, J. (1) This appeal is directed against the order of a learned Single Judge of this Court sitting on the original side whereby an interim injunction was issued against the appellant on a motion by the respondent.(2) The respondent/plaintiff manufactures and sells playing cards. On 8th February, 1966, the respondent/plaintiff registered under No. 233581 In Class 16 a trade mark consisting of the device of a tractor and the word 'tractor' turn his playing cards. The appellant defendant also trades in playing cards and it is alleged by the respondent that early in 1971 he came to know that the appellant had adopted the trade mark 'Ferguson' in relation to its playing cards and was marketing the same under that name also using the device of a tractor on the back of the playing cards. The respondent thereforee, brought an action against the appellant seeking permanent injunction restraining the appellant from infringing the registered trade mark of the respondent and passing ...
Kanchhid Lal Sharma Vs. Union of India
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-24-1971
Reported in: ILR1972Delhi863; 1972RLR9
D.K. Kapur, J. (1) The petitioner Kanchhid Lal Sharma filed an application under Section 14 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 on 24th July. 1967 for a direction by the court to the arbitrator to file an award. The arbitrator filed the award and the court on 8th January. 1968 called upon the petitioner to file process fees and adjourned the case to 16th February, 1968. No process fees was deposited and no one appeared on 16th February, 1968 and, hence the application was dismissed although the award was on the record of the court. Later on, the petitioner moved an application under Section 17 of the Act to have the award made a rule of the court. The application was opposed by the Union of India and it was also submitted that the petitioner had not pursued the application under Section 14. According to the trial court, process fees had to be filed by the petitioner and, hence the application under Section 14 had been rightly dismissed for non-prosecution and, it was held that the present app...
R.S. Nagarwala Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-24-1971
Reported in: 1972RLR73
V.D. Misra, J. (1) On May 24, 1971, at about 12 noon, Ved Prakash Malhotra, Chief Cashier of the State Bank of India, Parliament Street, New Delhi, was sitting in his room as usual. He received a telephone call purposing to be from Shri Haksar, Principal Secretary to the Prime Minister, informing him that the Prime Minister needed Rs. 60 lacs for Bangia Desh and he should make arrangements for that amount. He was also told to keep the matter as 'Top Secret', and should bring out the amount himself. Since Malhotra was a bit hesitant, the caller asked him to talk to the Prime Minister herself. Thereafter, a female voice purporting to be that of the Prime Minister told him to bring the money out of the .bank himself and rand it over to the courier who should be recognised by the exchange of the Code words divulged to Malhotra. Malhotra was further assured that he would get the necessary voucher and receipt. Accordingly, Malhotra asked the Deputy Chief Cashier to bring the money from the s...
Sushila Devi Vs. Girdhari Lal and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-23-1971
Reported in: ILR1972Delhi867
B.C. Misra, J. (1) This revision petition under section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure has been. filed on behalf of the plaintiff decree holder and is directed against the order of the execution court dated 22nd February, 1971, by which the learned Judge lias refused the application of the decree-holder for action under Rule 32 or order Xxi of the Code of Civil Procedure and has further directed him to file separate applications against the judgment-debtors. (2) The facts giving rise to this revision petition arc that the petitioner in this revision instituted a suit on 30th November, 1965 against 7 defendants on the allegations that the plaintiff was the owner of a plot of land situated in Shakti Nagar, Delhi which had been purchased by her on 15th March 1955 and that after the purchase, she had on his request allowed defendant No. 1, who was a washerman, permission to use the plot of land in dispute for the purposes of drying up his laundry and thereafter he put up Shuntis and Ch...
P.L. Michael Vs. Union of India and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-23-1971
Reported in: ILR1972Delhi84
V.S. Deshpande, J.(1) The petitioner appellant was an Inspector in the Central Excise Department. On 31st October 1958, a departmental enquiry was launched against him under the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1957 (hereinafter called the Ccs (CCA) Rules of 1957). The relevant charges related to making of false entries in his diary dated 19th May 1958, not maintaining a proper diary and making false and mischievous allegations against official superiors, insubordination and unnecessarily harassing one Raja Ram Misra warehouse licensee. The procedure of imposing major penalties on a Government servant prescribed by rule 15 of the Ccs (CCA) Rules, 1957 governed the departmental enquiry. On receipt of the charges and allegations supporting them, the petitioner asked the Enquiry Officer 'for the supply of the copies of all the documents which have been made basis of the charges framed against me (i.e. him)'. He also asked for inspection of certain documents...
Ram Gopal Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-23-1971
Reported in: ILR1972Delhi446
Sachar, J.(1) This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking to quash the list of. appointment of Superintend ents Class Ii Gazetted (annexure 'C') prepared by respondents 1 to 3 in pursuance of Rule 9(3) (a) of the Armed Forces Headquarters Civil Service Rules, 1968, (hereinafter called the Rules) and also asking for a mandamus directing the respondents i.e. Union of India and Depart- mental Promotion Committee respondents I and 2 respectively, to fill the post of the Superintendent of the Service by departmental candidates holding appointments in the existing grades by screening them for such initial appointment afresh. The petition also seeks to strike off Regulation 4(4) of the Armed Forces Headquarters Civil Services (Promotion to grades of Senior Civilian Staff Officers, Civilian Staff Officers. and Superintendent) Regulations, 1968, (hereinafter called the Regulations) as ultra virus of Articles. 14 & 16 of the Constitution and the Rules.(2) Prior to 1...
Ram Rattan Bhanot Vs. Faqir Chand
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-22-1971
Reported in: ILR1972Delhi408
V.S. Deshpande, J.(1) The question of law of growing public importance which made this reference of these two appeals (S.A.0.83-D and 239-D of J965) to the Division Bench necessary is whether a landlord and tenant governed by the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (hereinafter called the Rent Control Act) can contract out of the provisions of proviso (k) to sub-section (1) of section 14 thereof which runs as follows: '14.Protection of Tenant against eviction.- (1)Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in any other law or contract no 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:- * * * (K)that the tenant has, notwithstanding previous notice used or dealt with the premises in a manner contra...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »