Court : Delhi
Reported in : AIR1967Delhi1
..... observations in the judgments of american or indeed of any foreign courts, which may be influenced and inspired by factors inappropriate to indian conditions and circumstances. fifth amendment of the united states constitution which is differently worded or at least which is nto shown to be similarly worded may, even toherwise, nto serve as ..... in the writ petition and also to the single bench decision of the bombay high court in jethwani's case. : air1967bom235 which was affirmed on letters patent appeal. the decisions of the supreme court of america for direct support to the petitioner's claim have also been cited. some passages from certain decisions of ..... also suggested that if prohibition to enter the country necessarily means prohibition to go out, then such a prohibition has been lawfully provided by the indian passport act and thereforee, the petitioner has been deprived of this element of personal liberty, according to the procedure established by law. the challenge on the ground of .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : AIR1968Delhi219
..... that may be imposed for the deficiency in the stamp duty. the sub-registrar treated the instrument as a gift deed under item 33 in schedule i, as amended in delhi, of the said act, and held that the instrument was liable to a stamp duty of rs. 4,200 and corporation free of rs. 5,600, making a ttoal of rs ..... of the prior writ petition, there was a final adjudication that the stamp duty imposed by the revenue divisional officer was nto correct. in a further appeal under the letters patent to a division bench of the same high court,, rajamannar, c.j. and somasundaram, j. relying on the decision of the supreme court in : [1950]1scr536 , held that though the ..... to refer the case, with its opinion thereon, to the high court under sub-section (1) (b) of section 57 of the indian stamp act.(7) it is against the said judgment and order that this letters patent appeal has been preferred by the union of india and tohers.(8) shri prakash narain, the learned counsel for the appellants, contended before us .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : AIR1967Delhi156
..... customs authorities could have legitimately said that they alone were competent to decide which entry covered that scrap.in this view it must beheld that the customs authorities acted without jurisdiction and committed a patent error in treating the goods as covered by entry 63(10). there petitions must, thereforee, be allowed and the impugned orders of the assistant collector, additional collector ..... the ordinary meaning of the terms. mr. yogeshwar dayal, the learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on clause 2(j) of the iron and steel (control) order, 1956, (as amended up to the 1st january, 1959) as indicative of the meaning generally given to the term's scrap' in the field of legislation. according to this clause 'scrap' means all .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : 4(1968)DLT82
..... had been equated. the omission of the mention of the latter post in clause (ii) of rule 7 could nto. but be an inadvertent omission. the subsequent amendment dated 27th june, 1964, simply clarified the position and removed this ambiguity. in this view when the matter came up before the lieut. governor he was fully ..... february, 1966 (annexure 'b'), however, brought to the ntoice of the lieut. governor that the petitioner i-ad been promtoed on 1st of june, 1964, where as the amendment in clause (ii) of rule 7 of the himachal pradesh police class (iii) clerical service (recruitment, promorion and certain conditions of service) rules, 1982, hereinafter called 'the ..... the respondents placing reliance on garikapati veeraya v. n. subbiah choudhry has urged that this letters patent appeal is nto maintainable. the contention being that this writ petition was filed on 8th of october, 1966, when the delhi high court act had nto come into force and the 'lis' having stated then would all through be .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : 4(1968)DLT562
..... to insert by implication any matter thought to have been erroneously left out by legislature as that would nto be construing an act bat altering or amending it. (21) i am thereforee in agreement with the courts below that ranjit singh or the respondents who derive their rights through him ..... court however is to interpret the statute as it finds it. it can neither re-write nor amend the statutory provision with a view to translate the supposedly real intention of the framers of the act on grounds of inadvertence of the legislature. it js for instance, nto permissible to a court ..... . this intention will obviously be defeated if it is held that while all rights of ownership in land existing before the commencement of the act in respect of land which was previously exempt from its operation but which subsequently did fail within its purview were left un-touched. this ..... question invol- ved in the appeal i certity that the case is a fit one for appeal to the letters patent bench of this court. .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : 4(1968)DLT620
..... whom the female ha? succeeded which in certain respects restricts, and in tohers, extends the right of pre-emption, granted by the express language used in the amendment of 1960. the amending act of 1964 does nto seem to us to be a curative enactment in the sense of a legalising staute, as it is sometimes described, passed to cure ..... a statute. from this, it was concluded that there was a lacuna in paragraph (first) of clause (b) of sub section (2) of section 15 and that the amending act was intended to cure or remedy that defect. the submission which found favor with that court may be reproduced in the words of the judgment : - 'it is submitted that ..... i.d. dua, c.j.(1) this letters patent appeal from the judgment of a learned single judge raises the question of the construction of section 15(2)(b) first of the punjab preemption act 1 of 1913 (hereafter called the act) as amended. (2) facts relevant for our purposes, as discernible from the judgment of the learned single judge are that .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : AIR1969Delhi154; 4(1968)DLT660
..... sharers, the short question that falls for determination is the interpretation of section 15 (1)(b) clause thirdly of the punjab pre-emption act, 1913 (punjab act 1 of 1913) as amended by punjab act no. 10 of 1960, the question being whether the plaintiff, who is the father's brother of the vendor, has a superior right of pre-emption ..... decision also failed. the vendees filed a second appeal in this court which was allowed by s.n. shankar, j. on september 21, 1967, inder singh plaintiff filed a letters patent appeal against the judgment of s. n. shankar, j. which was, by order dated april 5, 1968, referred to a bench of three judges and that is how this letters ..... patent appeal has come before us for disposal.3. since the sale in this case was in respect of a share out of the joint land by one of the co- .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : ILR1968Delhi462
..... the plaintiffs under section 80 civil procedure code was defective as it did nto cover the plea of adverse possession introduced by way of amendment. there was also no ntoice under section 53-b of the delhi development act in so far as defendant no. 3 was concerned. the case against that defendant could nto be separated from that against ..... the plaintiffs under section 80 civil procedure code was defective as it did nto cover the plea of adverse possession introduced by way of amendment. there was also no ntoice under section 53-b of the delhi development act in so far as defendant no. 3 was concerned. the case against that defendant could nto be separated from that against ..... did nto raise the alternative plea of ownership based on adverse possession which was introduced for the first time by way of amendment of the plaint. as regards ntoice under section 53-b of the delhi development act, it is common ground that no such ntoice was served on defendant no. 3 at all, although in fairness to .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : AIR1970Delhi37; 5(1969)DLT543
..... common law independent of any statute. the claim nto being a creation of any particular statute, it would be reasonable to suppose that the provisions of the mtoor vehicles (amendment) act, 1956 were intended only to expedite the trial of such a claim by the establishment of claims tribunals. the statute did nto toherwise intend to cut down or modify ..... that the judgment of the high court in an appeal against the decision of the commissioner would nto be judgment within the meaning of clause 10 of the letters patent. we have already explained that the privy council decision was based on the special facts of the case. since no toher reasons are given by the punjab high ..... that the decision of the learned single judge against which this appeal purports to be made is nto a 'judgment' within the meaning of clause 10 of the letters patent. the divion bench speaking through my lord the chief justice surveyed the relevant case law on the subject and referred the matter to the full bench on the 15th .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : 5(1969)DLT559
..... the ordinary remedy of a suit. their lordships were considering only section 10 and the relevant rules in that case. section 10-a was, however, added to the act by an amendment in 1960, expressly empowering the custodian to recover rent or damages in respect of the evacuee property vested in the custodian. section 10-a was nto for consideration before ..... drastically by the language of section 48. we would not, thereforee, be warranted in placing such an artificially narrow meaning on it. it appears to me that the 1956 amendment of sub-section (2) of section 48 was made with the very purpose of enabling the custodian to enquire into the amount due to him and to give a finding ..... , the appeal is dismissed with costs. the oral prayer of the learned counsel for the appellant that the case be certified to be fit for appeal to the letters patent bench of this court is also rejected, in-as-much-as the appellant's first contention is contrary to the language of the order dated l5th november. 1960 and .....
Tag this Judgment!