Delhi Court December 1974 Judgments
Home Cases Delhi 1974 Page 1 of about 17 results (0.021 seconds)National and Grindlays Bank Limited Vs. Globe Motors and anr.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: ILR1975Delhi671
S. Rangarajan, J.(1) M/S. Globe Motors Limited (hereinafter called ''the company'), now being managed under a scheme approved by this court claims to have created an. equitable mortgage by deposit of title deeds pertaining to approximately 3250 square yards in Eh No. 152, G.T. Road, Jullundur City, Jullundur, to the extent of Rs. 40 lakhs on 17th February, 1967 to be held as security by the National and Grindlays Bank, Connaught Place, New Delhi (hereinafter called 'the bank') for obligants account or several accounts with the bank in respect of cash credits or overdrafts now due, overdue or pending and/or which may be granted to the obligants hereafter and for all present and future indebtedness of any kind of the obligant to the Ba.nk in any manner whether solely or jointly, primary or collateral, accrued or accruing with all relative interests, charges, costs (as between attorney and client) and expenses.' The documents were deposited by Mr. B. K. Bedi, who was duly authorised under...
Tag this Judgment!Municipal Corporation of Delhi Vs. Kishan Lal
Court: Delhi
Reported in: ILR1975Delhi520
Avad Behari, J.(1) On December 5, 1969 Shri Charan Singh. Food Inspector of Municipal Correction of Delhi went to shop No. 1936, Fountain, Chandni Chowk, Delhi. This was Needo Restaurant and Kishan Lal its proprietor was sitting there at that time. The Inspector purchased 3 bottles of sauce in original packing from Kishan Lal for purposes of analysis by the Public Analyst. He paid the price and obtained a receipt thereforee. On analysis the sample was found to be adulteries. (2) The Corporation launched a prosecution against Kishan Lal under Section 16 read with Section 7 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 ('the Act'). Kishan Lal pleaded that he was not guilty and claimed to be tried. (3) The trial magistrate by order dated July 28, 1970 acquitted the accused. The Corporation has appealed to this Court against the order of acquittal. (4) Before the trial magistrate the substantial defense of the accused was that he had purchased 4 dozen sealed bottles of sauce from M/s. V...
Tag this Judgment!Kesar Lal Etc. Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Reported in: ILR1975Delhi608; 1975RLR260
M.R.A. Ansari, J.(1) The two petitioners herein, keshav Chand and Ashok Kumar, were challaned before the Additional Chief judicial Magistrate, Delhi, for offences under sections 379, 420, 411. 468 and 471 Indian Penal Code . The prosecution case against the petitioners according to the challan was that they had committed theft of a fiat car belonging to Shri K. T. Mirchandani on the night between 26th and 27th April, 1971 when the car was parked outside the Iii class waiting room of the Railway Station New Delhi, and that after changing the registration number of the car and making false entries in the registration certificate, the petitioners had sold the car at Nagpur to one Suresh Khanna for Rs. 15,000.00 . When the case came up turn consideration b(2) Under section 177 Criminal Procedure Code 'EVERY offence shall ordinarily be inquired into and tried by a Court within the local limits of whose jurisdiction it was committed.'(3) Sections 178 to 184 Criminal Procedure Code . are exce...
Tag this Judgment!Municipal Corporation Vs. Jagan Nath
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1975RLR186
P.S. Safeer, J.(1) This appeal is directed against acquittal of the respondent by Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Delhi in terms of the order made on 6th November, 1970 in respect of the alleged commission of an offence under section 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act (hereinafter called the Act). The case against the accused was that 1500 grams of Bundi prepared from person were purchased by Public Witness . 1 on the 27th of December, 1967 after giving the notice prescribed by the Act at a price of Rs. 7.50P. The Bundi purchased was made into three parts and the samples so prepared were sealed in separate bottles. One of the bottles was given to the respondent at the spot. The sample which was sent to the Public Analyst brought in the result Ex. P.E. which stated that the Bundi was found adulterated and on receiving the report, a complaint under Section 20 of the Act was filed by Public Witness . 2. Apart from Public Witness . 1 the prosecution examined Saroop Singh, an in...
Tag this Judgment!Union of India Vs. Sanwalia Etc.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: ILR1975Delhi837
B.C. Misra, J. (1) This order will dispose of six revisions. Nos. 462, 463, 432, 486, 487 and 583 all of 1974. The petitioner in all these cases are the Union of India. They arise out of different proceedings, which are of the same nature, viz. trial of the references under section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act. They have raised a common question of law and can be conveniently disposed of by this judgment. All these cases are the union of India. They arise aut of different proceedprovisions or Order 22 of the Code of Civil Procedure and Article 120 of the Limitation Act apply to the procedings pending before the District Court in references made under section 18 of the Land Acquisi- corporation Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). A connected question which has been raised in other cases, is, whether a reference under the Act pending before the District Court can be dismissed in default of appearance in accordance with the provisions of Rule 3 or Rule 8 of Order 9 of the Code o...
Tag this Judgment!Municipal Corporation of Delhi Vs. Jaswant Rai
Court: Delhi
Reported in: ILR1975Delhi668; 1975RLR246
Pritam Singh Safeer, J.(1) This appeal is directed against the acquittal of the respondent which he achieved in terms of the judgment passed by the trial court on 31st of October, 1967. The case against the respondent was that Public Witness . I Karan Singh Food Inspector had purchased from him on the 5th of October, 1966, 450 grams of red chillies and analysis of one of the samples thereof disclosed that they were adulterated. The Food Inspector gave that notice before making the purchase and paid the price and we have seen the receipt in respect thereof. He then proceeded to act in accordance with section 11 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act (hereafter called 'the Act'). The quantity purchased was divided into three samphes, which were transferred to three separate bottles which were sealed. One of them was given to the respondent. We have seen Exhibit P.C. wich document was executed by the respondent not only by signing it but also by thumb-marking it. This document has bee...
Tag this Judgment!Brigadiar Bhupinder Singh Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: ILR1975Delhi546
H.L. Anand, J.(1) By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner, a Brigadier in the Indian Army, challenges an order of his compulsory retirement. (2) The petitioner was commissioned in the Indian Army on April 18, 1943. In 1947, he was appointed in the Research & Development and Inspection Organisation of the Ministry of defense. It appears H that during 1967 69 certain allegations of abuse of official position by the petitioner were made subject matter of investigation by the then Special Police Establishment but as a result of the report of such investigation and the further enquiry by the military authorities all the cases were dropped by the middle of the year 1970. It further appears that during the pendency of the investigation, the question as to the petitioner's promotion to the rank of Brigadier was kept pending and after the cases were dropped, the petitioner was promoted to the rank of Brigadier on October 12, 1970 and was appointed Directo...
Tag this Judgment!Jagdish Pershad and ors. Vs. Joti Pershad and ors.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: ILR1975Delhi841; 1975RLR203
Prithvi Raj, J.(1) The petitioners feeling dis-satisfied with the order dated 30th April, 1974, passed by Shri S. R. Goel, Additional District Judge, Delhi, have challenged the same by this rsvi.sion petition.(2) The findings of the trial Court were assailed on the ground that the case set up by the respondent was to enforce his right to share in the immovable property in suit on the plea that it was joint family property and he being not in possession of the same as averred in the written statement, the court-fees payable ought to have been computed as per provisions of section 7(iv)(b) of the Court-fees Act (herein to be called 'the Act') on the market value of his share in the immovable property; that he further claims share in the jewellery in the sum of Rs. 13927 and l/7th share of Rs. 6,000 and he admittedly being not in possession of any portion of the said assets the suit should have been separately valued for purposes of jurisdiction and court-fee and should have paid separate...
Tag this Judgment!islamuddIn Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1975CriLJ841; 1975RLR169
P.S. Safeer, J.(1) Feeling dissatisfied with the order dt. 25-11-1974, by which Additional Sessions Judge, Delhi had dismissed revision petition filed by petitioner I made the order directing that record pertaining to the revision petitioner dismissed by the Additional Sessions Judge as well as the Metropolitan Magistrate, be immediately collected. (2) I have gone through the record pertain- ing to the revision petition as well as that which pertains to the original proceedings, which were held by the Metropolitan Magis- trate. At my instance the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has read out the evidence of the two witnesses who were ex- amined at the trial. Public Witness . 1 Rashid Ahmed stated in his examination-in-chief that he had seen the petitioner in police custody. Permission was sougt to cross-examine PW1. In the course of that cross-examination Public Witness . 1 stated that the knife Exhibit Public Witness . 1 had not been recovered in his presence. Besides PW. ...
Tag this Judgment!Ram Prakash Vs. Bhagwanti Devi
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1975RLR215
S.N. Shankar, J.(1) The dispute between parties was adjudged by judgment reported as 7972 Raj L R. 137 Connected case which necessitated adjudication on interim matter consequent on death of husband of respondent is 1974 Raj LR. (N). 110. In 1972 R.L.R. 137, it was ordered that order of A.R.C would be deemed as under S. 15 (4) instead of U/S 15(1) but by erroneous omission, tenant was not given any time to deposit the arrears He made the instant application for modification of the order. After narrating above facts in detail, the judgment para 4 onwards is : - (2) Against both these order of the Tribunal the appellant came up in appeal to this court which was decided by order dated October 11, 1972 which forms the subject matter of this application. (3) We held that the Controller had no jurisdiction to pass an order under Section 15(1) on the basis of prima facie evidence without deciding whether Bhagwanti Devi alone was the landlady of the appellant, but as sub-section (4) of Section...
Tag this Judgment!