Court : Delhi
Reported in : 1973CriLJ1273; 8(1972)DLT340
P.S. Safeer, J. (1) This revision petition is in consequences of a report submitted by Shri J. D.Jain. Additional Sessions Judge, Delhi, under Section 438 of the Criminal Procedure Code, recom- mending that the order dated the 20th of July 1970, passed by Miss Rewa Lal, S.D.M. Delhi, be quashed and that Munshi Ram, who was the petitioner before him, be declared as having been in possession of the land in dispute on the date when the preliminary order under section 145(1) of the Criminal Procedure Code (hereinafter called 'the Code'') was passed and within two months preceding that date. (2) Shri Ram Kishan, A.S.I. Kalkaji submitted a report dated the 5th of October, 1968, to the S D.M. of the area detailing the allegations made by Shri R G. Anand and stating that there was apprehension of breach of peace between the parties on account of a dispute concerning agricultural land. The S.D Ml dealing with the report passed two orders Ob 10th of October, 1968, which are:- 'CALLboth the parti...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : 8(1972)DLT402
Hardayal Hardy, C.J. (1) This petition under Section 99-B and Section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been placed before a Special Bench of three Judges pursuant to Section 99-C of the Code. The petitioner's case is that the Lieutenant Governor Union Territory of Delhi, issued a notification bearing No. F. 2 (16-2)/70 Chg on 16th June, 1970 which was published in the Delhi Gazette No. 25, Vol. Iv, dated 9th July, 1970 at page 662. This notification was issued in purported exercise of power conferred by Section 99-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, hereafter referred to as the Code, on the Lieutenant Governor of Delhi, whereby an issue of the book 'Liberation' a monthly organ of All-India Co-ordination Committee of Communist Revolutionaries for the month of December 1969 (Vol. 3) which was printed at Pragati Printers, 59-A Bechu Chatterjee Street, Calcutta-9, edited and published by Shri Nirnai Ghose from 60-A Keshab Chander Sen Street, Calcutta-9, containing certain passa...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : 1973CriLJ1249; ILR1972Delhi829
Hardayal Hardy, J.(1) This judgment will dispose of a criminal appeal and two criminal revisions. The appellant in Criminal Appeal No. 68 of 1967 is Chaman Lal Monga who was complainant in the case. He is also petitioner in Criminal Revision No. 107 of 1967. The respondent in the appeal and the criminal revision is Haji Sabar Ali who is also petitioner in Criminal Revision No. 157 of 1967. The respondent in that criminal revision is the State. (2) Haji Sabar Ali was tried by a magistrate for an offence under Sections 497 and 498 Indian Penal Code and was awarded a sentence of two years R.I. and fine of Rs. 1,000.00 for an offence under Section 497 Indian Penal Code and a sentence of one year R.I. and a fine of Rs. 1,000.00 for an offence under Section 498 Indian Penal Code . In default of payment of fine under both the counts he was ordered to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for a period of three months each. Both the sentences of imprisonment were ordered to run concurrently. Ou...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : AIR1973Delhi34
1. This execution second appeal has been preferred by the decree holder against the appellate order of the Additional Districts Judge dated 18th March 1971 by which the learned Judge has affirmed the order the learned Judge dated 14th August 1970 upholding the objections of the judgment -debtor that the dearness pay allowed to him to the government was exempt for attachment in execution of the decree. The appellant obtained a decree for sum of Rs.2,720/- besides costs against the judgment -debtor on 6th March 1969 and thereafter he took our execution and proceeded to attach the salary of the judgment debtor employed in the Electrical and Mechanical officer Workshop of the Government at a Safdarjang Airport New Delhi. His basic pay was Rs.233/- and dearness pay Rs.110/- and Rs.36/- a was dearness allowance. Besides he was getting city compensatory allowance of Rs. 27.44 and house rent allowance of Rs./51.45 and children allowance of Rs. 50/- making a total of Rs.507.89.2. There is no di...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : AIR1973Delhi141
S.N. Andley, J.(1) This revision is directed anoints the order dated April 5, 1969 of the Subordinate Judge 1st Class. Delhi, by which he 'ranted to respondent No. 2 (original defendant No. 2) unconditional leave to defend suit No. 151 oi 1969 which had been filed by the petitioners oil the foot of three dishonoured cheques under Order 37 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Defendant No 1 in the suit was M/s. Arora Brothers of which G. D. Arora. defendant No. 2, was alleged to be the proprietor. The plaint in this suit was presented on February 6, 1969. The allegation in the plaint was that the petitioners had supplied certain goods to the respondents at New Delhi in respect of which three cheques had been given by the respondents which on being presented to the bankers were returned with the remarks 'refer to drawer'. (2) On or about February 10. 1969, the petitioners filed an application under Order 39. rules I and 2 and section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure referring to the suit an...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : ILR1972Delhi913
