Court : Delhi
Reported in : 9(1973)DLT44; 1973RLR279
Dalip K. Kapur, J.(1) This is a Regular Second Appeal arising from a suit brought by Ram Mehar against his sister Shrimati , Dakhan, to claim a declaration that the order dated 26th September, 1958 passed by the Revenue Officer, Mehrauli, sanctioning mutation No. 812 in the name of the plaintiff and the defendant in equal shares, was illegal and void and that the plaintiff alone was entitled to the whole land. As a consequential relief an injunction was sought to restrain the defendant from interfering with the plaintiff's possession of the land in dispute. It may be mentioned that the land, consisting of 3/4th share in 166 Bighas, 19 bids was of agricultural land situated in village Ravta, was held by Kishan Sahai, the father of the plaintiff and defendant as a Bhumidar. After the death of Kishan Sahai the afore- mentioned mutation was made by the Revenue Officer with respect to the land in the joint names of his son and daughter in accordance with the provisions of the Hindu Successi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : ILR1972Delhi769
Pritam Singh Safeer, J. (1) This judgment will dispose of S.A.O. No. 4 of 1971 and the reference made therein by my brother B. C. Misra, J. before whom the appeal came up for hearing on 30th March, 1971. (2) An application was filed by the respondent Shri Jai Dev Sharma under section 14 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (hereinafter called 'the Act') in paragraph 18 whereof he urged the following three grounds for seeking the eviction of the present appellants: - '(1)That the premises referred to in para No. 8 of the petition were let out to respondent No. 1 for residential purposes and neither he nor any members of his family are residing in the tenanted premises for more than six months. (2) That respondent No. 1 has acquired vacant possession of a residential accommodation in New Delhi and has shifted to that place. (3) That respondent No. 1 has without the previous written consent and approval of the petitioner sub-let, assigned or parted with the possession of the tenanted premi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : AIR1972Delhi228
ORDER1. This is an application for a writ under Article 226 of the Constitution brought by the two petitioners in relation to the two permits that they held for Auto Rickshaws which apparently they were plying for hire in Delhi. Petitioner No. 1 was holding permit No. Tsr - 3468 And petitioner No. 2 permit No. Tsr - 5776. These permits for contract carriage were due to expire in the case of petitioner No. 1 on 26th November, 1970 and for petitioner No. 2 on 5th November, 1970.2. The petitioner made separate applications for renewal of their permits, petitioner No.1 applied on 28th September, 1970 and petitioner No.2 on 29th September, 1970. Thus, petitioner No.1 made his application 58 days before the permit was due to expire and petitioner NO.2 made his application 37 days before it was due to expire. In accordance with the provisions of Section of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1939, as it originally stood before the amendment of 1969, these application were within time.3. It appears that bo...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : ILR1972Delhi269
Hardayal Hardy, C.J. (1) Several contentions have been raised by the petitioner in this civil writ petition challenging the order dated 9-6-1971 made by the President of India whereby an inquiry pending against the petitioner has been ordered to be continued and till the termination of such inquiry he has been directed to continue to remain under suspension. The contentions may be set out as under :- 1.Under Rule 10 (5) (b) the of Central Civil Services (Classification, control and Appeal ) Rules, 1965, which will hereafter be called the 1965 Rules, there cannot be continuation of suspension when the criminal proceedings which were previously pending against the petitioner have resulted in acquittal. 2. The proceedings having been taken under the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1957 hereafter called the 1957 Rules, could only be continued under those rules and not under the 1965 Rules. 3. The provisions of Fundamental Rules 53, 54, 54 (a) and 54(b) as...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : 8(1972)DLT229
V.S. Deshpande, J. (1) An application for revision preferred by Messrs. Navin Bharat (respondents herein) under section 24(l) of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act.. 1954 hereomafter called the Act) to the Chief Settlement Commissioner was dismissed by him by the impugned order elated 30th March, 1964 on the sole ground that it was presented after the expiry of 30 days which was the period of limitation prescribed for 'a petition for revision under the Act' by rule 104(1) of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Rules, 1955 (hereinafter called the Rules). A further revision against the order dated 30th March, 1964 was' dismissed by the Central Government on 1-7-1964. The writ petitions filed by the respondents against these orders was allowed and both these orders were quashed by the learned then Chief Justice of this Court who held that rule 104(1) purporting to prescribe a period of limitation of 30 days for filing a revision under section 2...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : AIR1972Delhi253; 9(1973)DLT279
