Court : Delhi
Reported in : AIR1969Delhi291; 1969CriLJ1239; ILR1968Delhi493
ORDER1. Shri A. Jindal, Magistrate, First Class, Delhi, has made a reference under Section 3 of the Contempt of Courts Act for taking action against Shri P. L. Chhabra, Provincial Transport Controller, Haryana Government, at Chandigarh on the basis of a demi official letter dated 4-4-1968 written by him to Shri C. G. Suri, District and Sessions Judge, Delhi. That letter may appropriately to reproduced in ex-tenso:--'Our General Manager of Haryana Roadways Depto at Gurgaou, Shri B, S. Khurana, has told me that on 14-2-1968 he was summoned to the Court of Shri Jindal, a Magistrate at Delhi, in connection with some cases pending against the drivers of vehicles Nos. PNG-2430, 2440, 2436 and 2149. It appears that these drivers were prosecuted in the year 1903-64 and were summoned on a number of occasions. It is indeed very unfortunate that the drivers concerned have nto put in actual appearance so far. The present General Manager, who has taken over at Gurgaon hardly three month ago, says t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : AIR1969Delhi258; [1969]39CompCas1(Delhi); ILR1969Delhi27
S.K. Kapur, J.(1) This Letters Patent Appeal is directed against the order of my learned brtoher S. N. Andley, J. dated 26/8/1968 whereby he confirmed the adinterim injunction restraining Free Wheel (India) Limited, a subsidiary company of Globe Mtoors Limited, from giving effect to a resolution passed by the subsidiary company on 22-7-1968 for raising further capital. A petition for winding up against Globe Mtoors Limited (hereafter referred to as the 'holding company') has already been admitted by this Court and is pending. Upon a petition made in the winding up proceedings for appointment of a provisional liquidator, the learned Single Judge appointed administrators to safeguard the interests of the unsecured creditors. The holding company holds 52 per cent. equity capital in Free Wheel (India) Limited (hereafter referred to as the 'subsidiary company'. H. P. Bhatnagar was, at the time of passing the resolution to issue further capital, the Managing Director of the holding company a...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : 5(1969)DLT592
I.D. Dua, C.J.(1) The only question raised in this appeal relates to the virus of section 11 of the Himachal Pradesh Abolition of Big Landed Estates and Land Reforms Act, 1953 and the challenge is centered round Article 26 of the Constitution. Section 11 reads as under :- 'RIGHT of tenant to acquire interests of land owner, 11. (1) Ntowithstanding any law, custom or contract to the contrary '(8) Where compensation is paid in Installments the unpaid amount of compensation shall he a charge upon the land.' Article 26 which guarantees freedom to manage religious affairs, provides that subject to public older, morality and health, every religious denomination or any section thereof shall have the right- (a) to establish and maintain institutions for religious and charitable purposes; (b) to manage its own affairs in matters of religion; (c) to own and acquire movable and immovable property, and (d) to administer such property in accordance with law. The contention raise is that the appell...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : ILR1969Delhi240; [1969]73ITR765(Delhi)
S.K. Kapur, J. (1) This is one consolidated reference made to us by the Income-tax Appell Rate Tribunal in the case of L. Hans Raj Gupta and of M/s. H. G. Gupta and Sons arising out of the order of the Tribunal dated 19th November, 1962, in Income-Tax Appeal Nos. 6841 and 7177 of 1961-62. The relevant year of assessment is 1956-57, the accounting year in btoh the cases being ending 31st March, 1956. The questions referred to us in the case of Hans Raj Gupta are- 1.'Whether in view of the clause 12 of the partnership deed dated 30th March, 1954, it could be said that there was an overriding title in favor of Messrs H. G. Gupta and Sons and, thereforee, the sum of Rs. 55,664.00) should have been excluded from Shri Hansraj Gupta's ttoal income ?' 2.'Whether, in any case, the aforesaid sum of Rs. 55,664.00 could be claimed as permissible deduction under section 10 of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 ?' and in that of Messrs H. G. Gupta and Sons are- 3.'Whether the amount of Rs. 55,664.00 ha...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : AIR1969Delhi330; ILR1969Delhi426
V.S. Deshpande, J.1. On the complaint dated 30-1-1968 by Shri S. Vanchinath, Income-tax Officer, Section X (Central), Bombay, against the petitioner company alleging commission of offences punishable under Sections 120B read with 409 and 409 and 477A of the Indian Penal Code, a case for investigation was registered by the first respondent and investigation thereon started by the second respondent acting under the provisions of the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946 (hereinafter called the Act).The petitioner has challenged the legality of this investigation on the following grounds, viz.,(1) The Delhi Special Police Establishment is nto a police force belonging to any State within the meaning of Entry 80 of the Union list of the 7th Schedule of the Constitution and, thereforee, they could nto function under the Act. (2) Assuming that the Delhi Special Police Establishment was a police force for the Chief Commissioner's province, later the Part C State of Delhi, and thus able ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : 5(1969)DLT237
I.D. Dua, J.(1) The petitioner Baldev Raj, who was stated to be a boy of 20 years age by the Courts below, was con- victed on 14th; May, 1968 by a learned Magistrate 1st Class, Delhi, under section 324, Indian Penal Code and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for one year. The Charge against him was that he had stabbed one Satish Chander on 20th July, 1967 at about 9.15A.M. when the injured person was going for a walk via T. B. Hospital Kingsway Camp along with Inderjit. Two injuries were given with the knife by the accused, one at the back of the neck and the toher somewhere on the left arm. The conviction was upheld by the learned Additional Sessions Judge but the sentence was reduced to rigorous imprisonment for six months. The order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge is dated 7th October, 1968 and it was directed that the accused, who was on bail, be taken in custody. (2) Btoh the Courts below considered the question of releasing the accused under the Probation of Offenders A...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : AIR1969Delhi214; 1969CriLJ896; 5(1969)DLT24; ILR1969Delhi110
S.K. Kapur, J. 1. Upon a report received from the Additional District Magistrate that Shri R. K. Dalmia has committed contempt of Court, a notice was issued to him on 15th October. 1968. The circumstances that led to the report may now be set out.2. Shri Omesh Saigal, Sub Divisional Magistrate, New Delhi, made a report on 27th July, 1968, to the Deputy Commissioner that he had a case (State v. Kewalramani and twelve others) fixed in his Court for 27th July, 1968; that the case was taken up immediately after lunch when the accused were ordered to be released on bail; that according to the Sessions Court the file was sent to Shri N, C. Jain, Sub Divisional Magistrate, New Delhi, for consideration of the surety bonds for release of the accused persons; that by about 5.20 P. M. the surety bonds of 12 accused persons had been accepted but no surety was present for the 13th accused; that at about 5.35 P. M. when 'Mr. Badri Nath, Mr. Ramesh Chander, Magistrate 1st Class and myself were sittin...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : 5(1969)DLT469
V.S. Deshpande, J.(1) This is an appeal against the order of the Additional District Judge, Delhi dated 16/5/1967 refusing the grant of temporary injunction to the plaintiff-appellant. The application for temporary injunction by the plaintiff before the Additional District Judge, though made under Order 39, Rules I and 2 read with Section 151 Civil Procedure Code ., was actually cov.ered by Order 39, Rule 2 alone inasmuch as the suit by the plaintiff was for restraining the defendants from committing 'toher injury of any kind' within the meaning of Rule 2(1). The injury complained of was the harm caused to the plaintiff by the sale of deceptiv.e goods by the defendants. The order of the learned Additional District Judge was apparently, thereforee, passed under Order 39, Rule 2 Civil Procedure Code and nto under Section 151 Civil Procedure Code It was thereforee, appealable under Order 43, Civil Procedure Code .(2) Briefly, the facts leading to the filing of this appeal against the orde...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : 5(1969)DLT261
I.D. Dua, J. (1) This regular second appeal under section 100, Code of Civil Procedure, is directed against the order of the learned Senior-Subordinate Judge with enhanced appellate powers affirming on appeal the order of a learned Subordinate Judge 1st Class, dated 10th March, 1965, dismissing the plaintiff-appellant's suit for permanent injunction restraining defendant No. 1 from evicting him from the flat in dispute in execution of a decree for eviction passed against defendants Nos. 2 and 3 by the Kent Controller, Delhi. The suit was contested by defendant No 1, the toher two defendants remaining absent and proceedings against them bing ex-parte. (2) It is unnecessary to narrate all the facts leading to the conversy in question, because in this appeal, the direct contest only centres round the construction of sections 17 and 18 of the Delhi Rent Control Act 59 of 1958 (hereafter called the Act) and facts relevant for this purpose alone need be stated. (3) The pleadings of the parti...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : 5(1969)DLT519
Hardayal Hardy, J. (1) The appellant in btoh these appeals is the wife of the respondent against whom a decree for restitution of conjugal rights has been passed by Shri Sagar Chand Jain, Subordinate Judge 1st Class, Delhi on an application filed by her husband under section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. By the same order the wife's application for judicial separation under section 10 of the Act has been dismissed. The appellant being aggrieved by the order made by the learned Subordinate Judge has filed two separate appeals, one against the decree for restitution of conjugal rights passed against her and toher against the dismissal of her application for judicial separation. Although two separate decrees have been framed by the trial court a.nd also two separate appeals have been filed against them, the order in btoh the cases being common, btoh the appeals have been heard together. (2) The parties are Hindus by religion and were married at village Kerala, Delhi in the year 1958 ...
Tag this Judgment!