Court : Punjab and Haryana
Decided on : Mar-07-1960
Reported in : AIR1960P& H639
Chopra, J.(1) The only question involved in this appeal under Clause 10 of the Letters patent is whether a second appeal against an order made in execution proceedings of a decree for ejectment passed under the Delhi and Ajmer-Merwara Rent Control Act, XIX of 1947, is competent.(2) The facts relevant for the purposes of this appeal are these: The appellant-landlord had filed a suit for ejectment of his tenant, the respondent, on 24-8-1945, on the ground of the tenant having sublet a part of the premises without obtaining his consent. A decree for ejectment, on the basis of a compromise, was passed in favour of the landlord on 29-11-1945. According to the compromise the tenant was to vacate the premises after the expiry of six months. The tenant having failed to vacate the premises, the landlord-decree-holder took out execution of the decree. During the pendency of the execution proceedings, the Delhi and Ajmer Merwara Rent Control Act, XIX of 1947 (hereinafter to be referred as the Act...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Decided on : Aug-03-1960
Reported in : AIR1961P& H472
ORDERBishan Narain, J.1. Basheshar Dayal has filed this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution challenging the validity of the Order made by the Deputy Custodian General on 15-9-1956 refusing to confirm the sale of the properties made by Shri and Shrimati Abdul Rehman in favour of the petitioner.2. The facts leading to this petition are not in dispute. By a registered sale deed dated 17-2-1948 Basheshar Dayal purchased three pieces of property for Rs. 60,000/-. Out of the consideration money, Rs. 15,000/- were left with the vendee for payment to a previous mortgagee. The balance of Rs. 45,000/- was payable to Messrs. Bishamber Dass and Company. The vendee duly paid these amounts. On 16-3-1948 the petitioner applied for confirmation of the sale under Section 5-A of the East Punjab Evacuees' (Administration of Property) Act, 1947 (Act 14 of 1947), as amended by the East Punjab Ordinance No. 2 of 1948.It has been found by the Deputy Custodian General that the vendors migrated to P...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Decided on : Feb-10-1960
Reported in : AIR1960P& H341
Grover, J.(1) This judgment will dispose of Execution First Appeal No. 54 of 1952 and the connected cases (Execution First Appeal No. 4-D of 1952, Execution First Appeal No. 96 of 1952, Civil Revision No. 211-D of 1956 and Civil Revision No. 212-D of 1956) which have been referred to a Full Bench owing to the importance of certain questions which arise for determination. It would suffice to set out briefly the facts in the first case.(2) In January 1949 a Court at Meerut (In Uttar Pradesh) passed a preliminary mortgage decree in favour of Piyare Lal, respondent No. 2 in the present appeal, against Khan Bahadur Ghulam Hussain in his presence. Some time later the judgment-debtor became an evacuee and on 7th October 1949 of the Custodian of Evacuee property was informed of the proceedings by the Meerut Court. On 11th of October 1949 the Custodian appeared there in the proceedings relating to the final decree and raised an objection that no decree should be passed on 20th April 1950, but t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Decided on : Dec-13-1960
Reported in : AIR1962P& H8
Dua, J. (1) The short though by no means easy question, which calls for determination in this case, is whether claim to a pension is a legal right and is enforceable in a Court of Law.(2) The facts and circumstances giving rise to this appeal may briefly be stated. The plaintiff-appellant S. Gurdip Singh joined the erstwhile Patiala State army some time in February, 1924, and by honest and hard work he in due course became a subedar in that Army. In 1942, he was given commission and as a result of his services in the Second World War he was later given a regular commission. In October, 1947, he was placed in April, 1950, he was retired from service. The Plaintiff thus served the army for a little more than 26 years; for two years he was a regular officer and for about three years he served as an Emergency Commissioned officer and for 2 1/2 years as a Reserve Officer. For the remaining period he served as V.C.O. or N.C. O. He was granted pension of Rs. 75/- per mensem which was later on...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Decided on : Jul-14-1960
Reported in : AIR1962P& H87; [1962]32CompCas442(P& H)
(1) This appeal has been directed against an order of Mr. S. B. Kapoor, District Judge, Delhi, holding the application of Bharat Nidhi Ltd. under Section 216 and 235 of the Indian Companies Act, VII of 1913, to be barred by limitation.(2) It appears that the Trade and Industries Corporation Ltd. had a current account with the Bharat Bank Ltd. which, it may be stated, was a predecessor-in-interest of the Bharat Nidhi Limited. Another constituent of the Bharat Bank Ltd. was the Trade and Industries Corporation Ltd., on various occasions in 1947 deposited certain bills for collection totaling about Rs. 10620/-. These bills appears to have been wrongly credited to the Trade and Industries Corporation Ltd. The mistake was discovered sometime in July, 1952, when the Bharat Nidhi Ltd. called upon the Trade and Industries Corporation Ltd. and its various directors to refund these amounts to the company. Having failed to get the money back, on 26th October, 1953, the petition, out of which this...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Decided on : Mar-18-1960
Reported in : 1960CriLJ1236
ORDERI.D. Dua, J.1. In this writ petition only two points fall for decision. The first one relates to the vires of Section 178 A of the Sea Customs Act, though the attack is only confined to Article 19(1) (f) and (g) of the Constitution. It is conceded that this Section has been held by the Supreme Court not to be violative of Article 14: vide Babulal Amthalal v. Collector of Customs, Calcutta, (S) : 1983ECR1657D(SC) . The second point relates to the construction of Section 167(8) of the Sea Customs Act.2. The facts do not seem to be disputed and r it is common ground that the petitioner was arrested on 29th of September 1957 and 38 tolas and V/z rattis of gold, consisting of four bars, was recovered from his possession. He was tried and A. convicted of an offence Under Section 167(81) of the Sea Customs Act and sentenced to one year's rigorous imprisonment. A revision against the order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Amritsar, with respect to this conviction, is pending in t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Decided on : Sep-08-1960
Reported in : AIR1961P& H98
Falshaw, J. 1. This is a petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution filed by Hart Kishan Dass and Smt. Shila Devi challenging notices issued under Sections 4(1) and 5(1) of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act (Central Act No. 32 of 1958). 2. The first of these notices was issued on the 26th of November, 1959, by the Military EstatesOfficer, Delhi Circle, to Messrs Mussadi Lal Hari Kisan Dass, Mussadi Lal Garden, Ambala Cantonment, stating that he was of the opinion that they were in unauthorised occupation of 119 square feet of public land on which they had encroached, and calling on them to show cause on or before the 10th of December, 1959, why they should not be evicted. 3. It appears that no steps were taken by anybody to show cause in response to this notice and the Military Estates Officers issued the second notice under Section 5(1) of the Act on the 18th of May 1960 ordering Messrs Mussadi Lal Hari Kishen Dass and all persons who might be in occupation...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Decided on : Mar-18-1960
Reported in : AIR1960P& H488
Dua, J.(1) In this writ petition only two points fall for decision. The first one relates to the vires of Section 178A of the Sea Customs Act, though the attack is only confined to Article 19(1) (f) and (g) of the Constitution. It is conceded that this section has been held by the Supreme Court not to be violative of Article 14: vide Babulal Amthalal v. Collector of Customs, Calcutta, (S) AIR 1957 SC 877. The second point relates to the construction of Section 167(8) of the Sea Customs Act.(2) The facts do not seem to be disputed and it is common ground that the petitioner was arrested on 29th of September 1957 and 38 tolas and 1 1/2 rattis of gold, consisting of four bars, was recovered from his possession. He was tried and convicted of an offence under Section 167(81) of the Sea Customs Act and sentenced to one year's rigorous imprisonment. A revision against the order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Amritsar, with respect to this conviction, is pending in this Court.(3) On...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Decided on : Sep-27-1960
Reported in : AIR1962P& H64
Shamsher Bahadur, J. (1) This judgment will dispose of three letters Patent appeals Nos. 19-D, 22-D and 30-D of 1959, and also the civil miscellaneous application of Raja Singh Bhasin all Directed against the judgment of Bishan Narain, J., who dismissed five writ petitions on 6th of April 1959.(2) In the writ petitions before Bishan Narain, J., Nav Hind Finance and Transport (Private) Ltd., Parbat Bus Service (Private) Ltd., Soldiers United Motor Transport (Private) Ltd., The Crown Co-operative Transport Society LTD. and Raja Singh Bhasin, had impugned the validity of the appellate order of the Chief Commissioner dated 17th of December 1958, granting a stage carriage permit for the Delhi Lampur route to the Delhi Ex Servicemen Co-operative M. P. Society Ltd. (3) The State Transport Authority, Delhi, invited applications from the Delhi residents by notice dated 30th of March 1957 for a stage carriage permit between Delhi to Lampur which is a distance of 17 miles. The Co-operative societ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Decided on : May-18-1960
Reported in : AIR1961P& H12
ORDERA.N. Grover, J.1. This order will dispose of Civil Writs Nos. 118-D and 119-D of 1957.2. In these petitions under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution the main prayer is that a mandamus be issued to respondent No. 2 to refer the question of stamp duty leviable on two deeds of lease for opinion under Section 57 of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899.3. The lease deeds were presented before the Sub-Registrar for registration and one of the terms was that Rs. 25,000/- were to he paid as advance rent and that amount was to be treated as rental for the first 36 months payable on the date of occupancy of the premises, the rate of rent reserved being Rs. 700/- per month. The lease deeds were executed on the stamp paper of the value of Rs. 85/- each which duty was calculated under Article 35(a)(ii) of the Indian Stamp Act. The Registrar impounded the deeds and sent them to the Collector under Section 38(2), On 19th October 1954 the Collector issued a notice to the Manager of the petitioner-Com...
Tag this Judgment!