Delhi Court March 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.
Nihal Singh Vs. the Union of India
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-08-1972
Reported in: 8(1972)DLT386
T.V.R. Tatachari, J.(1) This Civil Revision has been filed by Nihal Singh, plaintiff in Misc. Suit No. 1318 of 1966 on the file of Shri B.K. Agnihotri, Subordinate Judge, 1st Class, Delhi, against an order of the said Subordinate Judge, dated 14th October, 1971, made under section 161-B of the Delhi Land Reforms Act. (2) The petitioner, Nihal Singh, filed a Suit, No. 92 of 1962, on 15th February, 1962, in the Court of Shri Hukam Chand Gupta, Subordinate Judge, Delhi, against the Gaon Sabha of village Jhuljhuli, Delhi State. The said suit was decreed on 18th May, 1962, declaring Nihal Singh as the owner of the land in suit. The Union of India thereupon filed an application under Section 161-B of the Delhi Land Reforms Act for setting aside the decree. The Union of India alleged in that application that the land in suit was not cultivated nor included in the holding of Nihal Singh or he predecessor-in-interest during the fasli year ending 30th June, 1954. The applica(3) On those pleading...
Om Parkash Vs. Lachhman Dass and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-08-1972
Reported in: 8(1972)DLT382
T.V.R. Tatachari, J.(1) This petition has been filed by a tenant, 0m Parkash, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, against an order of the Financial Commissioner, Delhi (Annexure H), dated 2nd April, 1970, whereby the Financial Commissioner set aside an order of the Competent Authority under Slum Areas (Improvement and Clearance) Act, 1956, passed on 28th August, 1959 and granted permission to the landlord to proceed with the execution of a decree for eviction obtained against the tenant (2) The petitioner, 0m Parkash, is a tenant under respondent 1, Lachhman Dass, in respect of a bullding bearing Municipal No. 6894, Gali Mian Sahib, Beriwala Bagh, Ward No. Xiii, Delhi-6, on a monthly rent of Rs. 3.00. Respondent 1 filed eviction proceedings against the petitioner under clause (e) of the proviso to sub-section (1) of section 14 of the Delhi Rent Control Act (59 of 1958) and obtained an order of eviction in respect of the aforesaid premises. On 7th June, 1967, respondent 1, a...
Brij Mohan Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-07-1972
Reported in: ILR1972Delhi213
Hardayal Hardy, C.J. (1) Brij Mohan who was a young man of 18 or 19 years of age was tried along with two of his companions, namely, Krishan Kumar and Naresh Kumar for the murder of one Subhash Chander of the same locality. Brij Mohan was also tried for the offence of possession of an un-licensed spring actuated knife. All these persons including the deceased Subhash Chander were residents of Krishan Nagar Delhi. Subhash Chander himself was also a young man of about 22 years of age while the companions of Brij Mohan were of a much younger age. Jagdish Nigam who was the fourth accused, was so young that he was separately tried under the Children's Act while the other persons including Brij Mohan were tried by an Additional Sessions Judge. (2) The Additional Sessions Judge held that the charge against Krishan Kumar and Naresh Kumar had not been proved beyond reasonable doubt and thereforee ordered their release, but so far as Brij Mohan is concerned it was held that he was guilty of an o...
G.R. Bhargava and Sons and ors. Vs. Brij Mohan Sharma
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-03-1972
Reported in: AIR1972Delhi242
ORDER1. This Civil Revision has been filed by M/s. G.R.Bhargava & Sons and four others against the judgment of Shri D.R.Khanna, Additional District Judge, Delhi, dated 26th August, 1968, affirming an order of Miss. S.Mehta, Sub-ordinate Judge, 1st Class, Delhi, dated 6th September, 1967, rejecting the objections and making on award, dated 24th November, 1965, a rule of the Court. The sole respondent in the Civil Revision is Brij Mohan Sharma.2. The parties mentioned above entered into a partnership to carry on paper merchant business, and a deed of partnership, dated 9th February, 1958, was executed. It was provided in paragraph 9 (iii) of the deed that if any differences arose between the parties in connection with the business, the same should be referred to arbitration by arbitrators to be appointed with the consent of both the parties, and that the decision of the arbitrators should be final. Subsequently, disputes arose between the parties, and a suit for dissolution of the firm a...
Balbir Singh Vs. All India Finance and Commerce Ltd. and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-03-1972
Reported in: 9(1973)DLT53
T.V. R. Tatachari, J. (1) This Civil Revision has been filed by Balbir Singh against the judgment of Shri M. L. Jain, Additional District Judge, Delhi, in Misc. Civil Appeal No. 241 of 1965, dismissing the said appeal and thereby affirming the order of Shri H. S. Bakshi, Subordinate Judge, 1st Class, Delhi, dated 29th March, 1965, whereby the learned Subordinate Judge dismissed the objections filed by Balbir Singh and passed a decree in terms of an award.(2) The petitioner, Balbir Singh, entered into a hire purchase agreement with respondent I, Messrs All India Finance and Commerce Ltd, on 1st February, 1962. One Koja Singh was the guarantor. The agreement contained a term to the effect that any matter of difference arising out of the said agreement shall be referred to the sole arbitration of one Shri Chet Ram Mittal, Advocate. Disputes arose between the parties, and the same were referred by the Company to the arbitrator, who made an award in favor of the claimant-company on 6th Nove...
