Delhi Court November 1972 Judgments
Chaman Lal Chawla Vs. Mohd. Shati
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-30-1972
Reported in: ILR1973Delhi870; 1973RLR25
P.S. Safeer, J. (1) Preferred under section 39 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, Act 59 of 1958, here-in-after called the Act, this appeal is directed against the order made by the Rent Control Tribunal on the 3rd May, 1969. The relevant circumstances pertaining to this appeal may be noticed. An application was filed against the present appellant under section 14 of the Act seeking his eviction. The applicants were Mohd. Shafi and Mst. Hajra Bi. In paragraph 3(a) of the application the names and addresses of the applicants were described. In paragraph 3(b) thereof the name and address of the present appellant was cited. The eviction was sought on the ground contained in section 14(l)(a) of the Act. Concluding that the present appellant was not coming forward to contest the application of eviction in spite of service, he was proceeded against exparte. On the 11th June, 1965 the statement of the one of the applicants Mohd. Shafi was recorded and on its basis an order of eviction was made ag...
Tag this Judgment!Sewa Nand Vs. Appellate Officer and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-29-1972
Reported in: AIR1973Delhi228; 9(1973)DLT159; 1973RLR124
V.S. Deshpande, J.(1) House property bearing municipal No. VII/3033/5598-5610, G B. Road, Delhi was acomposite evacuee property in which one-third share was vested in the Custodian Evacuee property and two-thirds share in the various nonevacuee co-owners. Under section 10 of the Evacuee Interest (Separation) Act, 1951, the separation of the interest of evacuees from those of claimants in composite properly, namely, the co-owners of the twothirds share in the property, could be made in four different ways, namely:- (1)Purchase of the non-evacuee share by the Custodian ; (2) Transfer of the whole property to the non-evacuee sharers ; (3) Sale of the whole property and distribution of the sale proceeds between the Custodian on the one hand and the non-evacuee sharers on the other hand; (4) Partition of the peoperty according to the shares of the evacuee and the non-evacuee sharers ;and lastly, by combination of all or some of the above methods. Rule 11B of the Evacuee Interest (Separation...
Tag this Judgment!Ashok Kumar Vs. L. Faqir Chand and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-28-1972
Reported in: AIR1973Delhi232
ORDER1. This petition arises out of a suit filed on 14th December, 1953. by the present petitioner. On the same date he filed an application under Section 20(b) of the Civil Procedure Code for permission to sue the defendants at Delhi. The application was dismissed by the Trial Court and the impugned order, for the reasons give therein, did not reverse the order of the trial Court and it was held by the Additional District Judge that the suit was such that it should not be allowed to be continued in Delhi.2. In order appreciate the contentions raised before me it may be noticed that the petitioner Ashok Kumar filed the suite disclosing through the pedigree-table given in paragraph 2 of the plaint that he was the son of defendant No.6 Munshi Ram and that defendants 3, 4, and 5 were his real brothers. Defendant No.1 Faqir Chand belonged to the other branch of the family and so did his brother Banwari Lal defendant No.2. The plaintiff came to Court with the allegations that he was a membe...
Tag this Judgment!S. Gulab Singh Vs. Union of India and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-28-1972
Reported in: AIR1973Delhi231
ORDER1. This Writ Petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution challenging the order of the Land Acquisition Collector dismissing the application of the petitioner to make a reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act. on the ground that the dismissal of the same on account of limitation is contrary to law and was made without giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.2. It is not disputed that the name of the petitioner is not shown as owner in the revenue records. The Land Acquisition Collector had made the award in December. 1958 and the application of the petitioner to make a reference under Section 18 was made on 8-2-1962 (copy of which is Annexure A to the Writ Petition). He has mentioned there in that no notice either under Section 9 or Section 12(2) of the Act was served upon him an that only less than a month prior to the application he came to know that his land was acquired. The petition is sought to be resisted n the ground that no notic...
Tag this Judgment!Shanker Das Vs. Delhi Administration
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-28-1972
Reported in: 1973RLR21
S. Rangarajan, J.(1) The petitioner was convicted under Section 302 Indian Penal Code . and sentenced to life imprisonment by the Court of Session on 19-3-1968. He bad filed an appeal against the said conviction in 1968 itself which was finally disposed of on 2-11-1970 modifying his conviction into one under Section 325 Indian Penal Code . ; the sentence was reduced from rigorous imprisonment for life to 7 years rigorous imprisonment only. (2) A Notification was issued by the Delhi Administration under Section 401 Criminal Procedure Code . on 27-9-1959 giving certain remissions to persons whose convictions had become final ; this was not, however, to apply, among others, to persons whose appeals were then pending in courts against their convictions. The apparent object of such an exclusion was that the Administration did not wish to interfere with cases which were pending in courts as against convictions which had not become final and thus at least seem to interfere with matters pendin...
