Court : Delhi
Reported in : 4(1968)DLT1
I.D. Dua, C.J. 1. Shri Surat Singh has presented this petition against Shri Des Raj Chowdhry, Leader, Congress Party Delhi Municipal Corporation and Shri Ranbir Singh, Chief Editor,' Milap Daily', under Sections 3, 4 and 5 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1950. This petition deserves to be reproduced in extenso :--'1. That Shri Kishori Lal, a Member of the Congress Party, in the Municipal Corporation of Delhi, filed writ Petition No. 448 of 1967 in this Hon'ble court on 1st May, 1967 which is still pending. 2. That the ntoices of the said Writ Petition have been issued to the respondents of whom the petitioner is one. Appearance has been filed on behalf of the respondents including the petitioner and they have prayed for time to file their reply to the Writ Petition. 3. That in order to prejudice the mind of the public and of the court against the respondents including the petitioner, the leader of the Congress party in Delhi Municipal Corporation gto an Article published in the issue of...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : 4(1968)DLT148
I.D. Dua, C.J.(1) This appeal has been presented from the older of the learned Guardian Judge, Delhi, dated 8th 'November, 1966 allowing the petition of Sohan Lal (respondent before me under section 25 of the Guardian and Wards Act for delivery of the custody of two minor children. The application was presented against Smt. Ram Piari, wife of Sohan Lal, and mtoher of the two minor children. The application was opposed by the mtoher of the children and on the pleadings the only issue framed and tried by the Court below was whether the appellant was entitled to the custody of the minors. The learned Guardian Judge was influenced by the fact that under Hindu law, father is the natural guardian of the minor children and that in the case in hand, the minors were nto of such tender age as to require constant attendance from the mtoher. On this view, the learned Judge found no reason why the natural guardian should nto be allowed custody of his miner children. While- narrating the facts, the ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : AIR1969Delhi112; 4(1968)DLT6
1. I have found it difficult to decide this case. Both during the course of counsel's arguments and afterwards my mind has undergone several modifications and changes of opinion, Even today, I find it a difficult question of jurisdiction and discretion.2. The appellant Dr. Hardit Singh Giani was Liquidator of National Planners Limited which is now in liquidation. The company was incorporated on 23-2-1946 as a private company limited by shares under the Indian Companies Act 1913, but was soon converted into a public company by a special resolution passed on 5-6-1946. The nominal capital of the company was Rs. 20,00,000/- divided into 100,000 preference shares of Rs. 10/- each and 20,000 ordinary shares of Rs. 5/- each, while its paid up capital according to the latest balance-sheet of the company as on 30-6-1949 filed in the office of the Registrar of Companies Delhi was Rs. 96,394/50. One Roshan Lal (since deceased) was its Managing Director while his brother Kundan Lal was one of its ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : 5(1969)DLT483
T.V.R. Tatachari, J.(1) The petitioners are five in number, namely, (1) J. W. Benon, (2) Smt. Prito, (3) Dharam Chand, (4) Kuljas Rai, and (5) Jagdish Chander. The said petitioners owned buildings including shops and business cum-residential flats, situate in the area of Ktohi Manali, Pahti Nasogi, in Tehsil and District Kulu. The said properties are located in a central and prized commercial area, being part of and adjacent to Manali Bazar, and were stated to be a choice piece of estate from the commercial point of view.(2) On 1st June, 1965, the Punjab Government ntoified by a Ntoification No. 1119-2UE-65/16501, dated 1st June, 1965 under 'Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 , that it appeared to the Governor of Punjab that land was likely to be required to be taken by the Government for a public purpose, namely, for planned development of the area of village Ktohi Manali Pahti Nasogi, Tehsil and District Kulu, and that it was, thereforee, ntoified by the said Ntoification th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : 3(1967)DLT56
Dua, J. (1) This revision has been presented by the defendant, the Punjab Oil Expeller Company of Ghaziabad, against an order ofthe learned Additional District Judge, Delhi, dated 17th August 1962 affirming on appeal an order of a learned Subordinate Judge 1st Class, Delhi, made on 26th March 1962 decling to set aside the ex-parte order dated 13th June 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 Limitation Act. (2) It would be helpful at this stage to state the relevant facts. The suit out of which these procceedings arise was instituted on 28th March 1958 for the recovery of Rs. 1,537/5/9 and the same was registered on 3rd April, 1958. On the date of registration of the suit, it was ordered that summonses should go for 12th May 1958. No inter- mediate date was fixed. There is a ntoe at the buttom of the older suggesting that in case of refusal service should be effected by affixation. This n...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : 3(1967)DLT704
I.D. Dua, C.J. (1) This second appeal has been preferred under section 39 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 195S (hereinafter called the Act) from the order of the Rent Control Tribunal dated 24th July, 1967 dismissing the appellant's appeal and affirming the order of the First Additional Rent Controller dated 23rd September, 1966 holding that the landlord bonafide required the premises in question for occupation as residence for himself and for his family members dependent upon him and that he was nto in possession of reasonably suitable accommodation and on his finding, making an order of eviction against the tenant with a direction to vacate the premises Within six months from the date of the order. buth the Rent Controller and the Rent Control Tribunal left the parties to bear their own costs. (2) On second appeal, which would nto lie under the statute unless it involved some substantial question of law, the learned counsel for the appellant has, at the very outset, pressed his applic...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : 4(1968)DLT15
I.D. Dua, C.J.(1) This appeal is directed against the order of a learned Subordinate Judge 1st Class, Delhi, made on 9th January, 1958. By means of the impugned order, an application by the Union of India under section 34 of the Arbitration Act was allowed and proceedings in the suit directed to be adjourned sine die. It is unfortunate that appeals of this type are nto given priority and the suit should have remained stayed for nearly 10 yearly because of the. pendency of this appeal in this Court. (2) It appears that on 8th January, 1955, the plaintiff (appellant in this Court) purchased 569 tons of scrap dog spikes brooken from the Ghaziabad depto of the defendant which was auctioned by M/s. Mackenzie Lyall & Co., at the rate of Rs. 76.00 per ton subject to the confirmation of the price by the Iron and Steel Controller, Calcutta. A sum of Rs. 10.850.00 was deposited by the plaintiff with the auctioneers on account of 25 per cent of the purchase money. The Iron and Steel Controller, C...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : 4(1968)DLT130
S.N. Shanker, J. (1) By order dated 26th December, 1966 the Delhi Administration made a reFerence to the Industrial Tribunal, Delhi, for the determination of the following issue : Whether the management of the petitioner-Company be required to introduce a Gratuity Scheme and if so, on what terms and conditions ?(2) The parties filed their pleadings before the Tribunal. In the written statement of the management, the following preliminary objection i was taken: 'An appreciable or substantial number of workmen employed by the company have nto espoused or supported the matter of dispute i under reference and the Union alleging to represent the workmen emjployed by the company has no locus stand! to represent them In fact, there is antoher Representative Union recognised by the Com- pany namely Payen-Talbros Employees Union (Regd ) which has j t entered into a number of long term and comprehensive settlements Jl with the Company in the past regarding various demands of the workmen, but it ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : 3(1967)DLT164
S.K. Kapur, J. (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 8 tons of Cellulose Nitrate sheets, rods. etc. of the value of about Rs. 75,000.00. 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 Bijay Sankar Bhargave of Sankar Brtohers, Delhi, offering to sell the material at Rs. 7.00 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 ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : AIR1968Delhi299
I.D. Dua, C.J.1. At the time of admission of this revision (C. R. No. 67 of 1967), Shri Sushil Malhtora and Shri R. N. Malhtora appearing in support of the petitioner Sant Ram cited before Andley, J. Panna Lal v. Jagan Nath, 1963 P. L. R. 528, a decision by Falshaw, C. J. And Chuhar Mal v. Balak Ram, 1964 Cur Lj 119 = (1964) 66 PLR 503 (Dulat and Pandit JJ.) in support of their plea for admission of this revision. Shanker. J. felt doubtful of the correctness of the view taken in these two decisions, with the result that while admitting the revision, he directed that the same should be heard after ntoice by a larger Bench. It is in these circumstances that this revision has been placed before us for final disposal.2. The main question arising for settlement by us relates to the interpretation of section 13(3)(a)(iii) of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act No. Iii of 1949 (hereafter described as the Punjab Act). The provision of law requiring interpretation may now be reproduced.'...
Tag this Judgment!