Delhi Court April 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.
Ranchhoddas Shamji Khirani and anr. Vs. Balwant Kaur Malik
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-12-1971
Reported in: AIR1971Delhi249; [1971]41CompCas720(Delhi)
S.N. Andley, J.1. The difficulty in applying the second proviso incorporated by the Punjab Court-fees (Amendment) Act, 1953 which has been extended to Delhi to Section 7(iv)(c) of the Court-fees Act to properties other than land, houses and gardens led one of us (Andley, J) to refer this revision to a larger Bench.2. The petitioners as plaintiffs filed suit NO. 82 of 1962 against the respondent in the Court of the Senior Subordinate Judge, Delhi. The suit was for declaration and injunction; for payment of a specific amount; for payment of a specific amount; for payment of amounts that may be due during and after the disposal of the suit; for interest and for delivery of further dividend warrants. The case of the petitioners was that the respondents had, in 1954, sold 186 ordinary shares of the Brihan Maharashtra Sugar Syndicate Ltd., a public limited company, to petitioner No. 1 in consideration of Rs.4650/- and in exchange for and against delivery by the respondent of the respective s...
Ramesh Ghana, Kapur Vs. S. Gurdip Singh
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-12-1971
Reported in: 1971RLR47
V.D. Misra (1) This appeal is directed against the order of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal dismissing the application of the appellant for compensation on the ground of limitation. (2) On 10th November, 1962 at about 10 P.M. the appellent was injured in an accident with taxi no. DLT-1031. This taxi was driven by Gurdip Singh, respondent no. 1 and was owned by Sher Singh respondent no. 2 and was in ured with respondent no. 3. It is alleged that Gurdip Singh, respondent was driving the taxi in the course of his employment with respondent no. 2 and at the time of accident, he was rash and negligent in driving the taxi. On 10th January, 1963 the appellant made an application under Section 110-A of the Motor Vehicles Act claiming rupees ten thousand from the respondents by way of compensation. The appellant also made an application for con- donation of delay under sub-section of Section 110-A. It was alleged that the petitioner had sustained a compound fracture of the right thigh, bone bes...
Rattantrya Dhari JaIn and anr. Vs. S. Avtar Singh and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-07-1971
Reported in: ILR1971Delhi284
D.K. Kapur, J.(1) The appellants in this Regular Second Appeal are the sons of Shri Raghbar Dial Jain. The appellant's father had let out a portion of Rattantrya Bhavan, which is a house situated in Model Basti, Jhansi-Ki-Rani Road, Delhi, to Avtar Singh, Respondent No. 1, at Rs. 80.00 per month and Deep Chand Jain, Respondent No. 2, had agreed to guarantee the regular payment of rent by the said Avtar Singh. It appears that there was some litigation between the appellants and their father which resulted in a compromise decree being passed on 4th May, I960, to the effect that the appellants' father was a Benamidar and the appellants were the real owners entitled to collect the arrears of rent from the tenants of Rattantrya Bhavan. The suit which is the subject-matter of the present appeal is for the recovery of Rs. 2,880.00 which is the rent said to be due from Avtar Singh for the period 1st June, 1958 to 31st May, 1961, at the rate of Rs. 80.00 per month. In the trial court, it was he...
Munishi Ram Mehta Vs. Assistant Sales Tax Officer
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-07-1971
Reported in: [1973]32STC213(Delhi)
S.N. Shankar, J.1. The petitioner is a registered dealer carrying on the business of sale and supply of electric fans, sewing machines and radios under the name of M/s. Shakti Traders. Respondent No. 1, Assistant Sales Tax Officer, Ward No. 37 by order dated 17th June, 1969, framed assessment order holding the petitioner to be liable to pay Rs. 4,125 on account of sales tax and Rs. 1,000 on account of penalty. By this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution, the petitioner has assailed this order of respondent No. 1.2. Shri C.P. Wig, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, has raised the following contentions in support of the relief claimed:(1) That the extension of the Bengal Finance (Sales Tax) Act, 1941, to the State of Delhi was invalid and in any case no modifications could be made in the Act when extended to Delhi.(2) That the Assistant Sales Tax Officer in the instant case was in any event not competent to frame the assessment against the petitioner and to crea...
Ram Kishan Chopra Vs. Mulk Raj Chopra and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-06-1971
Reported in: ILR1971Delhi658
Hardayal Hardy, J.(1) This civil revision is directed against the judgment of an Addl. District Judge whereby the order made by Shri B. B. Gupta, Subordinate Judge 1st Class Delhi on 31-8-1967 directing that the award made by the arbitrator be made a rule of the Court and a decree in accordance therewith be passed, was up-held by the learned Addl. District Judge. The circumstances under which the controversy in the revision petition has arisen may briefly be stated: (2) Jaswant Lal Vohra, Mulk Raj Chopra and Ram Kishan Chopra entered into an agreement on 27-11-1962 to run a provision store in partnership at premises No. 1507/1511/12, G. T. Road, near Clock Tower, Subzimandi, Delhi. Ram Kishan Chopra is the. petitioner in this Court while Mulk Raj and Jaswant Lal are imp leaded as respondents 1 and 2 while the arbitrator Shri Mohan Lal Narula has been imp leaded as respondent No. 3. Before entering into the aforesaid partnership Mulk Raj and Jaswant Lal were jointly running a dry cleani...
Devidayal Cable and Co. Vs. Devidayal Cable Industries Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-06-1971
Reported in: 1971RLR31
P.N. Khanna (1) The respondent-company, Devidayal Cable Industries Limited, is the registered proprietor of the trade mark 'DEVIDAYAL' (word per se) in class 9 in respect of rubber and plastic insulated electric wires, cables and conductors. The appellant Devidayal Cable Company is a partnership firm, of which appellants Nos. 2 and 3 are partners. The appellants Nos. 4 to 8 are the dealers, dealing in the goods of the appellant No. 1 firm. The respondent-company has placed two certificates issued by the Deputy Registrar of Trade Marks, certifying that the trade mark 'DEVIDAYAL' (per se) is registered under No. 252069 as on date October 4, 1968 in class 9 in respect of rubber and plastic insulated electric aluminium wires and insulated electric cables and electric conductors, in the respondent's name. The registration of the said trade mark was to remain in force for a period of seven years from October 4, 1968, renewable at the expiration of that period and each succeeding period of se...
Ashok Ratilal Trivedi Vs. Anjani Madhusudan Oza
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-06-1971
Reported in: ILR1971Delhi97
P.N. Khanna, J.(1) The parties to this appeal were married on May 14, 1964. On April 26, 1965 their marriage was annulled by a decree of nullity, at the instance of the respondent-wife, who had applied for that purpose, on the ground of the appellant-husband's impotency. The petition for permanent alimony and maintenance was then filed by the respondent-wife on June 9, 1966 on the allegations that she had no independent income sufficient for her maintenance and support. The appellant was holding the rank of a Major in the Indian army drawing a salary of Rs. 1350.00 per month and was said to be a wealthy man, possessed of moveable and immovable properties of the value of several lakhs of rupees. He was further alleged to be a member of the joint Hindu family, which owned extensive properties in the States of Gujarat and Maharashtra. The respondent thereforee, claimed a maintenance allowance of Rs. 1000.00 per month, a.s Ions as she remained unmarried or in the alternative a sum of Rs. 1...
Autolite Financiers (P.) Ltd. and anr. Vs. Swastika Financial Corporat ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-05-1971
Reported in: AIR1971Delhi310; 1971RLR22
1. The most important question in this appeal is whether on a proper construction of the proviso to Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 (hereinafter called the Act) corresponding to Section 42 of the Specific Relief Act, 1877 the suit for declaration and injunction by the plaintiff respondent No. 1 is maintainable.2. The suit was filed on 13-2-1963, the same day when the Act came into force. The plaintiff alleged that he was the owner of a motor truck hired from him by Respondent 2 Krishan Lal Jaggi.. The appellant No.1 , however, claimed to be the owner of the truck and purported to hire it out to appellant No. 2 who took it away back possession of the truck from appellant No. 2 , the police intervened and investigated into a complaint of theft by appellant No. 2. During the investigation the Magistrate ordered the motor truck to be kept with the plaintiff-respondent No. 1 as superdar (custodian of the Court). On an appeal by appellant No. 2 however the High Court of Patna set...
The Delhi Ex-servicemen Co-op. Multipurpose Transport Society Ltd. Vs. ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-02-1971
Reported in: ILR1971Delhi415
H.R. Khanna, C.J. (1) On 4/09/1968, the District Magistrate of Delhi, passed an. order under section 33 of the Bombay Police Act as extended to the Union Territory of Delhi, the material part of which reads as under :- 'WHERE As there is very heavy congestion on Boulevard Road, Zorawar Singh Road. Chowk Subzimandi.Rani Jhansi Road. Alipur Road from Kashmere Gate to its junction with Ring Road and Mori Gate round about which is likely to cause serious accidents involving danger to the lives of persons using these roads and serious obstruction to the flow of traffic :AND Whereas it is necessary to ensure the safety of such persons and convenience to the public:NOW, thereforee. I, B. N. Tandon, District Magistrate.Delhi, in exercise of the powers conferred on me under section 33 of the Bombay Police Act. as extended to the Union Territory of Delhi, do hereby order as follows :-All passenger buses, starting from the Inter-state Bus Terminal and going out of Delhi will not be allowed to ply...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- Next ›