Tag this Judgment!Siri Kishan Talwar Vs. Jawahar Singh Bikram Singh Private Limited
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-24-1972
Reported in: ILR1973Delhi696
S. Rangarajan, J.(1) The applicant, Srimati Sharda Talwar, is the widow of Kishan Talwar who died on 22-2-1972 pending Company Petition No. 90 of 1967, which was instituted in this Court under sections 397 and 398 of the Companies Act. She herself having been imp leaded as a respondent in C.P. 90 of 1967 with whose consent the petition was filed, she wants to be transposed as a petitioner in place of her deceased husband. (2) This application is opposed on the ground that the petitioner's husband had claimed certain personal rights with regard to his appointment as Managing Director of the company which right could not be claimed by his widow on his death. Another objection is that she can only bring a fresh application under sections 397 and 398 of the Companies Act. Yet another objection raised is that the applicant and her husband have major sons who have not been sought to be imp leaded. (3) Shri Satish Chandra, learned counsel for the applicant, had made it clear that the applican...
Tag this Judgment!Municipal Corporation of Delhi Vs. Ram Murti and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-24-1972
Reported in: ILR1973Delhi791
R.N. Aggarwal, J. (1) Ram Murti and Pyare Lal respondents were tried in the court of Shri R.P. Punjab Magistrate First Class, Delhi. on the charge under Section 7 read with Section 16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. The trial Magistrate found both the respondents guilty of the offence charged with an sentenced the first respondent to rigorous imprisonment for six months and a fine of Rs. 1.000- and in default of payment of fine to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two months, and the second respondent to rigorous imprisonment for one year and a fine of Rs. 2.000.00 and in default of payment of fine to undergo rigorous imprisonment for four months. Both the respondents, dissatisfied with their conviction and sentence went in appeal to the Sessions Judge. The appeal was heard by Shri Muni Lal Jain. Addl. Sessions Judge, on 9th June. 1966. The learned Additional Sessions Judge allowed the appeal of both the respondents and quashed their conviction and sentence. The Municipal C...
Tag this Judgment!Raghbeer and anr. Vs. Shiv Kumar and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-24-1972
Reported in: ILR1973Delhi1115; 1973RLR62
Pritam Singh Safeer, J.(1) The counsel for the appellants assails the findings recorded in paragraph 14 of the impugned order and submits that as soon as the rent legally recoverable is deposited in. compliance with the order made under section 15(1) of the Act 59 of 1958, sub-section (6) of Section 15 comes into operation so as to cause a dismissal of the application for eviction filed under section 14(l)(a) of the Act. Sub-sections 15(1) and (6) bs noticed:- '15.(1) In every proceeding for the recovery of possession of any premises on the ground specified in clause (a) of the proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 14, the Controller shall, after giving the parties an opportunity of being heard, make anorder directing the tenant to pay to the landlord or deposit with the Controller within one month of the date of the order, an amount calculated at the rate of rent at which it was last paid for the period for which the arrears of the rent were legally recoverable from the tenant includi...
Tag this Judgment!Kedar Nath Vs. Monga Perfumery and Flour Mills Delhi-6
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-23-1972
Reported in: AIR1974Delhi12
1. This order disposes of I. A. S. 1032 and 1680 of 1972. The plaintiff has instituted a suit for permanent injunction restraining the defendant from infringing the plaintiff's registered trademark and copyright and from passing off his goods as those of the plaintiff. The plaintiff also claims rendition of accounts. The material facts as stated in the plaint are that the plaintiff is a manufacturer and seller of Dhoop and Agarbatti and is trading under the name and style of Mysorewala Sugandhit Dhoop Factory at Delhi. The plaintiff is manufacturing and selling dhoop under the trademark Sudershan that is in regular and continuous use since the year 1954. The plaintiff's trademark Sudershan is registered under the Trade and Merchandise Marks Act. 1958. The plaintiff also holds copyright registration relating to the artistic representation of its cartons pertaining to Sudershan Dhoop BATTI. It is alleged that by virtue of the aforesaid registration as well as by long and established user...
Tag this Judgment!N.K. Baslas Vs. Krishan Lal
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-23-1972
Reported in: 1973RLR14
V.S. Deshpande, J.(1) Landlord Krishan Lal let out his premises to tenant Baslas on an agreed rent of Rs. 250.00. It is not disputed that the tenant was using a telephone which was in the premises at the time of the lease and that the said telephone was removed from the premises by the landlord on 31st July, 1970. The tenant's plea is that the parties agreed that the landlord should charge only Rs. 175.00 as rent and that Rs. 75.00 from the agreed rent were agreed by the landlord to be reduced due to the loss of the telephone facility. The tenant also pleaded that the landlord had deprived him of the use of the rear courtyard and hand pump. The landlord has denied all this. The landlord filed a petition for eviction against the tenant on the ground of misuse of the premises and his own bona fide necessity for residing in them, namely, under clauses (c) and (e) of the proviso to section 14(1) of the Delhi Rent Control Act. (2) When eviction is claimed by the landlord on any ground other...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »