Delhi Court April 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 Chand Vs. Union of India, Ministry of Rehabilitation and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-10-1973
Reported in: 9(1973)DLT451
B.C. Misra, J.(1) The pentioner in this petition- preferred a claim for verification of land situated in Mansehra, District Hazara, N.W.F P. This was verified by Shri H. L Kapur, Claims Officer on 30th October, 1952 and be valued it as situated within the municipal limits of Mansehra Mr. K. L. Wason, Additional Settlement Commissioner, reviewed (r)he order suo motu and by his order dated 11th January, 1965 held that the land in dispute was situated in a rural area and so he revived the verification and assessed it in standard acres. (2) Aggrieved by this order, the petitioner Sled a revision bifore Shri Rajni Kant, Settlement Commissioner with delegated powers of the Chief Settlement Commissioner, which was dismissed by him by order dated 30th September, 1965. The petition of the petitioner before the Central Government was dismissed by order dated 25th November, 1965 on the ground that Bo revision under section 33 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabiliation) Act lay since...
Ghasita Ram Bajaj Vs. Raj Kamal Radio Electronic
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-09-1973
Reported in: 9(1973)DLT471; 1974RLR205
V.S. Deshpande, J.(1) Order xxxvii rule 3 Civil Procedure Code read as follows :- '3. Defendant showing defense on merits to have leave to appear-(1) The Court shall, upon application by the defendant, give leave to appear and to defend the suit, upon affidavits which disclose such facts as would make it incumbent on the holder to prove consideration, or such other facts as the Court may deem sufficient to support the applcation. (2) Leave to defend may be given unconditionally or subject to such terms as to payment into Court, giving security, framing and recording issues or otherwise as the Court thinks fit.'(2) Rules 3 (1) lays down two sets of circumstances the existence of either of which would entitle the Court to give leave to appear and to defend the suit. The defense must disclose either of these two circumstances, namely, (1) which would make it incumbent on the holder to prove consideration or (2) such other facts as the Court any deem sufficient to support the application. ...
Shor Shot Ammunition Manufacturers, New Delhi Vs. Union of India and o ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-06-1973
Reported in: 10(1974)DLT46
Prakash Narain, J.(1) The petitioner claims itself to be a registered pertnership carrying on business in the Union Territoly of Delhi In 1965 applied for the issue of a license for manufacture of cartridges used as amunition in shot guns A license bear' Ing No. 2/IX/1965 was issued to the petitioner for the manufacture of 5000 gun cartridges at a time. This license was in Form Ix given in the . Arms Act, 1959 lt was renewed from time to time up to December 31,1971. ltis alleged by the petitioner that acting upon this license granted to it investment was made for purchasing necessary machinery and installing a factory in Bhogal, New Delhi. The production of cartridges was undertaken by the petitioner right up to February, 1972. During all this period the concerned authorities regularly inspected (he (Arrexure) and September 2, 1972 (Annexure and also making a declaration that the license issued to the petitioner originally in 1965 was a valid license to enable them to continue the manu...
Thana Ram Vs. Jaoat Singh and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-06-1973
Reported in: 9(1973)DLT395; 1973RLR400
M.R.A. Ansari, J.(1) The petitioner filed a cornplaint against the respondents in the court of the Magistrate 1st Class, Delhi, for an offence under section 408 1. P. C. Summons were issued to all the respondents, but two of the respondents, namely, Jagat Singh and Raj Pal, were served and they appeared in court on 27th December, 1967. The other respondents were not served. As the other respondents were reaiding outside the jurisdiction of the court, the learned Magistrate passed an order directing that the complainant should serve dusty summons on these respondents for 27th January, 1968. The petitioner was not willing to serve the summons dusty on the respondents and, thereforee, filed a revision petition in the Court of Session against the order of the Magistrate directing him to serve summons dusty on the unserved respondents. The Additional Sessions Judge, however, dismissed the revision petition on the ground that the Magistrate was competent to direct the co mplelant to serve du...
Karamvir and ors. Vs. Lalita Prasad
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-06-1973
Reported in: 9(1973)DLT368
M.R.A. Ansari, J.(1) The respondent Lalita Prasad filid a compaint against the petitioners herein in the Court of the Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Delhi, under sections 323 and 504 J. P. C. along with the complaint, he filed only one copy of the complaint. Summons were issued to the petitioners herein without, however, sending a copy of the complaint Along with the summons as required under section 204(1B) Cr P. C. The petitioners appeared before the learned Magistrate in response to the summons on 5th October, 1971. An objection was raised on behalf of the petitioners that the mandatory provisions of section 204(1B) Cr. P. C. had not been complied with by the complainant inasmuch as copies of the. complaint were not sent along with the summons and that, thereforee, the complaint should be dismissed. The complainant thereupon filed additional copies of the complaint in Court , on the same day, but the learned Magistrate dismisssd the complaint on the ground that such copies of the co...
Western Engineering Company Vs. America Lock Company
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-06-1973
Reported in: ILR1973Delhi177
D.K. Kapur, J. (1) The America Lock Company is a partnership firm which carries on business as a manufacturer of locks of various types. Among other products, it manufactures cycle frame locks of horse-shoe shape for locking bicycles. Similarly, Western Engineering Company, is another partnership firm carrying on business as a manufacturer of locks, which also manufactures bicycle locks. The latter firm, i.e.. Western Engineering Company applied for the registration of a design of horse-shoe shape cycle lock used for locking bicycles, under the Indian Patents and Designs Act, 1911. This design was registered and allotted the number 125728 on 25th May, 1965. The former firm, i.e., America Lock Company also applied under the Indian Patents and Designs Act, 1911, for the registration of 'he design of a somewhat similar horse-shoe cycle lock for locking bicycles. Its design was also registered on 25th March, 1967, the application having been made on 29th October, 1966. The number allotted ...
Ram Lal Manohar Lal and ors. Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-06-1973
Reported in: 9(1973)DLT529
V.S. Deshpaade, J. (1) It appears that the power to levy the terminal tax is conferred on the State legislature by Entry 52 of List II-Stale List of She Seventh Schedule of the Constitution. Entry 32 it as follows:- 'TAXESon the entry of goods into alocal area for consumption, use or sale therein.'It would follow, thereforee, that the terminal tax cannot be levied unless , are brought into the Union territory of Delhi 'for consumption, use or sale therein.' Provision had to be made, thereforee, in the rules framed under section 183 to see that poods which are brought into Delhi for re-export are not made liable to the terminal tax. There are four possible modes by which goods coming into Delhi are re exported :- (1) Goods coming in by train and going out bytrain ; (2) Goods coming in by road and going out byroad ; (3) Goods coming in by train and going out by road ; and (4) Goods coming in by road and going out by train. Goods transported by the first mode remain in the costody of the ...
Municipal Corporation of Delhi Vs. Lakshmi NaraIn and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-05-1973
Reported in: ILR1973Delhi236
M.R.A. Ansari, J.(1) The Municipal Corporation of Delhi, the appellant herein, filed a complaint against the respondent Lakshmi Narain for an offence under section 16(1)(b) and (c) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) with the allegation that on 23-3-1961 the Food Inspector of the Corporation. went to the factory of the respondent for the purpose of taking samples from the finished food products manufactured in the factory like tomato sauce, vinegar, jams and jellies etc. The respondent who was the proprietor of the factory and who was present in the factory at that time, however, prevented the Food Inspector from taking a sample of the articles of food on the ground that the respondent held a license under the Fruit Products Order, 1955 and that the Food Inspector had no authority under the Act to take samples of the said products. The learned Magistrate, before whom the complaint was filed, acquitted the respondent on two grounds, name...
Krishan Gopal Malhotra Vs. Vijay Kumar
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-05-1973
Reported in: AIR1973Delhi265; 9(1973)DLT267
V.S. Deshpande, J. (1) On facts stated below, two questions arise for decision, namely :- (1)If a tenant (whose contractual tenancy has already been terminated) dies during the pendency of a suit or a proceeding for his eviction filed by the landlord, is the landlord entitled to a decree or order for the possession of the premises against the legal representatives of the deceased tenant in the same proceeding? and (2) In what circumstances can such a decree or order be challenged as being without jurisdiction by the said legal representatives in the executing court?(2) The landlord respondent Vijay Kumar field a suit against his tenant Kidar Nath Malhotra for arrears of rent and eviction on February 18, 1955 under the Delhi and Ajmer Rent Control Act, 1952 (hereafter called the 1952 Act). But the tenant died even before he was served wit htbe summons of the suit. The landlord alleged that he had already terminated the contractual tenancy of Kidar Nath who had, thereforee, become only a...
Parma Nand Vs. Management of Bharat Sevak Samaj and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-03-1973
Reported in: 9(1973)DLT417
V.S. Deshpande, J.(1) Petitioner Parmanand was appoitied at first & ledger keeper in February, 1963 and was then promoted as accounts assistant in January, 1964 in the construction servie of Bharat Sewak Samaj. On 15th of July,1967 one month's notice was given to him terminating his service at the end of the month of the notice but asking him to deliver the charge on the same day and informing him that the salary for the month of notice would be given to him. The petitioner received the notice but stated that the retrenchment was illegal and vaid as conditions laid down under section 25F of the Indus- trial Disputes Act had not been fulfillled and the procedure laid under section 25G of the said Act had not been followed There was some correspondence between him and the respondent employer and ultimately on 19th December, 1967 the petitioner accepted firstly. the amount of Rs. 360.00 as retrenchment compensation in the following words 'I hava this day received sum of Rs. 360.00 only be...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »