Delhi Court October 1972 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.
Bikram Singh Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-20-1972
Reported in: 1974CriLJ418; ILR1973Delhi485; 1973RLR32
V.D. Misra, J. (1) Whether the petitioner, who was the Managing Director of Elite Finarciers (P) Ltd., can he said to have dominion over the moneys paid to the Company by members of the Chit Fund series issued by the Company in terms of Section 405, Indian Penal Code ?' is the question to be decided in these four revisions. (2) In all the revisions the facts are similar. I will, thereforee discuss the complaint of R.L. Malhotra in Criminal Revision No. 63 of 1969. Elite Financiers (P) Ltd., were issuing various chits of different denominations. R.L. Malhotra became a subscriber of a chit of Rs. 1.250 in Series Iii Class 'C' issued by the Company. His ticket number was '50'. He was regularly paying the Installments on the prescribed date of each month. On the maturity of chit he was entitled to receive the payment of Rs. 1,250 in September, 1965. The Company, however, did not make any payment on one pretext or the other, but ultimately the complainant succeeded in getting a post-dated c...
Union of India Vs. Sagwa and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-20-1972
Reported in: AIR1973Delhi278; 1973RLR1
S.N. Andley, C.J.(1) By his order dated October, 10, 1969, the Additional District Judge, Delhi, while dealing with an application under section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, on behalf of 16 claimants has decided apreliminary issue as to whether Kanhiya (respondent No. 14 herein), who was one of the 16 claimants, had' received payment without protest on the facts admitted by the parties. He decided the issue against the petitioners and held that Kanhiya was entitled to join in the said application. (2) The facts are that lands belonging to the respondents were acquired and the Collector made an award whereunder Kanhiya, respondent No. 14 , had also to receive the compensation offered by the Collector. On December 12, 1962, Kanhiya made an application to the Collector to the effect that he would receive the payment as offered by the Collector but under protest. However, when Kanhiya actually received payment on January 22, 1963, he did not mention his protest on the receipt give...
Chander Kanta Vs. Khem Chand
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-20-1972
Reported in: ILR1973Delhi418
P.N. Khanna, J. (1) Smt. Chandra Kanta, the landlady, is the owner of the premises in dispute consisting of two portions; (a) one hall, store, part of a courtyard with a right to use the lobby in common and latrine, and (b) hall with a bath and W/C. The respondent Khem Chand Malik, is the tenant, to whom portion (a) was let out with effect from July 12, 1965, on a monthly rent of Rs. 555/, and portion (b) with effect from August 5, 1967 on a monthly rent of Rs. 500. (2) Sometimes later the parties mutually agreed that with respect to portion (a) rent of Rs. 555 per month would prevail up to August 12, 1970 (i.e. during the first five years of the tenancy); and thereafter Rs. 335 per month would bs the standard rent. On the basis of this agreement, Shri S.R. Goel, the Additional Controller, fixed the standard rent of that portion of the premises at Rs. 335 per month with effect from August 13, 1970. Regarding portion (b), the parties mutually agreed that the rate of rent of Rs. 500 per ...
Uttam Chand Shah Vs. Anguri Devi
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-20-1972
Reported in: ILR1973Delhi740
H.L. Anand, J. (1) This appeal must be accepted on the short ground that the petitition under section 14 of the Delhi Rent Control Act 1958 which was filed by the respondent for the ejectment of the appellant from the demised premises out of which the present appeal has arisen, was not maintainable in the absence of a notice terminating the tenancy of the appellant as required by section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act and was. thereforee, liable to be dismissed. The appeal has arisen, in the following circumstances:- 'the appellant has been in occupation of house No. 1582/2. Navin Shahdara, Ddhi-32 as a tenant under the respondent vide rent-note of June 3, 1962 at a rental of Rs. 75 per mensem. A petition under section 14 ofthe Delhi Rent Control Act 1958 being suit No. 122/69/217/65 was filed against the appellant by the respondent on July 28. 1966 spiking ejectment of the appellant from the demised premises onthe ground that the appellant had not paid area'sof rent for the perio...
Nathu Ram Friends Colony Co-operativehouse Building Society Limited Vs ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-13-1972
Reported in: ILR1973Delhi1109
Prakash Narain, J. (1) By this application under Sections 151 and 152 of the Code of Civil Procedure the applicant (Nathu Ram Friends Colony Co-operative House Building Society Ltd.) prays that a correction be made in the order dated 25th April, 1972 by which a Bench of this Court dismissed as withdrawn F.A.O. (OS) 14 of 1971. The contention is that when the first appeal from the order came up for hearing it was not pressed in view of a Full Bench decision of this Court in University of Delhi and Another v. Hafiz Mohd. Said and Others, F.A.O. (OS) 6 of 1968 decided on 2nd March, 1972 (1) but somehow erroneously the order passed by the Bench was that F.A.O. (OS) 14 of 1971 is dismissed as withdrawn. The occasion to move this application arose when the appSlicant applied for a certificate of fitness to file appeal to the Supreme Court of India and it transpired that in view of the appeal having been withdrawn the question of filing a further appeal to the Supreme Court did not arise. At ...
