Court : Delhi
Reported in : AIR1967Delhi141
(1) This is a plaintiff's regular first appeal from the judgment and decree of the District Judge Delhi dated 1-6-1961 dismissing the plaintiff-appellant's suit for permanent injunction and rendition of accounts and toher consequential relief against the two defendants (respondents in this Court). (2) According to the plaintiff, a company registered under the English Companies Act, with its registered office in Glassgow, Sctoland (U.K.), manufacturers and deals in sewing and embroidery threads of all kinds. The goods manufactured by the plaintiff are sold throughout the world under various Trade Marks. Its selling agents in India are Messrs. The Central Agency Ltd., with their principal office at Bombay and deptos in toher big towns including Delhi, where it is situated at Garstin Bastion Road. The plaintiff claims to be the registered owner of the Trade Mark 'Anchor Handicraft Box Top', among toher Trade Marks registered in its name under Class 28 in respect of threads of all kinds. F...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : 4(1968)DLT50
T.V.R. Tatachari, J.(1) This Revision Petition has been filed by a Judgment-debtor, Sirajuddin, against the Judgment and order of Shri D. R. Khanna, Additional Senior Subordinate Judge, Delhi, dated 3rd March, 1967, in Misc. Civil Appeal No. 15 of 1967 confirming the order, dated 10th February, 1967, of Shri G. C. Gupta, Subordinate Judge, 1st Class, Delhi, in Execution Case No. 84 of 1966 in Suit No. 540 of 1956 on his file. (2) The respondent decree-holder, Smt. Prem Wati, is the landlord of the premises No. 8166, Mohalla chimney Mill, Bara Hindu Rao, Delhi, and the petitioner Judgment-debtor was originally a tenant of the said premises. The respondent filed the above mentioned suit against the petitioner for his ejectment on the ground that she required the premises for her personal requirements. The suit was decreed under the provisions of the Delhi and Ajmer Rent Control Act 38 of 1952 on 27th March, 1957. The petitioner judgment-debtor was granted 15 months to vacate the premises...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : 4(1968)DLT321
I.D. Dua, C.J. (1) The .Plaintiff has appealed to this Court from the judgment and decree of the learned District Judge. Delhi, dated 5th September, 1960 dismissing the plaintifi.appellant's suit for permanent injunction against the defendants, their agents and servants, restraining them from exhibiting the film 'New Delhi' at any place whatsoever and for accounts of the profits made by the defendants up to the dale of the suit.(2) The plaintiff who is an architect by profession and carries on the said business in the panne ship under the name and style of M/S. Anand Apte and Jhabvala at Delhi, also claims to be a Playwright, Dramatist and producer of Stage plays. He claims to have written and produced at Delhi and toher places plays entitled 'Desh Hamara', 'Azadi' ''Elections' and 'Ham Hindustani', having produced several toher plays as well. The present litigation is concerned with the play 'Hum Hindustani' which, according to the plaintiff s case, was written by him in Hindi in or a...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : ILR1968Delhi120
S.K. Kapnr, J. (1) This judgment will dispose of Civil Writ Petitions Nos. 237-D to 241-D of 1962 and 249-D to 251-D of 1961 as the learned counsel agree that the questions of law and fact arising in all these writ petitions are the same. These cases were heard on 27/4/1967, but the judgment was reserved because the learned counsel for the respondents wanted time to obtain instructions whether or nto the Government was willing to issue license to the petitioners. Disinclination of the Government to issue such licenses was communicated to me on the day I was leaving Delhi to work at the Circuit Bench at Simla.(2) In view of the common questions arising in all the writ petitions, I am reciting the facts of Civil Writ Petition No. 237-D of 1962 only. An Open General license dated 27/1/1952 was issued by the Central Government giving permission to all persons to import by country craft from certain places in middle East and East Africa, set out in the license, all or any of the goods speci...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : ILR1968Delhi130
S.N. Shankar, J. (1) The petitioners in this case are the trustees of a body known as Delhi Cltoh Market Trust Committee (hereafter called 'the Trust'). It appears that the Trust has been maintaining a staff consisting of 16 Chaukidars, 11 sweepers, 2 electricians, I clerk and 2 Munims. A dispute relating to certain general demands of these employees having arisen between the management of the Trust and the emp, the same was referred for adjudication to the Industrial Tribunal, Delhi. In answer to the claim of the employees, it was contended on behalf of the Trust, by way of preliminary objection, that it was nto an industry within the meaning of section 2(j) of the Industrial Disputes Act. By an interim award, dated 12/1/1965, the Industrial Tribunal, Delhi, has held that this contention of the Trust was wrong and that it was an industry falling within the definition of section 2(j) of the Industrial Disputes Act. The petitioners in this case are the trustees, who constitute the body ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : 3(1967)DLT688; 1968LabIC2546
S.N. Shankar, J.(1) The petitioners in this case are the trustees of a body known as Delhi Cltoh Market Trust Committee (hereinafter called 'The Trust'). It appears that the trust has been maintaining a staff consisting of 16Chaukidars,ll Sweepers, electricians, I Clerk and 2 Munims. A dispute relating to certain general demands of these employees having arisen, between the management of the Trust and the employees, the same was referred for adjuaication to the Industrial Tribunal. Delhi.. In answer to the claim of the employees, it was contended on behalf of the Trust, by way of preliminary objection, that it was nto an industry within the meaning of section 2(j) of the Industrial Disputes Act. By an interim award, dated 12th of January, 1965, the Industrial Tribunal, Delhi has held that this contention of the Trust was wrong and that it was an industry falling within the definition of section 2(j) of. the Industrial Disputes Act. The petitioners in this case are the trustees, who con...
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)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 : 4(1968)DLT230; ILR1968Delhi85
I.D. Dua, C.J. (1) This is a second appeal under Section 39 of Delhi Rent Control Act of 1958 (hereinafter called the Act) and is directed against the order of the Rent Control Tribunal dated 11/3/1964 affirming the order, of the Rent Controller dated 21/9/1963 directing eviction of the tenant (appellant in this Court). The Rent Controller gave to the tenant six months' period where after the order was to be executed. The ground on which the order of eviction was made was bona fide requirement of the landlord within the contemplation of section 14(1)(e) of the Act.(2) The only point which has been canvassed before me on behalf of the appellant is that an application was made on 21/9/1963 before the Rent Controller for permission to adduce evidence in support of the assertion made on that date that Hari Ram, one of the petitioninglandlords had been alltoted a quarter by the Railway and that he had falsely deposed before the Rent Controller that he had neither been alltoted any quarter b...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : (1968)IILLJ85Del
ORDERT.V.R. Tatachari, J.1. This is a writ petition filed under Article 276 of the Constitution of India for this issue of a writ of certiorari quashing the award of the labour court, Delhi, in Industrial Dispute No. F. 53 of 1966.2. For a proper appreciation of the contentions pto forward on behalf of the petitioner and the respondents, it is necessary to state the material facts which have given rise to this writ petition. The petitioner, S. N. Kaul, was taken in the service of respondent 1, the management of the National Productivity Council, 38, Golf Links, New Delhi, on 5 December 1960, as press operator. According to the petitioner, his services were arbitrarily and illegally terminated by respondent 1 on 9 March 1964. It is stated in the writ petition that the petitioner approached the Chairman of respondent 1, on several occasion, and that be was finaly informed on 28 November 1965, that his case could nto be considered any more by the Council. He, thereafter, sent a ntoice to ...
Tag this Judgment!