Sarbjeet Vs. Sahu JaIn Trust
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-03-1972
Reported in: ILR1973Delhi123
Pritam Singh Safeer, J.(1) This appeal is directed against the order dated the 15th of October, 1971, by which a learned Single Judge of this Court while granting leave to the appellant to defend the suit filed against him by the respondents under Order 37, rule 2 of the Civil Procedure Code, required that the appellant may appear, file his written statement and defend the suit on furnishing adequate security for the amount in suit to the satisfaction of the Registrar of this Court. It is urged that leave to defend should have been given unconditionally. (2) The respondents filed a suit for the recovery of Rs. 2,50,000.00 as the principal amount and Rs. 74,257.54 P. as interest against the appellant on the 6th of March, 1971. The claim was based on three pro-notes executed on the 7th of March, 1968, 11th of March, 1968 and 29th of April, 1968, by the appellant in favor of the respondents for Rs. 1,00,000.00, Rs. 1,10,000.00 and Rs. 40,000.00 respectively. By his letter dated the 7th of...
In the Matter of Globe United Engineering and Foundary Co. Ltd. Vs. th ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-03-1972
Reported in: ILR1972Delhi288
S. Rangarajan, J. (1) The interesting question that falls for decision in this application is whether a Liquidator appointed in the course of voluntary winding up whose remuneration was fixed (at Rs. 3,000.00) could apply for revising the said remuneration on the ground that the voluntary winding up, without supervision of the Court, has since come under the supervision of the Court. The Registrar of Companies has pleaded in bar of the application, section 490 of the Companies Act, which reads as follows: '490.Power of company to appoint and fix remuneration of Liquidators-(1) The company in general meeting shall- (a) appoint one or more liquidators for the purpose of winding up the affairs and distributing the assets of the company; and (b) fix the remuneration, if any, to be paid to the liquidator or liquidators. (2) Any remuneration so fixed shall not be increased in any circumstances whatever, whether with or without the sanction of the Court. (3) Before the remuneration of the liq...
Municipal Corporation of Delhi Vs. Kishan Lal
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-03-1972
Reported in: ILR1972Delhi296
Hardayal Hardy, C.J. (1) Some interesting questions of law were raised by the respondent's counsel in this appeal against acquittal which was brought on special leave having been granted to the appellant under Section 417(3) Criminal Procedure Code. The appeal arises in respect of an offence punishable under Section 7 read with Section 16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954. The respondent was convicted for having used un-permitted colour in coloured bundi of which a sample was purchased by the Food Inspector on 25-4-1966. He was sentenced to imprisonment till the rising of the Court and to pay a fine of Rs. 800.00. In default of payment of fine, it was directed that he shall under-go six month's simple imprisonment. The offence having taken place after the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 was amended the minimum sentence of imprisonment which the magistrate could award, was six months' R.I. and thereforee the Municipal Corporation of Delhi filed a revision petiti...
inder Mohan and ors. Vs. the State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-03-1972
Reported in: 1972CriLJ1569; 8(1972)DLT213
M.R.A. Ansari, J.(1) The petitioners along with 33 other persons are undergoing trial in the Court of Addl. Sessions Judge, Delhi for offences under sections 120-B, 420, 465 466, 467, 468 471 and 511 Indian Penal Code Petitioners 2 to 5 along with 34 others have been commitled to the Court of Sessions by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Delhi by his order dated 12th September, 1968.. The first petitioner herein Inder Mohan was absconding at that time and was apprehended later and thereforee he was committed to the Court of Session by the learned Magistrate by a separte order dated 3rd March, 1971. The trial of the accused already committed by the order dated 12th September, 1968 was proceeding and a number of witnesses had already been examined. After petitioner No. 1 Indar Mohan, was committed, the learned Additional Sessions Judge started a denovo trial of all the accused including the first petitioner and so far 106 prosecution witnesses had been examined. At this stage, th...
The Management of Khanna Industrialtrading Corporation, Delhi-51 Vs. I ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-03-1972
Reported in: 8(1972)DLT446; (1972)IILLJ429Del
Sachar, J. (1) An industrial dispute between the management and the workmen being reference No. 67 of 1969 was referred to and is pending since 1969 before the Additional Industrial Tribunal, respondent No. 2. up to the month of January, 1971 the management was represented by Mr. R.K. Bhaskar. On 25th January, 1971 Mr. K.B. Rastogi, Advocate appeared on behalf of the management when some evidence was taken. On the next dates which were 8th February, 1971, 17th February, 1972 and 2nd March, 1971. Mr. Rastogi was ill and applied for adjournment signing himself as representative for the management. After further hearings the matter again came up for hearing on 6th April, 1971. On that day adjournment was sought from respondent No. 2 on the ground that Mr. Rastogi was engaged in the High Court. The adjournment was opposed by the Union but the Tribunal adjourned the matter to 7th June, 1971 on payment of costs. Mr. Rastogi however, did not appear on 7th June, 1971. On the next hearing i.e. ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »