Delhi Court November 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.
Risal Singh and ors. Vs. Indraj
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-10-1972
Reported in: 10(1974)DLT61; ILR1973Delhi538
Dalip K. Kapur, J.(1) This is an application to set aside the ex parte decision arrived at by me in R. S. A. 155-D/65. The respondent was unrepresented at the time of the hearing of the appeal on 11th October, 1971. I noted even in the judgment at that time, that defendant has not been served in spite of many efforts by the postal authorities. (2) The respondent applied for setting aside the ex parte decision of the appeal and for a rehearing of the same by an application, C.M.I 102/ 72. Although the application has been moved very late, it slates that the respondent only heard about the ex parte proceedings on 29th July, 1972 when the successful appellants sought to execute the decree. It is contended by the successful appellants in their reply, that the respondents were aware of the proceedings in October, 1971. No date or time has been mentioned in the reply nor is the manner or method of conveying the decision of this court to the respondent mentioned in the affidavit. I consider t...
Holomal Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-09-1972
Reported in: AIR1973Delhi238
ORDER1. This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by one Holomal. resident of Quarter No. 54. Dwarka Nagar Colony, Jabalpur, State of Madhya Pradesh. This petition is concerned with the allotment and transfer of the said quarter No. 54 under the provision of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1954. The petitioner was a claimant whereas the other occupant of the quarter, Shri Hirdho Mal, respondent No. 4 was a non-claimant. The relevant rules for transfer of this property were contained in the Displaced Persons (Compensation & Rehabilitation) Rules. 1955, in Rules 30 and 31. As the rules originally existed, the petitioner was entitled to get the transfer of the property between cause the property was allottable property. and the petitioner was the only claimant in the said property. It may be recalled that the provisions of Rule 30 were changed from time to time but as long as that rule existed every amendment of the rule would favor the...
Anaro Devi Vs. Shanker Nath and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-07-1972
Reported in: AIR1974Delhi17
1. This is an appeal by defendant No. 1 to a suit instituted by respondent Shankar Nath on the 16th of August, 1961, and is directed against the, lower appellate Court's decree dated the 9th of January. 1963.2. Respondent No. 1, through his suit against the appellant and five others, sought a declaration that the mortgage deeds mentioned in Para 10 (a) and (b) of the plaint and preliminary decree and the final decree passed on their basis in suit No. 3813 of 1957 were void, ineffective and inoperative against property No. 674, Gali Ghanteshwar Maharaj, Katra Neel, Chandni Chowk, Delhi, and the said property was not liable to be sold in execution thereof.The foundation of the suit filed by respondent No. 1 was that he along with the husband of defendant No. 2 and father of defendants 3 to 6 had been appointed a co-trustee in respect of the properties mentioned in paragraph 3 of the plaint the -property in suit being house No. 674, Gali Ghanteshwar Maharaj, Katra Neel, Chandni Chowk, Del...
Lakbir Singh Vs. Bakhat Singh and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-03-1972
Reported in: AIR1973Delhi225
1. Shri Bakhat Singh and other trading as Sardar Trading Company (hereinafter referred to as the respondents) applied to the Restart of Trade Mark consisting essentially of the device of a tiger and the word 'TIGER' in English in class 25 in repeat of shoulder pads. M/s. Fancy Shoulder Pad Makers (hereafter in referred to as the appellants) filed opposition to the said application. The opposition to the swain application. The opposition was based upon the proprietors of a registered trade mark consisting for the device of a lion in class 25 in respect of shoulder pad in the Union Territory of Delhi and that the adoption of the appellant's trade mark by the respondent was dishonest. The Assistant Registrant while holding that the proposed trade mark of the respondent was likely to device the public into believing that the proposed trade mark of the respondent was the same as that the appellant inasmuch as both the words 'Lion' bad 'Tiger' were known in Urdu. Hindi and Punjabi as 'Sheer'...
Municipal Corporation, Delhi Vs. Ganpat Ram
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-03-1972
Reported in: 1973RLR58
R.N. Aggarwal, J.(1) The facts and circumstances giving rise to this revision petition are that on 25th May, 1967, at about 6.00 A.M., Food Inspector Shri S L.Malik visited the premises of Bharat Dairy Farm situated at 3-UA, Jawahar Nagar, Delhi. The respondent Ganpat Ram was the owner of the business 'Bharat Dairy Farm'. The Food Inspector disclosed his identity and purchased 660 ml. of cow's milk from the respondent on payment of 70 Paisa as its price for the purpose of analysis. The Food Inspector divided the sample in three parts and poured it in three clean and dry bottles. The Food Inspector added 18 drops of Formalin in each bottle and sealed the bottles. One part of the sample was sent to the public Analyst one part was given to the accused and the third part was retained by the Food Inspector. The Public Analyst analysed the sample on 26th May, 1967. On receipt of the report of the Public Analyst, the Municipal Prosecutor filed a complaint under section 7/16 of the Prevention ...
Prina Chemical Works and ors. Vs. Sukhdayal and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-03-1972
Reported in: ILR1974Delhi545
Avadh Behari, J. (1) This is a defendants' appeal against the order of the Additional District Judge dated September 29, 1970.(2) The material facts for the decision of this appeal may briefly be stated thus:SUKHDAYALand his two sons Gurbachan Singh and Harbans Singh instituted a suit on December 21, 1959 against (1) M/s. prina Chemical Works, (2) M/s. Natha Singh Pritam Singh, (3) Surjit Brothers and its partners. The only surviving partner is defendant No. 6. The other two partners (defendants 4 and 5) had died during the pendency of the suit in the trial court.(3) The allegations of the plaintiffs as laid in the plaint are as follows- The plaintiffs are the partners of the business styled as 'M/s. Sukhdayal and Sons' and they carry on their business at Delhi. One Haji Ehsan Elahi, proprietor of the firm Haji Shamsul Haq and Sons was carrying on business at Fatehpuri Bazar, Delhi as manufacturing chemist. He was the proprietor of the trade mark 'Sun Brand Hair Dye 929'. On July 7, 19...
Aftab Ahmed Etc. Vs. M. Abdul Kadir
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-03-1972
Reported in: 1973RLR4
T.V.R. Tatachari, J. (1) These two Regular Second Appeals (Nos. 284-D and 28 5-D of 1966) have arisen out of the same suit and can, thereforee, be disposed of by a common judgment. (2) Aftab Ahmed and Zaki Ahmed filed a suit, No. 314 of 1964, in the Court of Shri Prem Kumar Jain, Subordinate Judge IInd Class, Delhi, for the eviction of five defendants, defendants 1 to 5 in the suit, from House No. XIII/995, situatedin Mohalla Kishan Ganj, Teliwara, Delhi. The said house was evacuee property acquired by the Central Government under section 12 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1954, and formed a part of the common pool. According to the plaintiff., the said property was directed to be transferred to them by the Government and a part of the consideration was realised from them. No sale certificate, however, was issued in their favor as the full consideration for the transfer had not yet been paid. The plaintiffs alleged that with effect from July 24, 1962. pr...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- Next ›