B.C. Misra, J. (1) As a result of the combined competitiveexamination for Indian Administrative and allied central services held in September, 1952, the four petitioners, who have filedthis writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, wererespectively placed at positions Nos. 152, 161, 178 and 191. AThe petitioners were found eligible for appointment in the IndianIncome Tax Service Class I but since 150 (and according to the petitioners 151) persons were selected for appointment, the petitioners were not absorbed in the said service and they wereoffered the posts of Income-Tax Officers in Class Ii Grade Iii (which have a lower pay scale) and the petitioners state thatsimilarly placed candidates had been informed that their acceptanceof the offer would not prejudice their case for being consideredfor appointment in Class I service. 'The petitioners joinedClass Ii service in 1954 and at present Shri Jhingan and SbriBraham Dev Sethi, petitioners Nos. 1 and 3 are serving as Income-...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : AIR1972Delhi221
JUDGMENT:- 1. The question for determination is whether the appellant has succeeded in establishing that he was a tenant and could as such institute the suit, out of which this appeal has arisen. The appeal is directed against the decree dated the 19th of January, 1966, made by the Additional District Judge, Delhi, by which the plaintiff's appeal against the dismissal of his suit by the trial Court was dismissed. 2. The appellant instituted a suit on the 27th of February, 1963, describing himself in the heading of the plaint:- "Shri Jawala Singh s/o. Sardar Bhagwan Singh Prop. Amrit Transport Co., Premises No.4693 to 4696-A Roshnara Road, Subzi Mandi, Delhi (six)." Two defendants were imp leaded to the suit, but the plaint was amended later on and the amended plaint dated the 10th of August, 1963, shows that Haji Mohd, Naqi was added as defendant No.3. The suit was filed on the allegation that the appellant acquired the premises Nos.4693 to 4696-A, Roshan Ara Road, Subzimandi, Delhi, a...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : ILR1972Delhi535
B.C. Misra, J. (1) This order will dispose of two regular second appeals No. 254-D of 1963 filed by the New Delhi Municipal Committee against Ishwar Dass Sahni and Brothers relating to Odeon Cinema and No. 179 of 1967 filed by Regal Theatre, New Delhi against the New Delhi Municipal Committee. The question of law raised in both the appeals is the same and relates to the virus of sub-section (2) of section 61 of the Punjab Municipal Act Iii of 1911 as applied to Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the Act). (2) The decision of the lower appellate Court in the first mentioned appeal was against the Municipal Committee and, the decision of the lower appellate Court in the second mentioned appeal was in favor of the Committee. (3) On 31st March, 1956, the Municipal Committee, while considering the budget estimates, proposed to levy an advertisement tax and required detailed proposals to be submitted, , 11th May, 1956, the Committee constituted a special Sub-Committee to examine the proposal ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : AIR1974Delhi56; 9(1973)DLT139
ORDER1. This petition under Articles 226/22 of the Constitution of India by Shri V. Motwani has arisen In the circumstances. The petitioner, Shri S. V. Motwani was in the service of Central Government in the Ministry of Works Housing and Supply from 1942 to IV64. On 1st August 1964. the Petitioner was allotted a portion of requisitioned house No. 3 Maharajah Lane Delhi. while the petitioner was working as Executive, Engineer. Delhi State Division No. 1. C. P. W. D. New Delhi., under the control of the Delhi Administration. On 14th September 1959, the Delhi Administration vide letter dated 14th September 1959, copy of which is Annexure R-1, required the petitioner, to vacate the requisitioned premises No. 3. Maharajah Lane. within two months, on the ground that he had been transferred from the Delhi- Administration and in accordance with the standing instructions of the Administration any person transferred,, from the Delhi. Administration is not entitled to retain residential accommoda...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : 1973CriLJ512; ILR1972Delhi189
P.S. Safeer, J.(1) The short question for determination as contained in the referring order is as to whether the Controller functioning under the provisions of Act 59 of 1958 is a Court within the meaning of section 195(1)(b) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. This judgment will, along with the reference dispose of Criminal Miscellaneous (Main) No. 45 of 1971.(2) The petitioner has moved this court under section 561(A) of the Criminal Procedure Code (hereinafter called 'the Code') for quashing the proceedings pending against him before respondent No. 2. The allegations in the petition are that having obtained the permission of the competent authority the petitioner-landlord applied for the eviction of his tenant Hari Chand and obtained the eviction order dated the 4th of December, 1968, against which the appeal taken to the Rent Control Tribunal was dismissed on the 9th of February, 1970. He then took out execution proceedings. Hem Chand, respondent No. I to this petition along with hi...
Tag this Judgment!