Court : Delhi
Reported in : AIR1969Delhi14
1. This appeal was settled by Grover J., by his order dated 7th of February, 1966, on the basis that the same had become infructuous, the application for eviction having been dismissed. That order was passed by Grover J., at the instance of the respondents without notice to the appellants and without hearing them. In this situation, an application was filed for setting aside of the order of Grover J. This application is nto objected to by the learned counsel for the respondents. I would accordingly vacate the order of Grover J., and restore the appeal for hearing,2. This second appeal is directed against the decision of the Rent Control Tribunal upholding the decision of the Rent Controller under Section 15(1) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958. This case has an interesting history. The premises in dispute form part of a larger building belonging to one Mohd. Shafi. The building is situate in Gandhi Market. The dispute relates to a part of the building denoted by No. 9830. This part o...
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!Court : Delhi
Reported in : 3(1967)DLT131
S.K. Kapur, J.(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 resided 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 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 w...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : AIR1967Delhi88; 1967CriLJ1300
ORDER(1) The respondent Shri Sinha Govindji is the proprietor of Messrs Sinha Govindji carrying on business at Bellary in Mysore State. The said firm had an office in Bombay. On 18th January, 1960, the respondent was granted a license for import of 31/2 tons of Cellulose Nitrate sheets, rods, etc. Of the value of about Rs.75,000/- the license was 'actual User's license', so that the goods could be consumed by the respondent himself, and he was nto entitled to sell the same. He imported 44 cases of the material from London and the delivery thereof was taken in July, 1961. In December, 1961, the respondent addressed a letter to one Shri Bijayasankar Bhargava of Sankar Brtohers, Delhi offering to sell the material at Rs. 7 per pound. This letter was sent by the respondent from Bombay to the purchaser in Delhi. Shri Bhargava accepted the offer by a letter which he sent from Delhi to the respondent at Bombay. According to the complaint, Shri Bhargava instructed the respondent to send the go...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : AIR1967Delhi1
Dua, AG. C.J. (1). This petition under Arts. 226 and 227 of the Constitution has been placed before us in pursuance of the referring order dated 4-11-1966 made by my learned brtoher S.K. Paur, J. Considering the matter to be important and, thereforee deserving of consideration by a larger Bench.(2) The petitioner claiming to be a citizen of India and regular Travel Agent and Adviser of Messrs. Lufthansa Airlines and toher International Wirelines working in Delhi for the last more than three years, made an application to the Regional Passport Officer, New Delhi, respondent No. 1 on 5-7-1966 along with the requisite guarantee bond and original character certificate signed by the Competent Authority. This application had been made by the petitioner in anticipation of an invitation of Messrs. Lufthansa a German Airlines who had decided to introduce a flight between Hamburg and Oslo and are to operate an inaugural flight on 12-11-1966. The petitioner was to leave on 11-11-1966. By means of ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : 3(1967)DLT172
Hardy, J. (1) The petitioner Bal Diwakar Hans was arrested on 2nd December, 1966, pursuant to an order of detention made by the District Magistrate, Delhi, on 30th November, 1966, under Section 3 (i) (a) (ii) of the Preventive Detention Act, 1950, as amended, (hereinafter to be referred to as the Act). The grounds on which the detention of the petitioner has be en ordered are that his activities were highly prejudicial to the maintenance of public order in the Union Territory of Delhi. The petitioner has filed this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution read with Section 491 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and his counsel Shri R. P. Bansal has raised the following contentions on his behalf : (i) that no order of detention was served upon the petitioner either citing the preamble or the conclusion of facts as required under Section 3 of the Preventive Detention Act at the time when he was arrested and that it was only after a week or so of his arrest that the petitioner came t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : AIR1968Delhi75
ORDER(1) This judgment would dispose of Civil Revisions Nos. 31-D of 1964, No. 302-D of 1964 and No. 668-D of 1965, all of which have been filed by Chadha Mtoor Transport Company (Private) Limited.(2) Arguments have been addressed before us in Civil Revision No. 319-D of 1964 and it is stated by learned counsel for the parties that the decision in this case would also govern the toher two cases because the matter involved is identical In the circumstances, we may briefly refer to the facts of the case in Civil Revision NO. 319-D of 1964. R. N. Chopra respondent in that revision brought a suit for recovery of Rs.328.80 nP. On account of compensation for non-delivery of goods against the petitioner Transport Company in the Court of Additional Judge, Small Causes, Delhi. The petitioner-company made an application under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 (Act No. X of 1940) (hereinafter referred to as the Act) for stay of the suit on the ground that the plaintiff-respondent had entere...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : AIR1967Delhi68
S.K. Kapur J.(1). In this petition, we are concerned with the new Delhi Parliamentary constituency. The petitioner applied to the Chief Electoral Officer (4th respondent) for supply of a copy of the Electoral Roll, on 16th Jan. 1967. The office is alleged to have reported that no such copy was available. The petitioner claims that he approached the officer concerned again and the 4th respondent agreed to supply one copy partly in English and partly in Hindi. A copy was in fact supplied to the petitioner and it has been alleged in Paragraph 7 of the petition that it was neither properly arranged nor indexed, nor numbered. Besides there were a large number of loose sheets adding to, altering or amending the various parts of the roll, without any indication on those supplementaries and amending lists as to which particular part of the roll they pertained to:(2) To 1st respondent Shri Mehr Chand Khanna filed two nomination papers being Nos.10 and 11 on the 19th January, 1967. The petitione...
Tag this Judgment!