Delhi Court February 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.
Sudershan Kumar Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-13-1973
Reported in: AIR1974Delhi119
S.N. Shankar, J. (1) On May 17, 1971, Sudershan Kumar Kalra filed this writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution praying that the following orders of the Collector of Excise, respondent No. 4, Lieutenant Governor, Union Territory of Delhi, respondent No. 2 and Commissioner of Excise, respondent No. 3 be quashed: 1.Order dated October 9, 1969 passed by the Collector of Excise holding that the L-2 license mentioned in the petition was individual property of respondent No. 6, Kishan Lal Kalra; 2. Order dated March 31, 1971 passed by the Collector of Excise determining the said license for non-renewal; 3. Order dated April 1, 1971, passed by the Lieutenant Governor sanctioning the issuance of fresh L-2 license in favor of Kishan Lal Kalra ; and 4. Order dated April 6, 1971 passed in appeal by the Commissioner of Excise.(2) He has also prayed in clause (b) of the prayer clause that a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other writ or directive or order be issued directin...
Mahadev Daya Ram Vs. Union of India
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-13-1973
Reported in: 1973RLR174
B.C. Misra, J. (1) Petitioner and his brothers were displaced persons. They had a dispute about property left in Pakistan which they settled by an award on 159.49 and then got the same made rule of court. The judgment gave the names of their father and forefathers. Petitioner then got his claim verified under the D.P. (Claims) Act 1950 on 4.12.52 which was not disputed for a long time. The authorities desired to review it in 1964 U/S 5(1)(b)-of the D, (Claims) Supplementary Act, 1954. Petitioner was served with notice to show cause on 9.3.64 at Hyderabad asking him to appear in Delhi on 12.3.64. He did not appear and it seems that receipt indicating his service did not reach office and matter was adjourned to 24.364. On latter date ex-parte order was passed against the petitioner by the Additional Settlement Commissioner. The petitioner claiming that he came to know of the order on 6.6.64 filed an appeal after obtaining copy of the order. 'Same was dismissed as barred by time. He then ...
In the Matter Of: Mahadev Dayaram, (Andhra Pradesh) Vs. the Union of I ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-13-1973
Reported in: 9(1973)DLT346
B.C. Misra, J.(1) This writ petition is directed against the order of the Chief Settlament Commissioner dated 17th August, 1964 (Annexture ' 6 ') as well as the order of the Addilional Setilement Commissioner dated 24th March, 1964 (^nnexture 4). (2) The facts giving rise to the dispute are that the petitioner is a displaced person from West Pakistan. There was some dispute between him and his brothers with regard to their interest in the properties left bebind in Pakistan. This was settled by an award dated l5ih September, 1949 which was made a rule of the Court by the High Court of Bombay by judgment and decree dated 2nd February, 1951 (Annexure 1). This annexure gives the names of the parties along with their fathers names. The learned counsel for the petitioner urges that from this decree, it can, inter alias be inferred that Mahadev petitioner was the son of Day a Ram and agrandson of Mehta Ram and great grandson of Wadhu Mal and that the names of the other sharers can also be fou...
Son Pal Vs. General Manager, Northern Railway, New Delhi and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-12-1973
Reported in: ILR1973Delhi875
V.S. Deshpande, J. (1) The two questions arising in this case for decision relate to- (1)Whether the Government can restrict the right of a Government servant to apply for another post and if so, to what extent? And (2)Whether the Government can take into consideration the past record of a Government servant before permitting him to take up another post for which he has been selected and recommended by a Service Commission and if so, whether a hearing should be given to the Government servant concerned by the Government before taking final decision in this respect? (2) The petitioner is a Guard in the Northern Railway and is a Law graduate. He applied for a post of a Law Assistant in the Northern Railway in response to an advertisement by the Railway Service Commission which required that 'serving Government employees may send their applications on the prescribed form direct to the Railway Service Commission if they anticipate delay in routing the application through their department ...
Chandgi Ram Vs. Shri Ram Phal and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-09-1973
Reported in: 9(1973)DLT297; 1973RLR242
P.S. Safeer, J. (1) This petition is directed against the acquittal of the respondents by the Judicial Magistrate, First cases. New Delhi recorded in terms of his Judgment, dated the 8 1972. February, (2) Chandgi Ram who along with Jagdish suffered the injuries allegedly on the 15th of Septemper, 1968 has invoked the jurisdiction provided by section 439 of the Criminal Procedure Code, hers after called 'the Code,' sub-section (4), where in is :- 'S. 439(4) Nothing in this section applies to an entry made under section 273, or shall be deemed to authorise a High Court to convert a finding of acquittal into one of conviction. '(3) The State can make the choice of filing an appeal against an acquttal. Where such an appeal is preferred it would be the apellate jurisdiction which will be called in. Sub-section 4 is intended to impose the limitation which arises out of the precise distinction between the appellate and revisional jurisdiction. Howsoever, sup-section (1) of section 439 of the ...