ORDER1. This Civil Revision has been filed by Shrimati Kailash Kapoor and Ravi (Ruby) Kapoor, who are the wife and the son of Shri Nand Gopal, against the order of Shri Suresh Chand Jain, Sub-ordinate Judge, 1st Class, Delhi, dated 2nd March, 1970, on certain applications filed in Suit No.107 of 1966 on his file.2. The respondent herein, Naresh Chandra Misra, filed the suit No.107 of 1966, for recovery of Rs.5600/- against one Nand Gopal alleging that he had advanced Rs.5,500/- on a cheque that the same was not paid back, and that he, thereforee filed the suit for the recovery of the amount. During the pendency of the suit, the defendant Nand gopal died on 2nd February, 1967. The respondent (plaintiff) filed an application on 26th April, 1967, praying that Mrs. Nand Gopal, Kailash Kapoor, Vikram Kapoor, G.K.Kapoor, Smt. Rani and Shrimati Nami be imp leaded as the legal representatives of the deceased Kailash Kapoor, Vikram Kapoor and G.K.Kapoor were alleged to be the sons of the deceas...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : ILR1972Delhi154B; [1973]90ITR203(Delhi)
M.R.A. Ansari, J. (1) The assessed in this case is the Hamdard Dawa Khanna (Wakf) represented by its Mutawali Hakim Abdul Hamid. Up to 27th August 1948 the business styled as 'Hamdard Dawakhana' was carried on in partnership by Hakim Abdul Hamid, his brother Hakim Hafiz Mohd. Sayeed and their Mother Rabea Begum. By a Wakf deed dated 28th August 1948 the partners created a Trust in respect of the movable properties of the Hamdard Dawakhana. Under the terms of the Wakf deed the business income of the Hamdard Dawakhana of each year was divided into three portions, namely, (1) to be transferred to a Reserve Fund, (2) to be spent for charitable purposes, and (3) to be paid to the Mutawalis. The portion which was to be spent for charitable purposes was termed as Quami income and the portion which, was to be paid to the Mutawalis was termed the Khandani income. Rabea Begum died on 5-10-1949 and Hakim Hafiz Mohd. Sayeed was declared an evacuee with effect from 1-1-1948.(2) On 6-9-1950, Hakim A...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : ILR1972Delhi397
Prakash Narain, J. (1) This appeal under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent is directed against the judgment of Hon'ble Mr. Justice T. v. R. Tatachari issuing a writ quashing communication dated 28th June, 1969 from the Director-General of Technical Development, Government, of India to the Deputy Iron & Steel Controller (Exhibit L) recommending for rejection the application of respondent No. 1 for grant of an import license, the order dated 4th August, 1969 issued to espondent No.. I rejecting the import license application Ex. M), the communication dated 21st April, 1970 from the Director-General of ' Technical Development to the Deputy Iron & Stesi Controller recommending for rejection the application of respondent No. 1 for grant of an import license (Exhibit F), the order thereon dated 22nd June, 1970 (Exhibit G) rejecting the application for grant of import license, and the appellate order dated 24th November, 1970 (Exhibit 1); and the direction to the Director-General oS Technical D...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : AIR1972Delhi299
1. This is a Write Petition brought by Krishan Lal Suri, petitioner, to challenge the seizure of his arms license issued under the Arms Act, 1959 and also his shooting license granted under the Punjab Wild Birds Wild Animals Protection Act, 1933 as extended to Delhi. It appears that the petitioner holds a license under the Arms Act, which relates to (a) one single barrel gun, (b) a double barrel gun and (c) a rife. He also holds a license issued under the Punjab Wild Birds and Wild Animals Protection Act (hereinafter referred to as the Punjab Act). It appears that once a person has a license under the Arms Act. He is entitled to get a shooting license under the Punjab Act on the payment of a modest fee. The petitioner's license under the Arms Act was to expire on 12th November, 1971, but he made an application for renewal before this date and paid Rs. 66/- which was the prescribed fee. This is the fee for three years.2. From the facts disclosed in the Writ Petition, it appears that the...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : ILR1972Delhi25
Hardayal Hardy, C.J.(1) This appeal under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent is directed against the judgment of a learned Single Judge of this Court in Civil Writ No. 1694 of 1967 whereby the award made by the Labour Court on 15-7-1967 was confirmed by the learned Judge. (2) Some of the facts leading to this appeal were no doubt disputed by the parties but as the questions arising for determination in this appeal are based on un-disputed facts, we shall set out only those facts as to which the parties are in agreement. (3) The appellant. National Tin Manufacturing Company, is an establishment which is engaged in the manufacturing of tins and is registered under the Delhi Shops & Establishments Act, 1954. In March 1966 there were only six employees on its roll. The accounting year of the firm is April 1964 to March 1965. (4) In March 1966, Mohd. Arfin, who was imp leaded as respondent No. 2 and was an employee of the firm, filed a claim that due to accident he had l'een permanently disabl...
Tag this Judgment!