Delhi Court February 1971 Judgments
Browse smarter
Turn browsing into brief-ready notes
Open any judgment and get a structured AI Brief in seconds - plus Semantic Search when you need to hunt by meaning, not keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
Prem Das Chela Bhola Dass Vs. Joti Pershad
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-26-1971
Reported in: AIR1971Delhi282
1. The appellant has filed this appeal against the judgment dated June 6, 1962 of the Additional District Judge. Delhi, whereby the finding of the trial Court that the present suit filed by the appellant was barred under Section 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure by reason of the judment dated July 12, 1947, in Suit No. 17 of 1947, of the Subordinate Judge 1st Class, Delhi has been affirmed. 2. The house in dispute which is situate in Mohalla Dassan, Delhi, was leased out to the respondent with effect from December 18, 1935 by a registered deed of lease by Mahant Bhola Das who was the last Mahant in respect of the temple and Thakurdwara of Charan Dassi which had been founded by one Swami Rup Ram. The lease was for a period of 10 years with effect from December 19, 1935 and expiring on December 18, 1945. Mahant Bhola Das died on November 11, 1939 and upon his death one Uma Shankar Shastri filed a suit in the court of the Civil Judge Meerut claiming succession to Mahant Bhola Das. The app...
Jalpaiguri Cinema Co Vs. P.N. Mukerjee
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-26-1971
Reported in: [1971]41CompCas678(Delhi); ILR1971Delhi206
H.R. Khanna, J.(1) This appeal under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent by the Jalpaiguri Cinema Company Limited is directed against the judgment of learned Single Judge whereby a petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India filed by the appellant against Pramatha Nath Mukherjee and five others for quashing B the order of Member Company Law Board (respondent No. 6) was dismissed. (2) The appellant is a public limited company. It was incorporated in 1948 with a share capital of Rs. 10,00,000.00. The company owns a cinema house and is engaged in exhibition of films. Respondents I to 5 (hereinafter referred to as the respondents) belong to Mukherjee family. They purchased shares of the company from different shareholders. Out of those shares, we are in the present appeal concerned with the shares of the value of Rs. 1,90,000.00. When the respondents approached the appellant-company for the registration of the transfer of the shares in question, the Board of Directors decl...
Ram Singh Chadha Vs. Moti Lal
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-26-1971
Reported in: ILR1972Delhi96
P.N. Khanna, J.(1) This second appeal is directed against the judgment of the learned Rent Control Tribunal dismissing the appellant-tenant's appeal against the order of the Controller refusing to stay the appellant's eviction in execution of an order to that efct.(2) The respondent-landlord filed an eviction application against the appellant on the ground of his personal bona fide requirements for the premises. In the written statement, the appellant admitted that the respondent was a landlord and that the premises in question were purely residential and had been let out to him for residential purposes. He, however, contested his eviction on the pleas that the respondent did not require the premises bona fide for himself or for his family members dependent on him and that he had another suitable accommodation at 7/23 Daryaganj.(3) On September 12, 1967 the parties arrived at a compromise and made a statement on oath saying that an order for eviction in favor of the respondent against ...
Harjeet Singh Vs. Giani Ram Singh
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-26-1971
Reported in: ILR1972Delhi132
P.N. Khanna, J.(1) The appellant-tenant is in occupation of shop No. 3, in property No. 152, Sarai Jullena, Okhla Road, New Delhi, at a rent of Rs. 20.00 per month. A notice of demand dated June 22, 1968 terminating the contractual tenancy was sent by the respondent-landlord to him, which he refused to accept. inspire of that he failed to pay the arrears of rent due from him with effect from January 1, 1967. The respondent thereforee, filed an eviction application against the appellant on November 27, 1968, which was contested. The non-payment of rent was not disputed. The receipt of notice was not admitted and the standard rent for the shop was said to be Rs. 15.00 per month only.(2) The Additional Controller, by order dated January 3, 1969 under . section 15(1) of the Act, directed the appellant to deposit arrears of rent at the rate of Rs. 20.00 per month with effect from January 1, 1967 up to date within one month of the order and future rent month by month by the 15th of the next ...
industrial and Trade Publications (Private) Limited Vs. Automobile Ass ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-25-1971
Reported in: ILR1972Delhi49
P.N. Khanna, J. (1) The appellant, Industrial a,nd Trade Publications Private Limited, is in occupation of the premises in dispute. which is shop No. 6, in Partap Building, Connaught Circus, New Delhi. belonging to one Partap Chand, who had let it out to the Automobile Association of Upper India, respondent No. 1. The latter, in turn had sublet the premises to the Automobile Association of India, and Shri Karam Singh Sobti, respondents Nos. 2 and 3 respectively. As the respondents-sub-tenants did not pay rent. respondent No. filed an application for their eviction under clause (a) of the proviso to section 14(1) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958, herein called the Act' The rent was not deposited even after an order under section 15(1) of the Act, directing payment within one month, was passed and then confirmed in appeal. The defense of respondents Nos. 2 and 3 against eviction was accordingly struck out under section 15(7) of the Act. After some ex parte evidence, an order for the r...
Upper Ganges Sugar Mills Ltd. Vs. the Sugarcane (Additional) Price Fix ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-24-1971
Reported in: AIR1971Delhi285
V.S. Deshpande, J.1. Acting under clause 5 and the Schedule of the Sugarcane (Control) Order, 1966, the Sugarcane (Additional) Price Fixation Authority (Respondent No. 1) passed an order on 29th March 1968 ordering the petitioner sugar mill to pay to the cane growers an additional price of three paise per maund and of twelve paise per quintal for sugarcane purchased by it in 1960-61 and 1961-62 respectively. The order was confirmed in appeal by the Joint Secretary to the Government of India on 3rd January 1969. The virus of Clause 5 and the Schedule of the Sugarcane (Control) Order, 1966 and the correctness of the above mentioned orders are challenged in this and the connected writ petition (Civil writ 897 of 1969) under the following circumstances :2. Under sub-section (1) and (2) (c) of Section 3 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955, the Central Government is empowered to promulgate orders to secure the availability of an essential commodity at a fair price and to control the price...
Sudhershan Lal Aggarwal Vs. Girdhar Lal Jain
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-24-1971
Reported in: AIR1971Delhi272; 1971RLR73
1. The appellant-tenant has been ordered to be evicted from the premises belonging to the respondent-landlord on the ground that the landlord required the premises bona fide for occupation as a residence and that the landlord had no other reasonable suitable residential accommodation within the meaning of proviso (e) to Section 14(1) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (hereinafter called the Act)2. The premises consist of one room outside the main house occupied by the landlord and are wanted by the landlord for the parking of his motor car. The Controller as well as the Rent Control Tribunal have found as a fact that the motor car could be parked in this room as a garage. They further found that the car of the landlord was at present kept inside the open compound of the house of the landlord but was not protected from sun and rain. They further found that another tenant of the landlord also kept his car in the compound of the landlord and this second car had to be taken out before th...
Krishan Lal Vs. the State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-24-1971
Reported in: 1971CriLJ1610
Pritam Singh Safeer, J.1. The appellant was employed as a lower division clerk in the Excise Department.2. The narration of events is contained in the deposition of P.W. 8 Mahabir Singh. It is alleged that the appellant contacted him on the 2nd of March, 1968. There was a subsequent contact on the 9th and the sum total of the testimony on that aspect is that P.W. 8 was apprised by the appellant of the circumstances in which money orders were to emanate, from the Employees State Insurance Corporation which were to bear addresses within the beat of P.W. 8 (Postman Beat No. 65) and were to be received fictitiously offering to the postman a sum of Rs. 20/- or 22/- per money order. There was an element of conspiracy in the negotiations between the appellant and P.W. 8. P.W. 8 is stated to have informed Inspector Ashok Kumar who has appeared as P.W. 11 at the trial. He in turn informed his higher authorities. The 'venture was not discouraged.3. The ultimate occurrence in consequence whereof ...
Prakash Vir Shastri and ors. Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-22-1971
Reported in: AIR1974Delhi1
H.R. Khanna, C.J.1. In this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, Shri Prakash Vir Shastri and four others have prayed for the following reliefs against the Union of India and six others: -'(i) That an appropriate Writ, Order or Direction in the nature of Mandamus, Prohibition or Certiorari or in such other form as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper for the enforcement of the fundamental rights of the petitioners and for preventing the Respondents from using or allowing the use of the Government machinery for the Purposes of furtherance of the prospects of the candidates of the ruling party be issued. (ii) That the Respondents be restrained from using or Permitting the use of the Government aircrafts, cars, Jeeps by the leaders of the ruling party except when they go on tours exclusively for official purposes. (iii) That a further direction may be issued that during the Pendency of the writ petition, no public meetings shall be organized at Public ex...
Raj Krishen JaIn Vs. Master Hoshair Singh
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-19-1971
Reported in: AIR1971Delhi213; 7(1971)DLT287
1. The premises belonging to the appellant-landlord were originally let out to the respondent-tenant of Rs.94.50 per month. The tenant was in arrears of rent and the landlord gave the first notice of demand under proviso (a) to sub-section (1) of S. 14 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 and then filed a petition for eviction of the tenant on the ground that the arrears were not paid by the tenant within two months after the notice of demand. After the petition was filed, the Rent Controller made an order under Section 15(1) of the said Act. The tenant paid the arrears, and thereforee, this first petition filed by the landlord for the eviction of the tenant was dismissed.2. Subsequently a portion of the premises was demolished and, thereforee, for two months, the tenant paid the rent of Rs. 84.50 per month only to the landlord. The reconstruction of the demolished portion enlarged the built up area of the premises and the tenant again started paying rent of Rs. 94.50 per month to the l...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »