Delhi Court April 1972 Judgments
Atlas Cycle Industries Ltd. Vs. Hind Cycles Limited
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-28-1972
Reported in: ILR1973Delhi393
T.V.R. Tarchari, J. (1) This Regular First Appeal has been filed by Messrs Atlas Cycle Industries Ltd., plaintiff in Regular Suit No. 18 of 1958, on the file of the Court of the District Judge, Delhi, against the judgment and decree of the said District Judge, dated 27th November, 1961, dismissing the suit. The defendants in the said suit were Hind Cycles Ltd. (respondent 1) and the Registrar of Trade Marks, Bombay (respondent 2). (2) The appellant (plaintiff) is a company incorporated in 1950 under the Indian Companies Act, 1913, and has its registerd office at Sonepat (Punjab). Respondent (defendant 1) is also a limited Company incorporated under the Indian Companies Act, and it carries on business in the manufacture of cycles and cycle accessories at Bombay. Respondent 2 (defendant 2) is the Registrar of Trade Marks under the Trade Marks Act 1940. (3) The case of the appellant (plaintiff) was that in 1938, the firm of Messrs Janki Dass & Co., a partnership concern carrying on busine...
Tag this Judgment!Sat Pal Vs. Delhi Administration and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-28-1972
Reported in: ILR1972Delhi888
B.C. Misra, J. (1) This order will dispose of three Letters Patent Appeals Nos. 116, 127 and 136 of 1971 arising out of a common judgment of a learned Single Judge dated 25th March, 1971 by which the learned Judge has partly allowed the writ petitions. (2) The common question raised in these appeals is the true construction and effect of rule 13.4, 13.9 and 13.18 of the Punjab Police Rules 1934 (amended from time to time and applied to Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the rules). The rules have been framed under sections 7 and 12 of the Indian Police Act 5 of 1861 and have a statutory force. The material facts for the determination of the question of law are that all three appellants, namely, Sat Pal, Radhey Shyam and Balkar Singh, who were recruited as Constables, were promoted as Head Constables and confirmed as such. Later on, they were placed on what is known as List D framed under rule 13.1 read with rule 13.9. Head Constables placed on this list are eligible for promotion to the...
Tag this Judgment!Jagan Nath Vs. Abdul Aziz and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-28-1972
Reported in: AIR1973Delhi9; 9(1973)DLT108; 1972RLR80
V.S. Deshpande, J.(1) After the prayer of the landlords Abdul Aziz and Mohammad Usman (respondents herein) for the eviction of the tenants Gyan Chand and Neb Raj from the premises in dispute was disallowed and standard rent was fixed at Rs. 100.00 per month at the instance of the tenants by the trial Court, Civil Appeal No. 321 of 1954 was filed by the landlords. On 3!st Dec'mber, 1954 the counsel for the tenants stand as follows :- the tenants would be paying rent at Rs. 166.00 per month. The disputed premises were in the occupation of Daulat Ram Dogal Mal and Jagan Nath as sub-tenants and Neb Raj as tenant. The tenants undertook not to bring into the premises any new sub-tenants either in place of the present ones or otherwise. Counsel for the landlords stated that he accepted the above statement of the counsel for the tenants. In view of the above statements, the appellate Court passed a decree in favor of the landlords for Rs. 1650.00 (at the enhanced rate of rent) in place of a de...
Tag this Judgment!The Public Trustee Vs. A. Rajeshwartyagi and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-27-1972
Reported in: AIR1972Delhi362; [1973]43CompCas371(Delhi)
V.S. Deshpande, J.(1) The question which arises for decision is whether this appeal is maintainable to this Division Bgnch as being from 'the judgment' of a learned Single Judge of this Court under clause 10 of the Letters]Patent of the High Court of Lahore or of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana or of the High Court of Delhi. (2) This Court was established by the Dslhs High Court Act, 1966 (hereinafter called the Act.). Section 5(1) of the Act continued the 'original, appellate and other jurisdiction' exercised by the High Court of Punjab in the Union territory of Delhi prior to the coming into force of the Act. Section 5(1) of the Act, on the other hand, conferred on this Court ordinary original civil jurisdiction in every suit the value of of which exceeded at first Rs. 25,000.00 and since 1/10/1969 Rs. 50,000.00. Before the commencement of the Act, this jurisdiction vested in the subordinate courts at Delhi. For, the High Court of Punjab did not have ordinary original civil juri...
Tag this Judgment!Municipal Corporation of Delhi Vs. Moti Lal
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-27-1972
Reported in: 1972CriLJ1536; 8(1972)DLT394
Prakash Narain, J. (1) This judgment will dispose of Criminal Appeals No. 41 of 1967 and No. 71 of 1967 preferred by the Munici- pal Corporation of Delhi by special leave against the acquittal of Moti Lal son of Bishamber Sahai, Khari Baoli, Delhi. The respon- dent, Moti Lal was prosecuted under section 7 read with section 16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 under two challans for storing khoa for sale which was adulterated. The trial Magistrate convicted him in one case by an order dated 17th October, 1966 and sentenced him to pay a fine of Rs. 1000.00 and to undergo impri- sonment till the rising of the Court. In the second case, an applica- 31-R (1972) Ii Delhi Municipal Corporation Of Delhi v.MOri Lal 337 lion was moved by the respondent under section 403 of the Criminal Procedure Code to the effect that since he had been convicted and sentenced in one case for storing for sale khoa on the basis of a sample taken on 22nd October, 1965, a second trial for the same of...
Tag this Judgment!Union of India Vs. Rishi Raj and Co., Delhi
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-26-1972
Reported in: AIR1973Delhi15
1. The respondent therein M/s. Rishi Raj and Company filed an application in the Court of the Subordinate Judge, 1st, Class, Delhi, under Section 20 of the Indian Arbitration Act, 1940 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) for referring certain disputes between the respondent and the appellant to arbitration of the arbitrator named in the agreement dated 5-11-1963. According to the averments in the application, the Regional Director (Food), Northern Region, had issued an invitation to tender dated 21-9-1963 for the appointment of loading/unloading and transport contractors at Government of India Godowns and Railway Heads at Agra. The tender submitted by the respondent was accepted by the government by its letter of acceptance dated 11-10-1963. The respondent commenced the work but before the work was completed and before the expiry of the period of the contract, the Regional Director (Food) cancelled the contract on 25-6-1964. The Regional Director further claimed a sum of Rs.21,314.15 ...
Tag this Judgment!Ambujam Vs. T.S. Ramaswamy
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-26-1972
Reported in: AIR1973Delhi46; 8(1972)DLT292
Prakash Narain, J.(1) This appeal under clause 10 of the letters patent is directed against the judgment of a learned single Judge of this court, whereby accepting the appeal of the respondent herein, the petition of the appellant herein for judicial separation under section 10 the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (hereinafter called the Act) was dismissed. (2) The appellant and the respondent are Hindus who were married at Delhi on 2nd May, 1960. After their marriage, they resided together for some time as husband and wife at Delhi as well as Chittor. The respondent thereafter went to Madras in November 1960 and it is claimed by him that he had gone there to study law. The appellant was left behind at Delhi. In December 1961 the appellant was taken to Madras by her step-mother to the house of the respondent who was residing at No. 60 Bhaktavatsalam Nagar in Madras. After staying for some time in Madras the step-mother came back leaving the appellant with respondent. The appellant claims that ...
Tag this Judgment!Jai Kishan Balkishan and anr. Vs. M.B. Kagal and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-26-1972
Reported in: 8(1972)DLT422
ORDER2, Rule 2(1) Civil Procedure Code only requires that the plaintiff shall include the whole of the claim which be is entitled to make in respect of the cause of action in every suit. It does not, thereforee, seem to require that the landlord must plead in the same eviction petition all the grounds available to him under the various provisions to section 14(1) on the date of the filing of the petition for eviction. But Explanationn Iv to section 11 is stricter than Order 2, rule 2(i)Civil Procedure Code. According to Explanationn Iv to section 11 'any matter which might and ought to have been made ground of defense or attack in such former suit shall be deemed to have been a matter directly and substantially in issue in such suit. The principles underlying the provisions of the Civil Proceedings under the Act in view of rule 23 of the Rules made there under and section 37(2) thereof 'Thus, it clear that section 11 is quite different from Order 2, Rule 2 of the Code. As I have said i...
Tag this Judgment!Wazir Singh and anr. Vs. O.P. Kapur
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-25-1972
Reported in: 8(1972)DLT407
Dalip K. Kapur J. (1) This is a revision against an order passed by the Subordinate Judge in a suit based on a Hundi for the recovery of 3,600.00, which was brought under the provisions of Order 37 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The impugned order gave the defendants leave to defend the suit on furnishing security for an amount of Rs. 4,000.00 which had to be furnished by 2nd February, 1972. The order in question gave leave to defend because execution of the Hundi as well as receipt of consideration was denied. The suit was also claimed to be barred by time. The Subordinate Judge has given no reasons why the defendants have been called upon to furnish security.(2) It is well-settled that leave to defend may be given either conditionally or unconditionally. If a triable issue is disclosed, then the Court has discretion to give leave either conditionally or unconditionally. If conditional leave is given some Explanationn must be forthcoming as to why conditions have been imposed. The or...
Tag this Judgment!Nestle's Products Limited and Anr. Vs. Milkmade Corporation and Anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-25-1972
Reported in: AIR1974Delhi40; ILR1973Delhi203
S. Rangarajan, J. (1) The Plaintiffs-Appellants, Nestle's Products Limited, instituted a suit on 23-11-1971 and also filed an application under Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 and S. 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure for a temporary injunction against the defendants (Messrs Milkmade Corporation & Anr). Shankar Lal (defendant No. 2) is supposed to be carrying on the business of the first defendant either alone or in association with other persons in the following circumstances. (2) Plaintiff No. 1 is Nestle's Products Limited, a company registered under the laws of the Bahama Islands and the second Plaintiff, Nestle's Products (India) Limited though registered under the laws of the Bahama Islands has its principal place of business in India at New Delhi. (3) Plaintiff No. 1 is the registered proprietor of the following among other trade marks registered in India in respect of goods mentioned in class 29 of the classified list of goods in the Fourth Schedule of the Trade and Merchandise Marks Rule...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »