Court : Delhi
Reported in : AIR1969Delhi351; 5(1969)DLT15; ILR1969Delhi34
Inder Dev Dua, C.J.1. The question which this Full Bench is called upon to decide relates to the amount of court-fee payable on appeal presented by an aggrieved party under section 10 of the Delhi High Court Act (hereafter called the Act) against the judgment of a learned Single Judge of this High Court given in the exercise of ordinary original civil jurisdiction conferred by the Act, to a Division Court thereof. Section 10 may now be read:'10. Powers of Judge: (1) Where a Single Judge of the High Court of Delhi exercises ordinary Original civil jurisdiction conferred by Sub-section (2) of section 5 on that Court, an appeal shall lie from the judgment of the single Judge to a Division Court of that High Court. (2) Subject to the provisions of Sub-section (1) the law in force immediately before the appointed day relating to the powers of the Chief Justice, single Judges and Division Courts of the High Court of Punjab and with respect to all matters ancillary to the exercise of those po...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : 4(1968)DLT479
I.D. Dua, J. (1) Smt. Chinta Mani and her minor female child have approached this Court on revision assailing the order of the learned Sub-Divisional Juge, Kalpa Sub-Division, Kalpa, dated 9th January, 1968 rejecting their claim under section 488, Cr. P.C. for maintenance against Shri Jagat Singh (respondent in this Court) who has been stated to be the father of the female child and who has lived with Smt Chinta Mani as her husband. (2) The claim proceedings were, I am informed, initially instituted in the Nayaya Panchayat, Kalpa, but under section 63 of the Himachal Pradesh Panchayat Rai Act, those proceedings were transferred to the Magistrate having jurisdiction to try the controversy. I am informed by the -learned counsel appearing in this case that though in section 63 the Court is described as that of the Magistrate, he really functions as Sub- Divisional.judge while dealing with proceedings like the present. As ntohing turns on this description, I need nto say anything on this p...
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 : 5(1969)DLT191
S.K. Kapur, J.(1) The petitioner is a registered partnership firm and is a whole-sale dealer in food-grains, Kariana, cemet, vanaspsti, molasses and general merchandise at Maranda, District Kangra. The Punjab Rcorgaization Act, 1966 (Act No. 31 of 1966) came into force on November 1, 1966, and the Districts of Kangra, Kulu, Lahaul Spiti and Simla (hereafter referred to as the 'transferred territories'), which formed part of the State of Punjab, were merged in the Union torritory of Himachal Pradesh. The transferred territories, being part of Punjab, the provisions of the Punjab Sales-tax Act, 1948, were applicable therein and by virtue of section 88 of the Punjab Reorganisation Act. 1966, continued to operate in the transferred territories until altered by to the areas comprised in the Union Territory of Himachal Pardesh before merger of the transferred territories, the East Punjab General Sales-tax Act, 1948 ( hereafter referred to as the Himachal Act) was applicable with certain modi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : 5(1969)DLT214
V.S. Despandey and I.D. Dua, JJ. (1) This Letters Patent Appeal lias pointedly raised questions about the proper construction and application of Section 348 of the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act 1957. The Appellant (whose writ petition was dismissed by the learned Single Judge) owned a three-storeyed building, of which a part on the ground floor was occupied by respondent No. 3 as a tenant. Respondent No. 2 was the Deputy Commissioner of the respondent No, I, Delhi Municipal Corporation, invested with the powers of the Commissioner exercisable under Sections 349 and 348. As certain portions of the building, nto including the portion in the occupation of respondent No. 3, were found to be in a dangerous condition two ntoices, one after the toher, were issued on 25th May, 1965 and 29th May, 1965, under Section 349 for the vacation of the dangerous portions. The petitioner challenged the validity of the action by filing a suit in a Civil Court. Subsequently, title Corporation issued a nt...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : 5(1969)DLT241
I.D. Dua, J. (1) In this criminal revision, the accused Shri Paras Dass son of Shri Baij Nath challenges the order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Delhi, dated 30th November, 1965 affirming on appeal the order of his conviction made by Shri B. K. Malhtora, Magistrate 1st Class, Delhi, dated 18th August, 1965 convic- ting him of an offence under section 500, I. P. C. and sentencing him to undergo four months' simple imprisonment to two counts, the senten- ces to run concurrently. The complainant, it may be pointed out, is also a man of the same name, Shri Paras Dass, though his' fathers' name is Shri Jugal Kishore. The complaint was instituted on 21st March, 1963 (more than five years ago) and after an enquiry under sec- corporation 202, Cr. P. C., the accused was summoned under section 500, I P.C. According to the complaint, the accused was in the service of the comp- lanant as a Munim for about three or four months, a short time prior to the institution of the complaint. He ...
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 : 1969CriLJ727
I.D. Dua, C.J., S.K. Kapur and S.N. Andley, JJ. (1) The contemner Shri H.L.Sebgal has stated before us that he confines his defense to paragraph 1 of the reply dated 27th May, 1968 and that he is sorry to have added the remaining paragraph Nos 2 and 3 in that reply. We are satisfied that the contemner did nto intend to commit contempt of Court and perhaps in him enthusiasm, he was misled into ventilating his grievances in this reply. (2) Action by way of contempt of Court is a serious matter. In this action, the Court is btoh the accuser and the Judge of the accusation. The position is the same whether the alleged contempt is of a subordinate Court or of this Court. It thus behoves the Court to act with due circumspection, making appropriate allowances for common human failings within reasonable limits. Whereas the Court must always be jealous in vindicating its dignity and impartiality, at the same time, the Court must exercise its power with restraint and care, always distinguishing ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : ILR1985Delhi921
I.D. Dua, C.J. (1) (ORAL). The eontemner Shri H. L. Sehgal has stated before us that lie confines his defense to paragraph 1 of the reply dated 27-5-1968 and that he is sorry te have added the remaining paragraphs Nos. 2 and 3 in that reply. We arc satsfied that the contemner did nto intend to commit contempt of Court and perhaps in his enthusiasm, he was misled into ventilating his grievances in this reply.(2) Action by way of contempt of Court is a serious matter. In this action, the Court is btoh, the accuser and the judge of the accusation. The position is the same whether the alleged contempt is of a subordinate Court or of this Court. It thus behoves the Court to act with due circumspection, making appropriate allowances for common human failings within reasonable limits. Whereas the Court must always be jealous in vindiCating its dignity and impartiality, at the same: time, the Court must exercise its power with restraint and care, always distinguishing cases where there is a de...
Tag this Judgment!