Profulla Roy Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-13-1972
Reported in: ILR1973Delhi532
V.D. Misra, J. (1) Whether a public servant can be prosecuted under Section 5(3) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) without being prosecuted under Section 5(2) where the facts constitute offences punishable under sub-sections (2) and (3) of Section 5 of the Act ?'. is the question which has come up for decision in this revision. (2) The relevant facts in brief are thus : Profulla Roy, petitioner No. 1, is a private person, whereas Saroj Mohan Bhattacharya, petitioner No. 2, is working as an Assistant in the Ministry of Foreign Trade. They are alleged to have entered into a criminal conspiracy to obtain for themselves and/or for other public servants, gratification from various firms and others as a motive or reward for inducing by corrupt or illegal means or byexercising personal influence on public servants to do or to forbear to do official acts or to render or attempt to render service or dis-service to such firms through the concerned pub...
Karam Singh Sobti Vs. H.S. Mumtaz Etc.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-13-1972
Reported in: [1973]92ITR35(Delhi); 1973RLR171
D.K. Kapur, J. (1) This is a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India arising out of the proceedings for recovery of tax taken against the partnership firm known as Micheal Overman & Co. According to the statements of fact contained in the writ petition the firm was assessed to income-tax amounting to Rs. 2,879.00 for the years 1953-55 to 1956.57, The entire tax was demanded from the petitioner, Shri Karam Singh Sobti who had 60% 'sharp whereas Mr. Micheal Overman had a share of 40%. The petitioner represented to the Income-tax Officer that the firm had been dissolved and hence the claim for income-tax should be apportioned. On this application the Income-tax Officer wrote to the District Collection Officer,. Delhi, that a sum of Rs. 1785.00 should be collected from the petitioner and the balance-of Rs. 1155.70 should be collected from the other partner It was also stated that the petitioner had already paid Rs. 985.00 and would pay the balance of Rs. 750.00 by 15.1...
Hafiz Abdul Basit Vs. Hafiz Mohd. Said and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-13-1972
Reported in: AIR1973Delhi280
Avadh Behari, J. (1) On December 15, 1952, one Hafiz Abdul Basit instituted a suit for possession by partition, rendition of accounts of the rents and mesne profits and recovery of the amount found due on rendition of accounts. The suit was filed against 13 defendants.(2) There was a common ancestor of the plaintiff and defendants 1 to 8. His name was Hafiz Karim Baksh. He died in the year 1904. One of his sons was Sheikh Abdul Haq who died in 1922 possessed of an undivided 1/6th share in the estate which he held as tenant in common with the other heirs of his father. On his death this undivided share was inherited by his widow Mst. Kulsum-un-Nisa and his son Sheikh Mohd. Daud in moiety of 1/8th and 7/8th respectively. There was another son of Hafiz Karim Baksh, Sheikh Hafiz Abdul Khaliq by name. The plaintiff and defendants 1 to 9 are the sons, daughters and the widow of Hafiz Abdul Khaliq. In 1916, a suit was instituted for partition of the estate of the common ancestor Hafiz Karim B...
Ram Parkash Kapur Vs. Bhagwanti
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-11-1972
Reported in: ILR1973Delhi255; 1972RLR137
S.N. Shankar, J.(1) Aggrieved from the decision of the Rent Control Tribunal dated November 24, 1971 that an order under sub-section (1) of section 15 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958, hereafter called 'the Act', could be passed by the Controller on the basis of prima fade evidence indicating the existence of relationship of landlord and tenant, the tenant Ram Parkash Kapur, hereafter called 'the appellant' filed second appeal No: 306 of 1971 in this Court. The learned single Judge, before whom this appeal came for hearing, having regard to the fact that the question affected a large number of cases, referred the appeal for decision by a larger Bench. By the same order, the Tribunal also held that in the facts of this case rent for the period claimed by the respondent Bhagwanti Devi was not barred by time. This finding has also been assailed in this appeal. It appears that Bhagwanti Devi had also filed an appeal before the Tribunal which the Tribunal accepted by the same order. Aggr...
Sunil Kumar Vs. Roshanlal and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-09-1972
Reported in: AIR1973Delhi241
1. This judgment will dispose of two cross-appeal. F. A. O. 24-d of 1966 and F. A. O. 80-d of 1966 directed against judgment of the Motor Accidents claims Tribunal. which have arisen in the following circumstances:2. On August 14, 1964 Sunil Kumar herein referred to as 'the appellant' who at that time was six years of age, was involved in an accident with a Dtu bus, bearing registration No. Dlp 251. owned by the Municipal Corporation of Delhi. respondent No.2. and Delhi Transport Undertaking (now Delhi Transport Corporation) herein referred to as Respondent No. 3' which at the time of the accident was driven by the driver, respondent No.1. The accident took place at about 11.45 a.m. on the East Park Road, Karol Bagh, New Delhi as a result of which the appellant received serve injuries and was rushed to Willingdon Hospital New Delhi where his right leg above the knee had to be amputated The appellant filed his claim though his next friend. his father. M. L. Dhingar, for a sum of Rs. 50,...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »