Delhi Court April 1975 Judgments
Browse smarter
Turn browsing into brief-ready notes
Open any judgment and get a structured AI Brief in seconds — plus Semantic Search when you need to hunt by meaning, not keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed — log in to pick up where you left off.
Afaya Devi Etc. Vs. ZiaudIn Etc.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-30-1975
Reported in: 1976RLR213
Avadh Behari (1) In an auction sale in execution of decree of Respondent 1 against respondent! 2, Mangat Ram lalwar and Ainar Math's Jugnest bid was accepted on i0.ll.71. Auction Purchasers made due payments in time. On 3.2.74. Mangat Ram died and his widow made an application for substitution. One Om Parkasn, a tenant of the property opposed me application contending teat Manual Ram had noi acquired any tight and aucuon sale should be set aside. Objection was allowed and wloow appealed to High Court.] Alter giving above facts in detail, para 7 onwards, judgment is :- (2) Three questions arise for consideration in this appeal. Firstly, Mr. Khanna says that no appeal lies against the order of the executing court retusing the application of Maya Devi which was made under section 151, Code of C.P.C. In my opinion the appeal is competent. The result of the order of the executing court is that the sale in favor of Talwar and Chopra has been set aside. An order setting aside auction sale is ...
Nagendra Kumar Vs. Malik Tejram Anand and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-30-1975
Reported in: 29(1986)DLT167
Prithvi Raj, J.1. This revision petition is directed against the judgment dated September 18, 1973, Passed by Shri B.B. Gupta, Senior Sub-Judge, Delhi, whereby he confirmed the order dated 21st March, 1973 passed by Shri M.A. Khan, Sub-Judge 1st Class, Delhi, dismissing the application of the petitioner under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 C.P.C. for grant of ad interim injunction restraining respondent No. 1, Malik Tej Ram Anand (herein called 'the respondent') from executing the order of eviction dated 6th August, 1971 passed by the Additional Rent Controller, Delhi;- (Shri K.B. Andley) in eviction petition No. 299 of 1969 Malik Tej Ram v. Didwania Brothers Pvt. Ltd. and another.2. Briefly Stated the facts of the cases are that respondent is the owner of premises bearing No. 35/219, Lajpat Nagar IV, New Double Storey, New Delhi 14. He filed a petition under section 14(a)(b) & (e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958, against respondent No. 2 M/s. Didwani Brothers Pvt. Ltd. (Herein called 'the...
Jagan Nath Prem Nath Vs. Bhartiya Dhoop Karyalaya
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-29-1975
Reported in: AIR1975Delhi149; ILR1975Delhi225
S.N. Shankar, J. (1) By the order under appeal, the learnedingle Judge on the original side has vacated an interim ex parte injunction granted to the appellant in a suit for permia,nent injunction filed by him against the respondent on the allegations of 'infringement' and 'passing off' in respect of his registered trade mark in relation to 'agarbatis' etc.(2) The learned single Judge ha.s held that the appellant had failed to establish any exclusive right in regard to the use of the numerals 555 appearing in his registered trade mark in respect of 'agarbatis' and that at this stage it could not be said th(a,t these numerals 555 were the distinctive or essential features of his trade mark. He further observed that as the respondent had not copied the respondents' trade mark as a whole, no case for injunction was made out.(3) Before dealing with the merits, it would be appropriate to notice the legal aspect of the questions that require consideration for the decision of the controversy....
Raja Ram Goyal Vs. Ashok Kumar and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-29-1975
Reported in: 12(1976)DLT34a; 1976RLR41
S.S. Chadha, J.(1) This second appeal, filed by Shri Raja Ram Goyal tenant, is directed against the order dated January 11, 1974, of the Rent Control Tribunal, Delhi, affirming the finding and order of the Additional Rent Controller, Delhi, passing an order in favor of the respondents-landlords for ejectment of the appellant from premises No. 2218 Masjid Khajoor, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the Premises in dispute) on account of unlawful sub-letting under section 14(l)(b) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as the Act).(2) On June 9, 1970, the respondents brought the petition for eviction, out of which this second appeal has arisen, under section 14 of the Act on the ground of sub-letting, assigning and parting with the possession without obtaining the written consent of the landlords after June 9, 1952. In para 16 of the petition, it was stated that the sub-tenants, namely, Shri Hans Raj and Shri Ram Bakhsh have been inducted by the tenant without the wr...
Sikander Lal Vs. Anand Mohan Bhutani
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-28-1975
Reported in: 12(1976)DLT34
Avadh Behari, J.(1) These are two appeals against the order of Rent Control Tribunal dated December 20, 1971. One appeal is by the landlord. The other is by the tenant. This judgment will govern them both.(2) The tenant Dr. Anand Mohan Bhutani is a medical practitioner. He is an M.B.B.S. Years ago he took on rent a self-contained independent house built on a plot of 230 sq. yards of land. It was a single storeyed house. It was flat No. 9, Block No. 6 on Ajmal Khan Road, Western Extension Area Karol Bagh, New Delhi.(3) He took the house for residence cum business. He lived and worked there. He took: it on rent from the predecessor-in-interest of the present landlord Sikandar Lal. In 1950 Sikandar Lal purchased the house. The tenant was paying Rs. 110.00 per month as rent.(4) The landlord thought of demolishing this house. He wanted to construct shops so that he may put the building to a more profitable use. But before that could be done the tenant must go out.(5) On May 6, 1960, the lan...
Vinod Pershad and Others Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-25-1975
Reported in: (1976)5CTR(Del)0111A
B. C. Misra, J. - This second appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure has been filed by Vinod Parshad, his minor son, minor daughter and his wife (all plaintiffs). It is directed against the appellate judgment and decree of Mr. S. R. Goel. Additional District Judge, dated 28th May 1973, by which he has dismissed the appeal and affirmed the judgment and decree of Mr. Gopal Krishna, Sub-Judge, III Class, Delhi dated 27th May, 1972, and finally the suit of the plaintiff appellants has been dismissed as being outside the jurisdiction of the Civil Court. The respondent in the appeal before me are the State of Madhya Pradesh the Collector, Indore and the Collector, Delhi, arrayed as Nos. 1,2 and 5 respectively.2. The material facts of the case are that Vinod Motors Private Limited. Indore, was a private limited company of which Vinod Prasad, first appellant before me was a share-holder. The said limited company became liable to pay sales tax to the State of Madhya Pradesh. Th...
Ratan and Co. Vs. P. Narayanan
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-22-1975
Reported in: AIR1977Delhi93
1. These are two appeals against the orders of the Assistant Registrar.2. The undisputed facts are these. On 5th October, 1966 the appellants Messrs. Rattan & Co. filed an application bearing No. 238044-B to register the trade mark Jainson in class 6 in respect of padlocks. The application was advertised in the Trade Marks Journal on 1st September, 1967.3. On 30th November 1967 the opponents Messrs. R. P. Locks Co. of Delhi filed an application in Form TM-44 praying for extension of time for one month for giving notice of opposition to the registration of the trademark. This request as signed by their advocate engaged by them.4. Since the request was riot accompanied by a power of attorney of the said advocate no action was taken in the Registry on this request contained in TM-44.5. On 2nd December, 1967 a letter was addressed by the open- to treat TM-44 as withdrawn.6. On 11th December, 1967 a notice of opposition signed by the said advocate along with a power of attorney was received...
Union of India Vs. Baldev Singh
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-22-1975
Reported in: ILR1975Delhi278
S.N. Shankar, J. (1) Challenge in this appeal is to the order of the learned single judge dismissing the objections ffled by She appellant under Sections 30 and 33 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 and refusing to set aside the award.(2) In an auction held on January 31, 1960, in pursuance of a public notice issued on behalf of the President of India, by the Managing Officer of the Regional Settlement Commissioner. Jamnagar Housc, New Delhi, in respect of a cinema in Faridabad, the respondent gave the highest bid for Rs. 6,11,000. His bid was accepted and possession of the cinema was given to him after about two years of the acceptance of the bid. Later, disputes arose between the parties, amongst others, in regard to the machinery, building and the eiectrification of the cinema. On May 31, 1967 parties agreed to refer the same to the sole arbitration of Shri V. Nanjappa, Secretary to the Government of India, Department of Rehabilitation, New Delhi. On May 1, 1968 the arbitrator made his aw...
Anand Silk Store Vs. Shree Ram Silk Manufacturing Co. and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-21-1975
Reported in: AIR1976Delhi60; 12(1976)DLT146
Prithvi Raj, J. (1) This is plaintiff's application under Sections 151 and 0.22 read with Order 39, Rules 1 and 2, Code of Civil Procedure praying that ad interim injunction be issued restraining detendant No. 1 (herein called 'the defendant') from proceeding with its money suits filed against the plaintiff and others which suits are stated to be pending in the Court of Shri D. Paul, Second Subordinate Judge, Chinsura, District Hooghly (West Bengal). In the alternative, the plaintiff prays that the trial of the said suits be stayed till the disposal of the present suit filed by it against defendant for rendition of accounts. (2) The plaintiff filed the present suit on the allegation that it was appointed to be the sole selling agent by the defendant with effect from 13th April, 1962, to promote the sales of their products in the States of Delhi, Haryana, Punjab, Jammu and Kashmir and Himachal Pradesh on terms and conditions stipulated in sub-paras (1) to (12) of para 3 of the plaint; t...
Gopal Das Jai Singhmal Vs. Appellate Officer
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-21-1975
Reported in: 1975RLR449
(1) This is a Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution to quash the order dated' 18.5.1967 (copy of which is Annexure A), passed by the Appellate Officer Delhi dismissing the appeal of the petitioners preferred against the order of the Competent Officer dated 27.3.195T ordering the transfer of property to Respondents 2 to 5 and for some other consequential directions. Only a few facts leading to this- Writ Petition may be briefly noticed. (2) The property bearing No. EP/AI, situated in Porbandar (Saurashtra), was owned by Habib Shakoor (evacuee) who during his life time and before he became an evacuee had mortgaged the same in favor of Kanji Morarji. Jadavji Morarji by registered deed dated 10-11-1945 for Rs. 8,000.00 with interest at 15%. per annum. After the partition of the country the property was declared as evacuee property. Jadavji Morarji, one cf the mortgagees, died' and he was survived by his son Amrit Lal and widow Radhabai (Respondents No. 3 and 5,. respectively)...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »