Skip to content


Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: patents Sorted by: old Year: 1958 Page 39 of about 384 results (0.014 seconds)

Dec 24 1958 (HC)

Sadhu Ram Vs. Mst. Amar Kaur and ors.

Court : Punjab and Haryana

Decided on : Dec-24-1958

Reported in : AIR1959P& H228; 1959CriLJ651

orderd. falshaw, j.1. the facts in this revision petition which has been referred to this court by the sessions judge at gurdaspur are that the petitioner instituted a complaint under s. 323, indian penal code, against guranditta mal, his wife amar kaur and his daughters kailash kumari and rama kanta. the case is being tried by a 3rd class magistrate who passed an order early in the proceedings under s. 205, criminal procedure code, dispensing with the personal attendance of the three female accused who were permitted to appear through a pleader. at the conclusion of prosecution evidence the court examined the pleader on behalf of these three accused under section 342, criminal procedure code. the complainant then applied that these accused should be called on to appear in person for examination under section 342. the application was dismissed by the learned magistrate and the complainant approached the sessions judge in revision with the result that it has been recommended that the female accused should be examined in person under section 342, criminal procedure code. the provisions of section 205, criminal procedure code, read-'205 (1) whenever a magistrate issues a summons, he may, if he sees reason so to do, dispense with the personal attendance of the accused, and permit him to appear by his pleader.(2) but the magistrate inquiring into or trying the ease may, in his discretion, at any stage of the proceedings, direct the personal attendance of the accused, and. if .....

Tag this Judgment!

Dec 24 1958 (HC)

Smt. Radhey Piari Vs. S. Kalyan Singh

Court : Punjab and Haryana

Decided on : Dec-24-1958

Reported in : AIR1959P& H508

orderbishan narain, j. 1. this is a revision petition under section 35 of the delhi and ajmer rent control act, 1952.2. the facts relevant for the decision of this petition are these. shop no. 2870 situated at ajmal khan road, karol bagh, new delhi belongs to radhey piari. it was constructed some time in 1946 and therefore was first let after 2nd of june, 1944. kalyan singh took this shop on lease on 30th of october, 1948 at rs. 112/8/- per mensem. on 12th of october, 1953, the landlady filed the present suit for eviction of the tenant on the grounds of (1) non-payment of arrears of rent in spite of demand and (2) subletting part of the premises to a watch repairer. according to the plaintiff rs. 866/4/- were due from the tenant as arrears of rent but no decree for recovery of this amount was sought. the tenant deposited rs. 2,000/- towards the arrears of rent and costs etc. on or before the first day of hearing ofthe suit and denied having sublet, assigned or otherwise parted with the possession of any part of the premises. in the written statement the tenant also sought for fixation of standard rent claiming that the agreed rent exceeded it. the trial court held that the plaintiff had failed to prove that the tenant had sublet any part of the shop and fixing the standard rent at rs. 37/8/- dismissed the suit. mst. radhey piari appealed and the senior sub-judge affirmed the trial court's finding that the' tenant had not sublet the premises. he, however, increased the .....

Tag this Judgment!

Dec 26 1958 (HC)

Mst. Bakhtawari Vs. Sadhu Singh and ors.

Court : Punjab and Haryana

Decided on : Dec-26-1958

Reported in : AIR1959P& H558

k.l. gosain, j.1. the facts giving rise to this second appeal are as under: the property in suit belonged to telu son of ruldu, jat of tharwa, tehsil narain-garh, district ambala. on 17-6-1949 he made a gift of the same in favour of his daughter mst. bukhtawari. the plaintiffs who claim to be the collaterals of telu in the fourth degree brought the present suit for the usual declaration that the gift will not affect their reversionary interests. they alleged that the property in question was ancestral qua them and that telu had no right under the custom to make a gift of the same in favour of bis daughter. the suit was contested by the donee who denied that the property was ancestral and who alleged that the gift had been made in her favour on account of the services which she rendered to defendant no. 1. on the pleadings of the parties the trial court framed the following issues:1. js the property ancestral? 2. are the plaintiffs collaterals of defendant no. 1? 3. whether defendant no. 2 or her sons have rendered any services to defendant no. 1, and is the gift valid on that ground? 4. whether the suit is speculative?5. relief. 2. after recording evidence of the parties the trial court came to the conclusion that a part of the landed property was ancestral and that the rest of the landed property and the house were not proved to be so. he also found that the plaintiffs were collaterals and were entitled to challenge the gift. in the result, he granted a decree in favour of .....

Tag this Judgment!

Dec 30 1958 (HC)

Pran Nath and ors. Vs. Bal Kishan and ors.

Court : Punjab and Haryana

Decided on : Dec-30-1958

Reported in : AIR1959P& H313

..... an hon'ble judge that the sate being invalid, the suit for redemption was governed by article 148 of the indian limitation act and was consequently within time. a letters patent bench of the lahore high court whose judgment was delivered by sir shadi lal, chief justice, held that under hindu law the mother was the guardian of the property of .....

Tag this Judgment!


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