Delhi Court November 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.
Krishan Lal and anr. and Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-12-1973
Reported in: 1974RLR54
P.S. Safeer, J.(1) This judgment will dispose of Cr. A. No. 158. and 164 of 1972. The first has been filed by Krishan Lal and Bal Krishan. .The appellant in Cr. A. No. 164 is Ishwar Dutt in respect of whom the allegation is that he gave the knife blow to Public Witness Harbhajan Singh. (2) The prosecution case may best be seen in the light of statement of Public Witness 3 who received knife injury. He stated that on 13-11-71 at about 930 a.m. he Along with his brother Inder Singh was going to Naraina from Ramesh Nagar. He was driving car No. Dle 8065. When the car reached block No. 8 in Ramesh Nagar they found that on one side of the road a taxi was standing while on the other was lying a cot. Four persons including three appellants were seen standing there. The deposition, is :- 'ALLthe accused persons present in Court were standing in the centre of the road. I blew my horn, but the accused did not move away from the place. the He proceeded to state that Mohan Singh and'ian Singh PWs ...
Matter of the Contempt of Court Vs. D.B. Vohra and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-12-1973
Reported in: ILR1974Delhi466
S.N. Andley, C.J. (1) Certain incidents happened in the Court of Mr. Ravi Kumar, Subordinate Judge 1st Class, Delhi, on August 17, 1973 involving his reader (Chander Mohan), D. B, Vohra, Bishan Dayal Gupta, Advocates and their client, Vinod Sethi. Publicity was given to these incidents in the daily newspapers whereupon, to ascertain the basis for the report in the newspapers, I, in my capacity as Chief Justice of this Court, asked the Registrar of this Court to request the District and Sessions Judge, Delhi, to record the statement of the subordinate Judge concerned. Such statement was recorded on August 25, 1973 and it was forwarded by the District and Sessions Judge to this Court. When the matter was placed before me in Chambers on August 30, 1973, I passed the following order:- 'ISSUEa notice to S/Shri D. B. Vohra and Bishan Dayal, Advocates and Shri Vinod Sethi to show cause why they should not be punished for contempt of the Court of Shri Ravi Kumar Sub-Judge 1st Class, Delhi, as ...
Lachhman Singh Etc. Vs. C.D. Taneja Etc.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-11-1973
Reported in: 1974RLR80
B.C. Misra, J.(1) This revision petition has been filed u/s 115, C.P C. against the order of the Subordinate Judge dt. 11-9-72 by which he has granted leave to the petitioners to defend the suit in respect of a part of the amount claimed in the suit while it has refused leave in respect of another part. The suit was instituted by Narain Dass Babar, plaintiff who is respondent No. 2 herein It was instituted against the petitioners and one Bhagwant Singh who was defendant No. 2 and who has since been given up by the plaintiff. Mr. C.D. Taneja first respondent in the revision (the original holder of the promissory notes) was defendant No. 4 in the suit. The plaintiff instituted the suit on the allegations that defendant 1, 2 and 3 executed two pronotes in favor of defendant No. 4; one being dated 15th November, 1968 for a sum of Rs. 1,800.00 and the other dated 22nd November, 1968 for a sum of 2,500.00. It was alleged that the defendants had paid Rs. 950.00 towards debts which had been ad...
N. K. Private Ltd. Vs. Hotz Hotels (P) Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-06-1973
Reported in: ILR1974Delhi500; 1974RLR153
P. N. Khanna, J. (1) This appeal is directed against the order dated April 3, 1973 of the learned single Judge, by which he dismissed with costs the appellant's application under Rules 4 and 9 of order 9 and section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, praying for a review of the order dated January 17, 1973 dismissing the appellant's suit and for the restoration and proceeding with the suit. (2) The appellant filed his suit on November 24,1969. On July 27 1972 Mr. S. N. Kumar, Advocate, appeared in court and stated that the brief had been taken away from him by his client. He, thereforee, asked for permission to withdraw from the case. This prayer was granted by R. Sachar J. and Mr. Kumar was allowed to withdraw. As the appellant was no longer represented by a counsel, notice was ordered to be issued to him for August 10, 1972. Service, however, could not be effected on the appellant for one reason or the other till on October 19, 1972, on which date the appellant appeared in court. Th...
Bhagwat Dayal Sharma Vs. the Union of India and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-06-1973
Reported in: ILR1974Delhi847
S.N. Andley, C. J. (1) This writ petition came up for admission before us on September 18, 1973 when we issued notices to the respondents to show cause as to why it be not admitted. Replies to show cause notices have been filed by some of the respondents. The question which has been urged on behalf of the respondents is that the petitioner has no locus standi to file this petition. Because the question relates to the maintainability of the writ petition, we heard it at length and reserved judgment. (2) The petitioner is Mr. Bhagwat Dayal Sharma. He has disclosed his interest in filing this petition in paragraph 1. He has stated that he is a citizen of India, a tax-payer, a member of the Rajya Sabha (Council of States) representing the State of Haryana and a former Chief Minister of the State of Haryana. He, thereforee, states that he is 'thus vitally interested to see that powers vested in any Minister in the State are not abused for self aggrandisement and the Administration of the St...
Jaintendra Kumar Aggarwal Vs. Lakshmi Kant Mukt.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-05-1973
Reported in: 1974CriLJ1140; ILR1974Delhi295; 1974RLR167
S.N. Shankar, J. (1) The question referred to the full bench for decision is whether the Rent Control Tribunal while dealing with an application under sub-section (4) of section 38 of Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (hereinafter called 'the Act') is a 'Court' for purposes of clause (b) of sub-section (1) of section 195 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and a 'Civil Court' within the meaning of section 476 of the said Code. (2) Jaintendra Kumar, appellant filed an application for eviction against the respondent Lakshmi Kant Mukt under section 14 of the Act. While the application was pending, the respondent applied under section 38(4) for transfer of the case (jaintendra Kumar Aggarwal v. Lakshmi Kant Mukt) from Shri D. C. Aggarwal, Controller, Delhi before whom the application was pending to some other Additional Controller for trial. In paragraphs (5) and (7) of the transfer application and the affidavit filed in support of it he made certain allegations casting aspersions on Shri D. C. A...
Sukhdev Raj Nanda and anr. Vs. P.D. Ahuja
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-02-1973
Reported in: ILR1974Delhi681
Safeer, J. (1) This order will dispose of the application filed by Shri P. D. Ahuja, respondent in R.F.A. 21-D of 1963 under section 114 read with order 47 rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Code, urging that the judgment and decree dated the 30th of July, 1973 made by this Court, be reviewed. It is conceded in paragraph 1 of the application that the appeal was argued at length before us and then disposed of. The ground urged, however, is that the sale certificate issued in favor of the appellants i.e.. Ex. P.1 did not at all confer any title because it was not registered as required by section 17 of the Indian Registration Act. (2) The counsel for the applicant emphasises that it was a matter in issue as to whether the plaintiffs were the owners of the premises in dispute or not and the sale certificate Ex. P. 1 having not been registered it should have been held by us while disposing of the appeal that the appellants were not the owners of the property and thereforee not entitle to the re...
Savatri Devi Vs. Bhure Mal
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-02-1973
Reported in: ILR1974Delhi385
S.N. Andley, C.J. (1) This revision is directed againtst an order dated April 6, 1967 of the Subordinate Judge 1st Civil Delhi, rejecting the petition Filed by the petitioner in fornut iwnperh. Tle reasons for rejection of the petition were two-fold-(1) that the petition had not been presented personally by the petitioner as required by rule 3 of Order Xxxiii of the Code of Civil Procedure and (:) that the petitioner had failed to establish that she was a pauper.(2) The Rules and Orders of the Punjab High Court still govern the procedure to be adopted in the subordinate Courts. For this purpose instructions to the civil Courts relating to their general jurisdiction and administration are contained in Volume 1. Chapter I-M has dealt with special features of certain classes of cases including suits by paupers. It is provided in rule 2 of Chapter l-M(e) that before a pauper suit is admitted, the petitioner or his authorised agent, when the applicant is exempted from appearance in Courts s...
Prakash Roadlines (Pvt) Ltd. Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-02-1973
Reported in: ILR1974Delhi516
V.S. Deshpande, J. (1) The Terminal Tax Agency demanded from the petitioner on 23-7-1973 terminal tax of Rs. 157.38 livable on the goods brought into Delhi by the petitioner. The goods had been previously seized as having been brought into the Union territory of Delhi without payment of terminal tax. A penalty of ten times the amount of terminal tax was also, thereforee, demanded from the petitioner. On failure to pay the tax and the penalty within five days, the petitioner was told that the goods would be sold at its risk and responsibility. The legality of the demand of the tax as well as the penalty is challenged by the petitioner under the following circumstences. Tax (2) Under Entry 52 of List Ii of the Seventh Schedule of the Constitution, a State legislature is competent to legislate about 'taxes on the entry of goods into a local area for consumption, use or sale therein'. Under Article 246(4) of the Constitution, Parliament has power to make laws with respect to any matter for...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- Next ›