Delhi Court January 1973 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.
Dharam Singh Vs. Lila Gurcharan Singh and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-22-1973
Reported in: 9(1973)DLT311
R. Sachar, J.(1) This is anappeal preferred by the surety against the order date 154 1971 of the Sub Judge 1st Class, Delhi dismissing suretys objections. One Gurcharan Singh, who is now represened by his legal representatives as respondents Nos. 1 to 3 to the present appeal, filed a suit against one Ajit Singh, respondent No. 4 herein, under Order 37 Civil Procedure Code for recovery of Rs 21,800.00. The trial Court on 7.9.1966 permitted the defendant Ajit Singh to defend the suit on his depositing in cash by way of security the suit amount plus Rs. 2,000.00on account of costs. Defendant Ajit Singh, however, was not satisfied with the order and filed a revision petition being Civil Revision No. 145 D/66 in this Court. An interim order was passed staying the proceedings in the trial Court subject to the condition that the defendant would furnish security to the satisfaction of the trial Court. In pursuance of the order, Dharam Singh appellant furished security of two properties (which ...
Municipal Corporation Vs. Mohd. Kareem
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-22-1973
Reported in: 1974CriLJ572; 1973RLR259
D.K. Kapur, J.(1) Food Inspectors, Shanti Lal and L.R.Bhatt, took two samples of, what was alleged to be., Kala Zeera (black Cumin) from Mohd, Kareem at premises NO. 1890 Gali Behram Beg, Andewla Godown, Delhi, on 12th April, 1965 These samples were divided into three parts and one part was sent to the Public Analyst, who gave report dated 20th April, 1965, holding that both samples were adulterated. It is unnecessary to reproduce the reprots. The Municipal Corporation of Delhi instituted a complaint against the said Mohd. Kareem. A charge was farmed against the accused stating that he had stored Kala Zeera (Black Cumin) for sale from which two samples had been purchased for analysis which were found to be adulterated : which Showed the commission of an offence under section 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954. (2) At the trial, the accused made an application for sending the samples for exmination by the Central Food Laboratory, Calcutta. The Laboratory gave a report...
State Vs. Prem Sarup Purl
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-22-1973
Reported in: ILR1973Delhi803
S. Rangarajan, J. (1) This judgment will not only dispose of Cr. Rev. 224 of 1972 but also Cr. Writ 20 of 1972 both preferred by Prem Sarup Puri; Cr, Revision 265 of 1972 has been preferred by the State. (2) The Hon'ble the Chief Justice has constituted this Bench for hearing the above on a reference made by one of us (Ansari. J.). (3) The facts alleged by the prosecution may be briefly stated. One Ravi batra of Simla had applied in response to an advertisement in the Hindustan Times in the winter months of 1966. for the post of an Executive .in an eminent international organisation, care of a certain Post Box Number: he was called for an interview and interviewed by Prem Sarup Puri (hereinafter called 'Puri') at his residence in defense Colony, New Delhi, some time in February. 1967. Puri advised Ravi Batra to apply for a passport as the post would entail travel abroad. Ravi Batra accordingly applied to the Regional Passport Officer. New Delhi and also addressed a letter authorising P...
C. Lyall and Company Vs. B. Union of India and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-22-1973
Reported in: ILR1973Delhi905
H.L. Anand, J. (1) This order will dispose of issue No. 1 which was ordered to be tried as a preliminary issue. The issue is in the following terms:- 'WHETHERthe objections are within time? If so, is the objector entitled to condensation of delay '?'It is obvious that there is a typographical error in the phraseology of the issue because on the issue, as at present worded, if the objections are within time, the question as to the objector's entitlement to condensation of delay would not survive. It further appears that the issue was intended to be: whether the objections are within time and if not, is the objector entitled to condensation of delay. I, thereforee, reframe the aforesaid issue as follows :- 'WHETHERthe objections are within time? If not, is tile objector entitled to condensation of delay?'The issue has arisen in the following circumstances: (2) The petitioner is a partnership firm and claim to have executed the work of strengthening of existing runway and construction of ...
Pratap Chand JaIn Vs. Bibbo Devi
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-22-1973
Reported in: 1973RLR442
B.C. Misra, J. (1) This defendant's second appeal has been filed against the judgment and decree of the Additional District Judge, Delhi, dated 20th July, 1966 by which he has dismissed the appeal and maintained the decree of the Court of first instance dated 13th August, 1965 decreeing against the defendant-appellant the suit of the plaintiff for recovery of rent/ damages for use and occupation for the period from 1st September, 1958 to 8th November, 1958 at the rate of Rs. 16 per month and for the period from 9th November, 1958 to 31st July 1961 at the rate of Rs 31 per month. (2) The facts giving rise to the dispute are that the appellant was a tenant in respect of the premises in dispute situated in Kucha Lattu Shah, Dariba Kalan, Delhi on a contract rent of Rs. 22.50 per month. Lachhoo Mal, the previous owner of the property, on 30th August, 1954, instituted a suit aginst the appellant herein for eviction and recovry of rent at the rate of Rs. 22.50 per month from 1st January, 195...
G.R. Luthra Vs. the Administrator of Delhi and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-19-1973
Reported in: ILR1973Delhi591; 1973RLR139
P.N. Khanna, J. (1) The only question involved in this case was whether a person holding the post of an Additional District and Sessions Judge in temporary or substantive capacity, was a member of the cadre of the higher judicial service of District & Sessions Judges. According to the petitioner, such a person becomes a member of that cadre only on confirmation. It was on this ground that he claimed seniority over respondents Nos. 2 to 4. The respondents contested this claim. (2) The seniority has to be determined in accordance with Rule 6(3) of the Delhi Higher Judicial Service Rules, 1960, wherein occurs the word 'cadre'. This word is not defined in the said Rules; nor is it defined in the Punjab Superior Judicial Service Rules, 1963, which, as amended, are applicable to the State of Haryana as well. In order to interpret the word 'cadre', we examined Fundamental Rules in force from January 1, 1922 together with various Government decisions and orders given in December 1936, which ha...
V.P. Gulati Vs. Sumitra Soni
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-19-1973
Reported in: 9(1973)DLT307
Rajinder Sachar, J. (1) The question that arises in these proceedings is whether after interim rent has been fixed by the Rent Controller under section 15(2) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (hereinafter called the Act) which is less than the agreed rent as alleged by the landlord, it is open to the landlord to file a suit for the balance of the amount during the pendency of proceedings before the Rent Controller and as to when the limitation would start for the recovery of the difference of the amount between the interim rent and the agreed rent.(2) On 18.1.1964 the respondent-landlord filed an application for eviction of the appellant from the premises in dispute on the ground of bonafide need. An application under Section 15(2) of the Act was filed on 20. 8. 1964 for orders directing the tenant to deposit the arrears of rent which was alleged to be Rs. 125.00 p. m and due from 1.4.1964. The tenant- appellant raised the plea of standard rent and the Rent Controller by his order da...
Vidyawanti Vs. Taken Dass and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-19-1973
Reported in: ILR1974Delhi835; 1974RLR23
V.S. Deshpande, J. (1) Since we are concerned primarily with the construction of section 25 and secondarily with that of subsections (1) and (4) of section 50 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (hereinafter called the Act) it would be best to begin by reading these provisions which are as follows:- '25.Vacant possession to landlord.-Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law, where the interest of a tenant in any premises is determined for any reason whatsoever and any order is made by the Controller under this Act for the recovery of possession of such premises, the order shall, subject to the provisions of section 18, be binding on all persons who may be in occupation of the premises and possession thereof shall be given to the landlord by evicting all such persons there from : Provided that nothing in this section shall apply to any person who has an independent title to such premises. 50. Jurisdiction of civil courts barred in respect of certain matters.-(1) Save as other...
Sanni and ors. Vs. Sada Nand and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-18-1973
Reported in: AIR1974Delhi99
1. In this case, the only question that has arisen for consideration is whether the landlord after obtaining an order of eviction against his tenant, who dies subsequent to the passing of the said order against him, cannot have it executed against his legal representatives.2. On behalf of the legal representatives of the deceased, who are the appellants before me, it is contended that they are not the tenants and, thereforee, the Additional Controller had no jurisdiction to execute the eviction order against them, as the Act, according to them, is confined to disputes between landlords and tenants alone.3. The contention of the appellants is unfounded. Under Section 25 of the Delhi Rent control Act, herein called 'the Act' the Controller has been given specific jurisdiction, notwithstanding anything contained in any other law, to execute such an order against all persons, who may be in occupation of the premises and to evict them there from. The executing arm of the Controller has not ...
Parchoon Dookandar Association Vs. Municipal Corporation
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-18-1973
Reported in: 1973RLR186
P.S. Safeer, J.(1) This judgment will dispose of six criminal revisions No. 391 to 396 of 1972, which have been placed before me in consequence of an order made by Shri R.K.. Sinha, Additional Sessions Judge, Delhi in exercise of the jurisdiction given by Section 438 of the Criminal Procedure Code. (2) Mr. Manohar Lal Gupta, Assistant Municipal Prosecutor instituted six complaints under Sections 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1951, hereafter called 'the Act' against the six petitioners who have filed these petitions, (3) In the course of the proceedings injtiated by the complaints, applications were moved before Sh. B. L. Anand, Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class raising the grievance that the complaints had been incompetently and illegally instituted by an unauthorised person and deserve to be dismissed as such. It was contended on behalf of the petitioners that the complaints against them could have been instituted only within the strict scope of Section 20 (1) of the A...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »