Court : Punjab and Haryana
Reported in : AIR1952P& H301
Harnam Singh, J.1. Sant Ram, Mehnga Singh, Ishar Das and Lachhman Das defendantsin Civil Suit No. 131 of 1947 appeal from thedecree passed in that suit on the 31st of May 1948.2. To appreciate the contentions that have been raised in this appeal, it would be necessary to give a short narrative of the material facts in their chronological order. Kishore Das, who died on the 4th of April, 1945, was the Mahant of the Thakardwara at Jamsher belonging to the Ram Kabir sect of the Bairagi Sampardai. The Thakardwara at Jamsher is connected with the institution known as 'Baba Ram Kabir Ka Dwara', the 'Gaddi' of which is at Jaipur. On the 19th of July, 1943 Mahant Sadhu Ram and 'Shri' Hira Das instituted Civil Suit No. 966/816 of 1943 'inter alia' for the removal of Kishore Das from the Gaddi of the institution.In that suit, the parties compromised the dispute between them and in accordance with that compromise Shri Harbans Rai Nayar, Subordinate Judge 3rd class, Jullundur, passed the decree on...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Reported in : AIR1953P& H109
Kapur, J.1. This is a rule directed against an order passed by Mr. Ram Lal, Additional Judge, Small Cause Court, Delhi, on 31-3-1951 holding that the property in dispute did not come within the definition of the word 'premises' as defined in the Delhi and Ajmer-Merwara Rent Control Act.2. On 6-6-1950, the applicant Jonda Ram applied for fixation of standard rent. In para. 2 of his petition he stated that the property which had been taken on rent had a katcha wall which due to rains had fallen down, in parts. The plan also shows that the property in dispute is surrounded on the East by a wall with a gate in it and on the other side there are houses. The question is whether this property comes within the definition of the word 'premises' in the Delhi and Ajmer-Merwara Rent Control Act, In Section 2 'premises' is defined:'2 In this Act, unless there is anything repugnant in the subject or context, (a) * * ' * * ' (b) 'premises' means any building or part of a building which is or is inten...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Reported in : AIR1952P& H305
ORDERWeston, C.J. 1. On the 6th of February 1947, one Manohar Lal Roshan Lal obtained a money decree for an amount of Rs. 1,160/- and costs against one Abdulla Habibullah in the Court of a Subordinate Judge at Amritsar. In execution of this decree a shop belonging to the judgment-debtor was attached. The dates of the execution application and the order of attachment do not appear. The date of sale appears from the sale certificate to have been the 15th of June 1948. This sale was confirmed by Sundar Lal, Subordinate Judge first class, on the 24th of July 1948. On the 23rd of October 1950, an application was made by the Assistant Custodian of Evacuee Property under Section 17(2) of the Administration of Evacuee Property Act, Act XXXI of 1950, asking that the sale should be set aside as being a sale of evacuee property. Under the Act the latest date for such application is the 17th of October 1950, namely the last day within six months from the commencement of the Act. It was stated in t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Reported in : AIR1952P& H265
ORDERWeston, C.J. 1. The facts giving rice to this application are shortly these. On the 29th of March 1949 a suit was filed by one Madan Lal in the Court of the Subordinate Judge, First Class, Ferozepore, against a firm Des Raj-Surider Mohan of Abohar Mandi which is in the Fazilka Tehsil of the Ferozepore District. The suit was against this firm through two of its partners Des Raj and Gian Chand. There were other defendants shown, namely Murari Lai, Surinder Mohen, Mulk Raj, all three of Abohar Mandi and partners of the flrm Des Raj-Surinder Mohan one Devi Dayal of Jaito in Patiala, one Suraj Ehan of Hapur in Uttar Pradesh and lastly one Babu Bam of Bhiwani in the Hissar District. The suit was on forward contracts said to have been entered into by the plaintiff and his partners who were defendants Devi Dayal, Suraj Bhan and Babu Ram at a time when plaintiff and his partners were residents in the Montgomery District prior to partition. Although on the face of the plaint the defendant f...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Reported in : AIR1952P& H259
ORDER1. This is a matter brought to this Court under Section 21(2) of the Chartered Accountants Act, Act 38 of 1949.2. On the 1st November 1948, Jagdish Raj Cha-trath, the opposite party made an application for inclusion in the list of Registered Accountants entitled to train articled clerks. In columns 3 and 4 of this application he made certain statements which it is necessary to set out in extenso:'3. Whether practising independently orwhether a member of a firm of Registered Accountants, and if so, state the period for which acting as such. From August, 1939 upto March 1944, I was employed as a Managerin the firm of Registered Accountants on a fired salary. From April 1944 onwards I was employed as a Manager in the firmof Registered Accountants on a fixedsalary plus percentage of the firm's earnings. From 21st October 1948 onwards I amfull-fledged partner in the firm of RegisteredAccountants holding 2/5th share.4.If a member of a firm, state the position therein, that is to say:(I...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Reported in : AIR1953P& H52
Weston, C.J.1. These matters arise fromaction taken against one Rawel Singh son ofEakhshi Awtar Singh under the U. P. GoondasAct, 1932) as modified and extended to theState of Delhi by notification dated 10th November 1937 made under Section 7, Delhi Laws Act,1912. On 21st March 1952 Rawel Singh wasarrested, in pursuance of a warrant issued bythe Home Secretary to the Chief Commissionerunder Section 4 of this Act to which I shall referhereafter as the Act. Rawel Singh was notproduced before the Deputy Commissioner butwas produced before the Additional DistrictMagistrate who refused to grant bail on theground that he had no authority to do so. Abail application was presented to the DeputyCommissioner on the 22nd March 1952, consideration of which, we are told, was adjourned,and only on 28th March after rules In thepresent matters had issued was he released onbail. It is claimed that the detention of RawolSingh after his arrest was illegal and also thatall further proceedings under the G...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Reported in : AIR1954P& H151
ORDER1. This is a rule issued against Mr. Rameshwar Dayal, Deputy Commissioner, Delhi, and Mr. J.N. Shingal, Magistrate 1st Class, Delhi, to show cause why a writ of mandamus should not issue to them to restore the possession taken by them from the petitioners of shop No. 284 situate in Chandni Chowk, Delhi.(2) In support of the petition one of the petitioners put in an affidavit and in reply to this affidavit a document purporting to be an affidavit has been filed by Mr. Shingal. A joint written statement on behalf of Mr. Rameshwar Dayal and Mr. Shingal has also been put in. It is unfortunate that neither the affidavit nor the written statement is verified in the manner that these documents are required to be verified nor are the facts stated in the petitioners' affidavits definitely denied or clearly admitted and it is not quite clear what the version of these public officers is. According to the affidavit of the petitioner, they arrived from Rawalpindi in the month of September 1947...
Tag this Judgment!