Skip to content


Municipal Corporation of Delhi Vs. Popul Dass and anr. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCivil
CourtDelhi High Court
Decided On
Case NumberCivil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 1560 of 1977
Judge
Reported in15(1979)DLT208
AppellantMunicipal Corporation of Delhi
RespondentPopul Dass and anr.
Advocates: Uma Jain and; D.C. Mathur, Advs
Excerpt:
- section 13: [altamas kabir & cyriac joseph,jj] custody of child - welfare of child vis--vis comity of courts - the minor girl child of 3 1/2 years was brought to india by her mother. the minor girl was a citizen of u.k. being born in u.k. her parents had set up their matrimonial home in u.k. and had acquired status of permanent residents of u.k. the child with her mother was supposed to return to u.k. but the mother cancelled her tickets and remained behind in india. the husband thereupon started procededings before the high court of justice, family division. u.k. praying for an order that the minor child be made a ward of the court and for a direction upon the wife to return the minor child to the jurisdiction of the said court. a further direction was given for the passport and other..........was however, set aside and the accused was acquitted on that charge. the limitation period for filing the revision petition is statutorily fixed at 90 days and it expired on 7/09/1977 after taking into account the time take for obtaining the certified copy. the revision petition was however filed on 9/09/1977.(2) the ground mentioned in the application is 'that due to misplacement of the case file in the office of the advocate for the petitioner, a delay of two days has occurred in filing the revision petition. the said delay is notintentional.' mr. r.k. mehta, junior of miss uma mehta was introduced in the vakalatnama as one of the counsel having been appointed by the corporation also chose to accept the vakalatnama. on behalf of the corporation it was never signed by the law.....
Judgment:

Yogeshwar Dayal, J.

(1) This is an application for condensation of delay in filing Crl. R. No 285/77 in this court against the order dated 1 1/12/1975 passed by Metropolitan Magistrate, Delhi. The revision is really for enhancement of sentence for an alleged offence for having sold adulterated Dhania. The learned trial court has awarded the sentence of one year with a fine of Rs. 1000.00 and in default imprisonment for six months. The trial Court had also convicted the respondent for selling Dhania without license and for which he was separately sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for three months. The learned Sessions Judge in appeal maintained the conviction on the ground of adulteration but reduced the sentence to fine ofRs. 1000.00 and imprisonment till rising of the court. The conviction regarding selling Dhania without license was however, set aside and the accused was acquitted on that charge. The limitation period for filing the revision petition is statutorily fixed at 90 days and it expired on 7/09/1977 after taking into account the time take for obtaining the certified copy. The revision petition was however filed on 9/09/1977.

(2) The ground mentioned in the application is 'that due to misplacement of the case file in the office of the Advocate for the petitioner, a delay of two days has occurred in filing the revision petition. The said delay is notintentional.' Mr. R.K. Mehta, junior of Miss Uma Mehta was introduced in the Vakalatnama as one of the counsel having been appointed by the Corporation also chose to accept the Vakalatnama. On behalf of the Corporation it was never signed by the Law Officer in his favor. It was signed only in favor of Miss Uma Mehta. After signing the Vakalatnama he signed the petition and applications for and on behalf of Miss Uma Mehta and put it incourt. It is obvious that Mr. R.K. Mehta was not authorised by the Corporation even to file the petition. He has no authority to sign the petition. He has no authority consequently to file the petition in court and even filing of the petition on 9/09/1977, was wholly unauthorised.

(3) Miss Uma Mehta at the bar submits that the mistake was bonafide.May be the presentation valid. Till today no properly presented petition on behalf of the Corporation is before this Court. The application for condensation of delay is accordingly dismissed.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //