Court : Delhi
Reported in : 4(1968)DLT620
I.D. Dua, C.J.(1) This Letters Patent Appeal from the judgment of a learned Single judge raises the question of the construction of section 15(2)(b) First of the Punjab Preemption Act 1 of 1913 (hereafter called the Act) as amended. (2) Facts relevant for our purposes, as discernible from the Judgment of the learned Single Judge are that one half share of land measuring 61 kanals and 12 marlas situated in Tikka Jaunta, Mauza Pundar was sold by one Smt. Jhokbu in favor on one Mehar Chand and tohers for a sum of Rs 900 by means of a sale-deed dated 6th September, 1963. Doomnu, claiming a superior right of pro-emption, instituted a suit turn pie-emption, out of which this appeal has arisen. The suit was resisted on various grounds and the pleas of the parties gave rise to four issues We are here concerned only with issue No. 1 which reads as under:- 'Whether the plaintiff is a step-son of the vendor and is a pint owner in the khata and as such has a superior right of pre-emption ?' The tr...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : AIR1969Delhi194
I.D. Dua, C.J. 1. This petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India praying for quashing the order of Shri B.S. Grewal, Financial Commissioner, Punjab, dated 17-10-1964 has been referred to a larger Bench by my learned brother Tatachari, J. by his order dated 15-11-1967 because it raises the question of the virus of Section 7 of the Punjab Public Premises and Land (Eviction & Rent Recovery) Act, 1959 (Act Xxxi of 1959) (hereafter called the Act). This section has been challenged on the ground that it is discriminatory and vocative of Article 14 of the Constitution.2. Stating briefly the facts giving rise to this challenge the petitioner Raja Sahib of Nalagarh claims to have been a proprietor of the land in dispute situated in villages Seri and Ghansot, Tehsil Nalagarh, District Ambala, before the formation of the Patiala and East Punjab States Union, when the State of Nalagarh merged into the said Union. Later the Pepsu Government, by means of a notification dated 1...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : AIR1969Delhi154; 4(1968)DLT660
S.K. Kapur, J.1. By registered sale deed dated July 26, 1963, Kartar Singh sold 6 Kanals and 4 Marias of land being a share in joint land, in favor of Gulzara Singh and Wattan Singh respondents herein for a consideration of Rs. 2,500/-. On January 15, 1964, Inder Singh instituted a suit for possession of the said land by pre-emption. Inder Singh plaintiff founded his claim on a superior right of pre-emption over the vendees, Gulzara Singh and Wattan Singh. The following pedigree table brings out the relationship of Kartar Singh vendor, Inder Singh plaintiff and Gulzara Singh and Wattan Singh vendees: DHARAM SINGH ________________________|___________________ | | | Narain Singh Inder Singh Kishan Singh | (Plaintiff- | | pre-emptor) Kartar Singh |______________ (Vendor) ______________|_______________ | | Gulzara Singh Wattan Singh (Vendees)2. The trial Court decreed the suit on July 21, 1965, and an appeal in the Court of District Judge against the trial Court's decision also failed. The...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : 5(1969)DLT109
T.V.R. Tatachari, J. (1) This Writ Petition was filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution by one Mohinder Singh praying for .the issue of an appropriate writ, direction or order directing the respondents I and 2 to stop the prosecution of the petitioner for plying his mtoher vehicle under a public carrier permit No. 76/65 issued by the State Transport Commissioner, Punjab, for the whole of Punjab and Kalka-Simla route. The first respondent is the State of Himachal Pradesh. The second respondent is the State Transport Authority, Himachal Pradesh, Simla. The third respondent is the State Transport Commissioner Punjab, Chandigarh. (2) The Petitioner, Moninder Singh, is engaged in the business of goods transport on the authority of a public carrier permit No. 76/65 in respect of his vehicle No. PNS-638 issued by the Secretary, Regional. Transport Authority, Ambala, in accordancs with the orders of the State Transport Commissioner, Punjab, for the whole of Punjab and Kalka-Simla ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : 5(1969)DLT1
I.D. Dua, C.J.(1) The principal question requiring determination by us is whether non- compliance with the Criminal Courts and Court-Martial (Adjustment of Jurisdiction) Rules, 1952 framed under section 549 (1), Cr.P. C. (hereafter called the Rules) goes to the roto of the inherent jurisdiction of the committing Magistrate and of the Court trying the case pursuant to the commitment order or whether it is a mere irregularity, the effect of which is to be considered on the facts and circumstances of the each case. The facts giving rise to this reference are contained in the referring order dated 25th June, 1968 and, thereforee, need nto be repeated. That order may be read as a part of this order. Section 549, Cr. P. C., and the relevant rules framed there under may now be reproduced :- 'S.549 (1).-Delivery to military authorities of persons liable to be tried by Court martial.-The Central Government may make rules consistent with this Code and the Army Act, the Naval Discipline Act and t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : 4(1968)DLT693
T.V.R. Tatachari, J. (1) This writ petition was filed by Deb Kanta Roy, who carries on business under the name and style of D.K Roy and Company at Calcutta, praying that a suitable writ or direction or order may be issued quashing the orders dated 10th July 1958 and/or 28th April, 1959 passed by the Government of India, Ministry of Finance, New Delhi and directing that no effect be given to the said orders. The first respondent in the writ petition is E.S.Krishnamurthy Member, Central Board of Revenue. New Delhi and the second respondent is the Union of India. (2) The facts which led up to the filing of this writ petition are stated as under. Under a Drug Import license N. 3352, dated 22nd November, 2955 (Annexure A), issued by the Drugs Controller, India, New Delhi, in favor of the petitioner, the petitioner indented and imported into India a drug known as procaine pencilin, G Crystalline used for aqueous infection and described in the aforesaid license as 'Jenacillin A' from East Ger...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : ILR1968Delhi462
Hardayal Hardy, J.(1) The title of the suit gives the names of two plaintiffs, but in reality the plaintiff is only one as the second plaintiff Goodwill Pictures Limited is merely the old name of the first plaintiff Goodwill India Limited. The suit is for a declaration that the plaintiffs are the owners of certain immovable property the market value of which according to them is Rupees fifty p. lacs, and that they are nto liable to be dis-possessed there from by defendants I to 5 without adequate compensation being given to lhem in the course of acquisition proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.(2) The plaintiffs originally based their claim to relief on a saledeed executed in their favor by defendants 6 and 7. Later, they filed an application under Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure for amendment of the plaint by incorporating therein an alternative plea that in case they are nto held to be the absolute owners of the property in dispute by virtue of its purchase...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : 5(1969)DLT234
V.S. Deshpande, J. (1) This application under section 5 of the Limitation Act and Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure raises the question whether the appellant was prevented by sufficient cause from filing the regular first appeal within the period of limitation and, if so, whether the delay in doing so should be condoned. (2) The appeal was presented on 10th November, 1966 and was received without any objection. It was, however, returned to the appellants' counsel on 1st December, 1966 on the ground that the typing charges of Rs. 50.00 had nto been deposited. The appellants thereupon deposited the said amount on the same day. In the meanwhile, the limitation for the filing of the appeal had expired on 12th November, 1966. The petitioner-appellants thereforee pray that the delay in filing of the appeal between 12th November, 1966 and 1st December, 1966 be condoned. (3) By a Ntoification No. JCIRO/1950 dated 28th June, 1950,the Judicial Commissioner in exercise of the power confe...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : ILR1968Delhi470; [1970]77ITR802(Delhi)
1. Common questions of law and fact arise in Civil Writs Nos. 67 to 79 and they will be disposed of by this judgment.2. The writ petitions have been filed to quash the several ntoices dated 23rd March, 1962, issued by respondent No. 3 under Section 34(1)(a) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, for reopening assessments for the assessment years 1942-43 to 1953-54, and also for prohibiting the respondents fromproceeding further with assessment proceedings in pursuance of the aforesaid ntoices. The several letters under cover of which the several ntoices were sent, bear the date 23/24 March, 1962. The ntoices were, according to the respondents, sent in three sets--one set by registered acknowledgment due post to one address of the petitioners; antoher set also by registered acknowledgment due post to antoher address of the petitioners and the third sent by messenger. It is nto disputed that the ntoices which were sent by registered acknowledgment due post were received by the petitioners o...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : 5(1969)DLT68
Hardayal Hardy, J. (1) The appellants (1) Jodbu son of Sarjan Ram (23 years), (2) Chandu Ram son. of Jai Kishan (19 years) and (3) Roshan Lal son of Dheba Ram (16 years) were tried together by the Sessions Judge, Mandi, Kulu and Lahanl & Spiti Districts at Mandi for an offence punishable under section 302 read with section 34 Indian Penal Code, for having committed the murder of one Gulab Singh in the morning hours of August 19, 1966 at village Gahar, Tehsil Sarkaghat, District Mandi, in complicity with one Parma son of Munshi, a young lad of 17 years who was granted pardon and was examined as an approver at the trial. All the three accused have been found guilty and have been sentenced to life imprisonment and also to pay a fine of Rs. 200.00S each; and in default of payment of fine to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three months each. The accased have appealed against their conviction and sentence to this Court. (2) The prosecution case as accepted by the learned Sessio...
Tag this Judgment!