Delhi Court October 1974 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.
Bansibhar Ganga Pershad Agency Vs. Chanan Lal and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-31-1974
Reported in: ILR1975Delhi445; 1975RLR289
Avadh Behari, J.(1) On 20th August, 1963, M/s. Bansi Dhar Ganga. Pershad Agency, plaintiff-appellant instituted a suit against Chanan Lal, proprietor of Jawahar Wool Store for the recovery of Rs. 6692.96 p. on account of balance price of goods sold and delivered. The appellant's case was that during the period 13th September, 1962 to 1st April, 1963, Bansi Dhar Ganga Pershad Agency (the Agency) had supplied goods to the defendant-respondent of the valueof Rs. 14,771.27 p. The appellants arc dealers in wool. So is the respondent. The respondent purchased wool of that value. The appellant further alleged that the respondent had paid Rs. 8671.60 p. towards the price of the goods. A balance of Rs. 6099.67 p. was claimed to be due. Interest was also claimed at the rate of 12 per cent. This amounted to Rs. 593.29 p. In all a decree for Rs. 6692.96 p. was claimed.(2) The respondent in his defense stated that he had purchased goods worth Rs. 14,209.67 p. and not Rs. 14,771.27 p. as alleged by ...
Ganpat Rai Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-31-1974
Reported in: 1975RLR95
V.D. Misra, J.(1) This revision is directed against the judgment of Additional Sessions Judge upholding the conviction of the petitioner under section 16(1)(b) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, and the sentence of rigorous imprisonment for six months and a fine of Rs. l,000.00. When this revision came up before P.S. Safeer, J., he referred it to a larger Bench and that is how the matter is before us. (2) Kewal Ram, father of Ganpat Rai Petitioner, runs a Karyana shop at House No. 32, Kailash Colony Market, New Delhi. On February 21, 1970, at about 11.45 a.m. Food Inspector K.K. Doomra went to his shop and found the petitioner attending to the customers. The Food Inspector disclosed his identity to the petitioner and asked for the sample of bura (grounded sugar). He purchased 600 grams of Aura. When the Food Inspector wanted to pay its price of Rs. 1.20 P , the petitioner told the Food Inspector that he was sending for his father and he would accept the price after his father ...
State of Punjab and anr. Vs. I.M. Lall
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-31-1974
Reported in: ILR1975Delhi332
B.C. Misra, J.(1) The State of Punjab and the Union of India, plaintiffs, have filed this first appeal against the judgment and decree of the Subordinate Judge, I Class, dated 27th November, 1963, dismissing their suit against the defendant, which had been instituted for recovery of Rs. 19,173.57. The suit had been dismissed on the sole ground that in answer to issue No. 6, the court has returned a finding that the plaint has not been proved to have been validly signed on behalf of the Union of India and that the verification of the plaint on the part of the State of Punjab has not been made by a duly authorised person acquainted with the facts of the case.(2) The material facts of the case are that the defendant-respondent, shri I. M. Lall, who was a member of Indian Civil Service (Punjab Cadre) was removed from service on 4th June, 1940. It is stated in the plaint that he had been reinstated in service with effect from 30th September, 1948, but this statement appears to be incorrect ...
Chuni Lal Kapur Vs. Prakaseh Wantietc
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-23-1974
Reported in: 1975RLR110
Rajindar Sachar, J.(1) The petition was at first heard Ex parte Upon application of Respondent 3 that she was not served, ex parte order was set aside. These facts have been detailed in paras 1 to 3. Para 4 onwards, judgment is : - (2) In the application filed by respondents it was alleged that the petitioner had three sons. In the application it was alleged that the petitioner had three sons one of whom is in England and is drawing about Rs. 7,000.00 p.m. and is sending Rs. 1,000.00 p.m. to the petitioner. The other son Romesh Kumar was said to be earning Rs. 600.00 p.m. and the third son Jit Kumar Rs. 300.00 p.m. The petitioner is said to have been working as Accountant in Delhi Cloth an General Mills and earning Rs. 450.00 p.m. Thus the landlady maintained that the petitioner had sufficient income and could find alternative accommodation, if evicted. (3) The petitioner denied these allegations, and stated that he was not doing any job and was unemployed. He also denied that his son ...
S.P. Srivastava and ors. Vs. Union of India and Two ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-21-1974
Reported in: ILR1975Delhi32
T.V.R. Tatachari, J. (1) This Civil Writ Petition was originally filed on August 13, 1968, by S. P. Srivastava and 18 others against (1) The Union of India, (2) The Director General, Posts & Telegraphs, New Delhi, and (3) Dr. Ram Subhagh Singh, Minister of Communications & Parliamentary Affairs, Government of India, New Delhi, praying for the issuance of a writ quashing the decision of the respondents, dated May 3, 1968, contained in Annexure 'M' to the Writ Petition, and for certain other directions.(2) The petitioners were working as Telegraph Engineering Service (hereinafter referred to as T.E.S) Class-II Officers' in the Posts & Telegraphs Department at Delhi. According to them, promotions to the Senior Time Scale in T.E.S. Class-I were not being made in accordance with the rules governing such promotions, and promotions were being made favoring directly recruited Junior Time Scale Class-I Officers. The Writ Petition came up previously before H. R. Khanna C.J. and V. D. Misra J., a...
Joginder Singh Vs. the Bar Council of India
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-17-1974
Reported in: AIR1975Delhi192; 1975RLR15
T.P.S. Chawla, J.(1) The appellant, Joginder Singh, was once an advocate. His grievance is that his name has been struck off the rolls. (2) On 28th March, 1962 he was enrolled as an advocate by the Bar Council of the State of Uttar Pradesh. For a short while, he says, he practiced at Shaharanpur. He then applied to the Bar Council of India under section 18 of the Advocates Act 1961 for the transfer of his name from the roll of the U.P. Bar Council to that of the Bar Council of Delhi. This application was allowed in October 1963, and thereafter he began to practice in Delhi. (3) Pursuant to a communication received from the Deputy Registrar of the Punjab High Court, the Bar Council of India sent a notice dated 12th January, 1965 to the appellant saying : 'WHEREASit has been brought to the notice of this Council that you made an application for enrolment under the Advocates Act of 1961 to the Bar Council of Uttar Pradesh, that in the said application for enrolment you concealed the fact ...
Daryao Singh and anr. Vs. the Competent Authority and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-17-1974
Reported in: ILR1975Delhi377
S. Rangarajan, J. (1) This judgment will dispose of C.W. 485 of 1973 also. However, it would be sufficient to state the facts in C.W. 486 of 1973 alone.(2) The petitioners (Daryao Singh and Narain Singh) purchased land,described in paragraph I of the petition, situate in village Akbarpur Majra from Mange Ram (second respondent) by means of a registered sale deed; mutation was sanctioned in their favor by an order of the Naib Tehsildar dated 19-11-1968. By an order of the Revenue Assistant, dated 31-10-1967, Mange Ram was declared bhoomidhar. This declaration became effective from 20-7-1954, on which date the Delhi Land Reforms Act, 1954 came into force. The petitioners were continuing in possession of the said land and were cultivating the sama ever since the date of purchase. When they obtained a copy of the Khatauni from the Patwari in the month of April, 1973, for the purpose of applying for an agricultural loan, they came to know that an entry had been made in the revenue records t...
Bar Council of Delhi Vs. Bar Council of India
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-16-1974
Reported in: AIR1975Delhi200; ILR1975Delhi321
V.S. Deshpande, J.(1) Can a State Bar Council acting under section 15 of the Advocates Act, 1961 (briefly 'the Act') make a rule to provide for the removal of its Chairman by passing a resolution of no confidence against him in a meeting of the Bar Council summoned for that purpose The question has arisen for decision as follows :-(2) After the Delhi Bar Council was elected in January, 1969, the members of the Council elected Shri Radhe Mohan Lal as the Chairman of the Delhi Bar Council. Later differences arose between him and some of the members of the Bar Council. A meeting of the Bar Council was called on September 22, 1972 in which a resolution of no confidence was passed against the Chairman by a majority. But the Chairman disputed the legality of the resolution and sought the directions of the Bar Council of India who heard the Chairman and the Delhi Bar Council on October 21, 1972. The majority of the Bar Council of India expressed the view that (a) there was no provision either...
Tarachand Manohar Lal Vs. Deputy Registrar, Trade and Merchandise
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-16-1974
Reported in: 1979RLR526
Avadh Behari, J.(1) This appeal lias taken interminable time. Though preferred in 1962 it could not be heard (ill today either for one reason or another. (2) The dispute between the parties relates to the use of the word 'DALDA'. Hindustan Levers Ltd. are the owners and the users of the trade mark Dalda in respect of hydrogenated vegetable product of Vanaspati since the year 1926. (3) This word Dalda was invented prior to 1926 by M/s N.V.H. Hargos Fabriken of Holland and was used as a trade mark for edible oils and fats. This Dutch firm assigned the mark to Hindustan Holland Vanaspati Trading Co. Ltd. by a deed of assignment in August, 1932. The Hindustan Holland Vanaspati Trading Co. in their turn assigned the mark to Hindustan Vanaspati . by a deed dated 27th January, 1938. The present Hindustan Levers Ltd. are the successors of Hindustan Vanaspati . They are the registered proprietors of the trade mark DALDA. This mark was registered in 1947. (4) On 27th September, 1954 the appel la...
Vir Bhan Vs. Municipal Corporation of Delhi and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-14-1974
Reported in: 11(1975)DLT27
Rajinder Sachar, J.(1) The shop of the petitioner was demolished on 28th January, 1974 between 10-30 A.M. and 11 A.M. by the demolition squad of respondent No. 1 under the supervision of respondents 2 and 4 on a notice issued by respondent No. 3. This is said to be in disobedience of the order passed by District Judge on 27th January restraining demolition. That is this petition under Section 10 of the Contempts of Courts Act for proceeding against the respondents. respondent No. 1 is Municipal Corporation of Delhi ; Respondent No. 2 is Beant Singh, Zonal Assistant Commissioner, Municipal Corporation of Delhi. Respondent No. 3 is K. N. Sharma, Deputy Commissioner, Municipal Corporation of Delhi ; and Respondent No. 4 is 0. P. Mangu, Manager Land and Estate, Municipal Corporation of Delhi.But before we go and examine this aspect a resume of few essential facts will be helpful in understanding the various aspects of the matter. (2) The dispute having risen between the petitioner and resp...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »