Court : Delhi
Reported in : AIR1967Delhi22
1. On 24th August, 1949, Bharat Nidhi Limited, then known as Bharat Bank Limited, the plaintiff-appellant, filed a suit against Megh Raj Mahajan, defendant-respondent for recovery of Rs.61,194/2/- being the debit balance in the cash credit account with the plaintiff.. On 20th December, 1949, the Senior Subordinate Judge, Sialkto, decreed the suit and the present suit for recovery of Rs.63,004-15-00 was filed on 12th June, 1954, on the basis of the judgment of the Senior Subordinate Judge, Sialkto. The judgment and decree were passed ex parte and there is an observation in the decree that 'a summons was duly served upon the defendant, ntowithstanding which he has nto appeared to defend the suit'. It may be pointed out at this stage that it is from this observation that the trial Court concluded that the defendant had been properly served with a ntoice issued by the Sialkto Court. From this finding the learned counsel for the appellant wants us to deduce that the defendant was physically...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : AIR1967Delhi63
ORDER(1) Kalu Ram, the accused petitioner was convicted by Shri Parma Nand Gupta, Magistrate 1st Class, Delhi, on 21-12-1965 under Section 380, Indian Penal Code, for having committed theft at the premises of the Irwin Hospital, New Delhi, by removing coins dishonestly from the public telephone call botoh and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for one year. On appeal, this conviction was upheld by the learned Additional Session Judge but the sentence reduced to rigorous imprisonment for three months. On revision in this Court, a learned Single Judge while admitting the revision, ordered release of the petitioner on bail to the satisfaction of the District Magistrate. I am informed by counsel at the bar, that the petitioner has undergone rigorous imprisonment for one month.(2) The facts relating to the present case are that on 3-6-1965, the petitioner was seen at about noon time removing coins with the help of a piece of wire from the public telephone call botoh installed in the Irwin H...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : AIR1967Delhi86
ORDER(1) The petitioner challenge the cancellation of alltoment to him of the residential quarter in dispute and the legality of the ntoice (Annexure `G' to the writ petition) dated 5-4-1965 under Section 4(1) of the Public Premises Eviction of (Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1958 (hereinafter called the Act) calling upon the petitioner to show cause on or before 2-5-1965 why an order of eviction should nto be made against him on the ground that he is in unauthorised occupation of the public premises.(2) According to the petitioner's averments, he is a quasi-permanent employee of the Government of India being an Upper Division Clerk in the office of the Trade Mark Registry, Government of India, New Delhi. He was alltoted the Government quarter in question in Rama Krishna Puram, New Delhi in January, , 1963, the alltoment to be effective from 5-2-1963 when he took its possession. On 19-9-1964, he came to know from a memorandum addressed to the Registrar of Trade Marks, Registry Office, In...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : 3(1967)DLT161
Dua, J.(1) Kalu Ram the accused-petitioner was convicted by Shri Permanand Gupta, Magistrate 1st Class, Delhi, on 21 12.1965 under section 380, Indian Penal Code, for having committed theft at the premises of the Irwin Hospital, New Delhi, by removing coins dishonestly from the public telephone call botoh and sentenced to rigorous impisonment for one year. On appeal this conviction was upheld by the learned Additional Sessions Judge but the sentence reduced to rigorous imprisonment for three months. On revision in this Court, a learned Single Judge while admitting the revision, ordered release of the petitioner on bail to the satisfaction of the District Magistrate. I am informed by counsel at the bar that the petitioner has undergone rigorous imprisonment for one month. (2) The facts relating to the present case are that on 3-6-1965, the petitioner was seen at about noon time removing coins with the help of a piece of wire from the public telephone call botoh installed in the Irwin Ho...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : 1967CriLJ1295
I.D. Dua, J.1. In this criminal revision, Tillo Ram accused-petitioner assails his conviction under Section 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. The learned Magistrate had taken a lenient view of his offence, because he was lame from one leg and had, thereforee, instead of sentencing him to imprisonment imposed a fine of Rs. 600 and in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months. On appeal, the learned Additional Sessions Judge further reduced the sentence of fine from Rs, 600 to Rs. 400 of course maintaining his conviction.2. The facts of the case are that on 19-12-1962, Food Inspectors Lekh Raj Bhatt, Ram Gopal and Y. P. Bhatia visited the Jai Bharat Rice and General Mills on Najafgarh road and took four samples of til oil. It is nto denied that the accused had stored til oil manufactured by him. Lekh Raj Bhatt disclosed his identity and purchased 375 grams of til oil for analysis on payment of 62 Paise. The sample was divided into three parts and poured int...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : AIR1967Delhi71
(1) In this criminal revision, Tilo Ram accused-petitioner assails his conviction under S. 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. The learned Magistrate had taken a lenient view of his offence, because he was lame from one leg and had, thereforee, instead of sentencing him to imprisonment imposed a fine of Rs.600 and in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months. On appeal, the learned Additional Sessions Judge further reduced the sentence of fine from Rs.600 to Rs.400 of course maintaining his conviction.(2) The facts of the case are that on 19-12-1962 Food Inspectors Lekh Raj Bhatt, Ram Gopal and Y.P. Bhatia visited the Jai Bharat Rice and General Mills on Najagrarh road and took four samples of til oil. It is nto denied that the accused had stored til oil manufactured by him. Lekh Raj Bhatt disclosed his identitity and purchased 375 grams of til oil for analysis on payment of 62 paise. The sample was divided into three parts and poured into three clean and d...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : AIR1967Delhi26; 1967CriLJ744
(1). Ram Sarup, a Police Constable, attached to Police Station, Tilak Nagar, had been convicted by the Special Judge, Delhi on 8-3-1966 under Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and under S. 161 (Indian Penal Code, and sentenced to one year's rigorous imprisonment under each count, the two sentences running concurrently).(2) The case against him is that one Prem Singh went to Tihar Jail on 23-7-1965 to interview Ganga and tohers. The accused-appellant also used to visit the said jail in connection with his duties. The accused contacted Prem Singh and asked him to accompany the accused to the Police Station. Prem Singh had earlier been involved in a criminal case by the Najafgarh police and he felt that Tilak Nagar police might also do the same. The accused thereupon asked Prem Singh that if he was desirous of avoiding to go to the police station, then he should pay the accused Rs.50 by way of bribe. Prem Singh offered a sum of Rs.30 but on Ram Sarup's persistence in demand...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : AIR1967Delhi28
ORDER(1). This revision has been presented by the defendant, the Punjab oil Expeller Company of Ghaziabad, against an order of the learned additional District Judge, Delhi, dated 17-8-1962, affirming on appeal an order of a learned Subordinate judge 1st Class Delhi made on 26-3-1962 declining to set aside the exparte order dated 13-6-1958 on the ground that there was due service of the defendant and that the application was barred by time under Article 164 of the Indian Limited Act. (2) It would be helpful at this stage to state the relevant facts. The suit out of which these proceedings arise was instituted on 28-3-1958 for the recovery of Rs.1,537-5-9 and the same was registered on 3-4-1958. On the date of registration of the suit, it was ordered that summonses should go for 12-5-1958. No intermediate date was fixed. There is a ntoe at the buttom of the order suggesting that in case of refusal, service should be affected by fixation. This ntoe is obviously somewhat suspicious. On 12-...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : AIR1967Delhi41; 1967CriLJ868
(1). These are two connected revision applications (Cr. R. 273-D of 1965 and Cr. R. 291-D of 1965) arising out of the same criminal proceeding. Cr. R. 273-D of 1965 has been presented by Electrical . Of Calcutta under sections 439 and 561-A of the Code of Criminal procedure and under Article 227 of the Constitution of India and Cr. R. 291-D of 1965 has been presented by Shri Om Khosla of Calcutta under Sections 439 and 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure. buth are directed against the order dated 9-12-1964 of a learned Magistrate 1st Class, Delhi, rejecting two identical application by the two petitioners presented in the trial Court on 26.9.1964 pleading that the complainant had nto applied his mind while filing the complaint and that as such it deserved to be dismissed.(2) In order to understand the real point in controversy, it may be observed that on 31-12-1962, Shri D.D. Bhargava, Deputy Chief Controller of Imports and Exports (Office of the Chief Controller of Imports and Exp...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : AIR1967Delhi19
(1) This first appeal from order is directed against the judgment of Subordinate Judge 1st Class, Delhi, dated 26th August, 1965, dismissing the petition by the husband for a decree of judicial separation.(2) Kirpal Singh (hereafter referred to as the husband) was married to Shrimati Harbans Kaur (hereafter referred to as the wife) on 9th September, 1952, at Muzaffarnagar. He filed this petition under Section 10 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, against the wife for a decree of judicial separation on the ground of desertion. It was alleged by the husband that after the marriage the parties resides together in Delhi but no child was born out of the wedlock, that the wife stayed with the husband for 3 or 4 months and then deserted him without any reasonable cause, continuously for 3-1/2 years; that thereafter as a result of persuasion by some common friends and relations, the wife came to reside with the husband in the year 1957 but again in June 1959 left her marital abode without his co...
Tag this Judgment!