Nepal Knitting and Weaving Mills Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-09-1973
Reported in: 9(1973)DLT168
V.S. Deshpande, J. (1) The first petitioners in this and the connected writ petition (C. W 509 of 1972) are foreign companies registered in Nepal. The second petitioners in both of them are directors of these companies who are Indian citizens. India and Nepal entered into a treaty of trade and transit in 1960 for a period of five years which was renewed for a further period of five years till October 1970 and was then extended till December 1970. Article 14 of the said Treaty is as follows :- 'Subject to such exceptions as may be mutually agreed upon goods originating in either country and intended for consumption in the territory of the other shall be exempt from the customs duly and other equivalent charges as well as from quantative restrictions.'After the Treaty, the two Governments had further trade talks which were incorporated in the Memorandum of Understanding. Clause 12 thereof was as follows :- 'The two Delegations consulted with each other in regard to the difficulties exper...
Amar Singh Vs. Union of India
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-09-1973
Reported in: AIR1974Delhi34; 9(1973)DLT384; 1973RLR181
B.C. Misra, J.(1) This is a revision petition filed by the petitioner against the order of Shri J. N. Verma, Additional District Judge Delhi dated 29th January, 1968. (2) The material facts giving rise to the revision are that an award was announced on 7th of January 1963. The petitioner Amar Singh Claimant No. 17 did not accept the award and on 15th February, 1963 filed an application for reference being made to the Court under section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act. Thereafter he received the amount of compensation without endorsing a protest on the receipt of the amount. The Additional District Judge on receipt of the reference issued notices to the parties. The Union of India raised an objection in respect of the- petitioner (Amar Singh claimant No. 17) that since he had accepted the compensation without protest, his name may be deleted from the reference petition, as his claim for enhancement could not be entertained. This objection prevailed with the court below and hi name was d...
Arya Datt Etc. Vs. State Etc.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-08-1973
Reported in: 10(1974)DLT353; 1973RLR228
P.S. Safeer, J. (1) This petition has come up in consequence of an order passed by an Additional Sessions Judge, Delhi in exercise of the power given by section 438 of the Criminal Procedure Code, hereafter called 'the Code'. (2) The petitioners who moved 'S.145(I).Whenever a District Magistrate, Sub-Divisional Magistrate or Magistrate of the first class is satisfied from a police- report or other information that a dispute likely to cause a breach of the piece exists concerning any land or water or the boundaries thereof, within the local limits of this jurisdiction, he shall make an order in writing, stating the grounds of his being so satisfied, and requiring the parties concerned in such dispute to attend his Court in person or by pleader, within atime to be fixed by such Magistrate, and to put in written statements of their respective claims as respects the fact of actul possession of the subject of dispute (and further requiring them to put in such documents, or to adduce, by put...
Municipal Corporation of Delhi Vs. Ved Parkash
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-08-1973
Reported in: 1974CriLJ189; 9(1973)DLT293; 1973RLR255
D.K. Kapur, J.(1) The Municipal Corporation of Delhi filed a complaint against Ved Parkash under Section 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, in respect of Kabli Ghana Sabat, which was stored for sale at shop No. W-Z 798, Ganesh Pura, Delhi. A sample taken on 17th December, 1966 by the Food Inspector, Jamuna Pershad, was sent to the Public Analyst, who as per his report, Exhibit Pf, was of the opinion that the sample was unfit for human consumption on account of infestation to the extent of 100 percent. The complaint was tried by Shri C. R. Negi, Magistrate First Class, Delhi, who dismissed the same on the ground that the Food Inspector who took the sample had a financial interest in the D.M.C. Employees Co-operative Stores Pvt. Ltd., Delhi' and was consequently disqualified to be a Food Inspector because of the proviso to Section 8 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954. The merits of the prosecution case were not dealt with. Against that decision the Munic...
Municipal Corporation of Delhi Vs. Anand Sarup
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-08-1973
Reported in: 1974CriLJ192
Pritam Singh Safeer, J.1. This petition preferred under Sections 435/439 of the Criminal Procedure Code is moved against the order dated the 20th of January, 1971. Respondent Anand Sarup had been convicted by the trial Court under Sections 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 and sentenced to 6 months' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1,000/-. A complaint had been filed against him alleging that he was found on the 26th of February 1970 selling Dal Bhiji (coloured) and 600 grams of it were purchased by the Food Inspector. On analysis it was found that the Dal Bhiji which was being sold by the respondent was adulterated due to the presence of artificial coal tar dye.2. The respondent and his counsel did not challenge the conviction and submitted before the Addl. Sessions Judge that the respondent be given the benefit of the provision contained in the Probation of Offenders Act. For the reasons stated by him in his order made on the 20th of January, 1971 the Addl....
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »