Delhi Court September 1982 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
A.D. Kumar Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-03-1982
Reported in: 23(1983)DLT3
M.L. Jain, J. (1) Three persons, namely Rajinder Kumar Dharminder Kumar and Faquir Chand, were partners of the firm M[s. Nand Kishore Dharminder Kumar. They were prosecuted for the sale of adulterated 'Saunf by Rajinder Kumar, to Food Inspector R. K. Mann on Septembr 27, 1976. The sample was lifted at the instance of some programme implementation committee of which Sh. J.K. Jain was member perhaps more than usually active one. The public Analyst found two pieces of Rodent hair and excreta in the sample. The learned Metropolitan Magistrate discharged the accused on 17th March, 1978. He noticed that there was some interpolation in the sample memo Ex. PC. This read 'This saunf was lying in a open tin (about 4 kg). It was not for sale.' There were some erasures and overwriting in the words in the bricket. The learned Magistrate, thereforee, directed an enquiry against the Food Inspector R. K. Mann, Dr. A. D. Kumar and J.K. Jain and others, to be instituted under section 340 Cr. P.C. Certai...
Delhi Sainik Co-operative House Building Society Ltd. Vs. the Financia ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-03-1982
Reported in: AIR1983Delhi81; 23(1983)DLT109
Avadh Behari Rohatgi, J. (1) This is an appeal from the order of a learned single Judge dated 23-9-1971. (2) The case has a long chequered history. Smt. Sarupi and Shame Singh were the owners of 99 bighas 13 bids was of land in village Khanpur in equal shares. On 6-8-1963 the appellant, Delhi Sainik Co-operative House Building Society Ltd., (the society) purchased from Shrimati Sarupi her half share in the land for Rs. 77,000. On 4-10-65 the society's name was mutated in the revenue records. (3) On 16-10-1969 seven persons Puran. Nathua, Yad Ram and four sons of Kalley, namely, Narain Singh, Ram Pershad, Har Pershad and Dhani (shortly referred to as Puran and others) brought a suit under section 85 of the Delhi Land Reforms Act, 1954 (the Act). Tins was a claim for the declaration of bhumidari rights in their favor on the ground that they were in possession of 8 bighas of land which forms part of the land purchased by the society from Smt. Sarupi. Puran and others alleged that they wer...
Sat Pal Vs. Nand Kishore and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-03-1982
Reported in: ILR1983Delhi73; 1983RLR19
T.P.S. Chawla, J.(1) This is a petition under the proviso to Section 25B(8) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (the Act'). The Rent Controller has made an order for recovery of possession of certain premises on the ground that they are required bona fide by one of the landlords. By this present petition, the tenant seeks to have that order revised and set aside. (2) The premises in question are a portion of the first floor of house No. 4-F, Kamla Nagar, Delhi. It is a three storeyed building with a barsati on top. Each floor has about six habitable rooms, and kitchens, bathrooms and latrines The owners are Nand Kishore said his son Mohan Parkash. The aggrieved tenant is Sat Pal. (3) The petition for eviction was filed on 10th March, 1978. Only one ground was pleaded : that the premises on the first floor in the occupation of Sat Pal were required for the residence of Shri Nand Kishore. There was no suggestion that the premises were also required by Mohan Parkash. the son, who was join...
Krishan Chander Rameshchander and Bros. Vs. Sohan Lal
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-03-1982
Reported in: 23(1983)DLT9
G.R. Luthra, J.(1) M/S. Krishan Chander Ramesh Chander & Bros., 571, Katra Asharfi, Chandni Chowk, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the petitioner) brought the present petition, registered as Suit No. 134-A/80, under Section 20 of the Arbitration Act for referring the disputes between the Said firm and Sohan Lal (hereinafter referred to as the respondent) to the arbitration of an arbitrator to be appointed by the Delhi Hindustani Mercantile Associate (registered), Chandni Chowk, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the Association).(2) The petitioner is a partnership firm and Krishan Chander is one of the partners. According to the petitioner, the respondent is a sole proprietor of M/s. R. K. Traders as well as M/s. Amir Chand Sohan Lal. It is alleged by the petitioner that the respondent had been carrying on business of cloth merchant at Bazaza Bazar, Meerut city and as proprietor of M/s. R. K. Traders purchased cloth on credit and that huge amounts (as mentioned in the petition) was st...
Tokh Ram Vs. the State (Delhi Administration) and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-03-1982
Reported in: 22(1982)DLT434
J.D. Jain, J. (1) The facts giving rise to this revision petition against order dated 23rd November, 1981 of an Additional Sessions Judge in brief are thatJai Narain and Nand Kishore, respondents 2 and 3 (hereinafter referred as the complainants) instituted a complaint dated 7th of April, 1975 against the petitioner) for his prosecution under Section 420 IPC. It was contended that the petitioner had sold a plot of land bearing No. 18 measuring 213 sq. yards, forming part of khasra No. 1181, situated at village Burari (Delhi) to them vide registered sale deed dated 3rd of May, 1972 and in order to inspire confidence in their mind as regard his title to the said land as bhumidar/owner he showed a certified copy of the judgment dated 12th of May, 1966 passed in his favor by the Court of Shri H.C.Gupta, Sub-Judge 1st Glass, Delhi, in Suit No. 213/65 whereby the petitioner was declared bhumidar/owner of the land in dispute. After about two years the complainants went to the spot but found S...
Rajinder Kumar Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-02-1982
Reported in: 1983(1)Crimes941; 23(1983)DLT42; 1983(4)DRJ95
Avadh Behari Rohatgi, J. (1) These are four appeals from the order of the Additional Sessions Judge dated 3.9.1980. This judgment will govern them all.(2) Four persons Rajinder Kumar, Balbir Singh, Rattan Lal and Joginder Lal were put on trial under sections 397/392/34 and Section 411 IPC. Joginder, Rajinder and Balbir were convicted for offences under section 392/34. The charge under Section 397 Indian Penal Code was dismissed against them. They were convicted and sentenced to R.I. for four years and a fine of Rs. 200.00 each and in default R.I. for three months under section 392/34 Indian Penal Code Rattan Lal was convicted under section 411 Indian Penal Code He was sentenced to Ri for two years. From the order of the trial judge these four convicted persons appealed to this court against their sentence and conviction.(3) It is a case of broad day light robbery. The facts are as follows. Uma Kapila, complainant was a lecturer in Miranda College. She was living with her husband Raj Ka...
Suresh Kumar JaIn Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-02-1982
Reported in: 1983(1)Crimes950; 23(1983)DLT8
Leila Seth, J. (1) By this petition Suresh Kumar Jain has prayed for a writ habeas corpus and for quashing the order dated 30th April, 1982 detaining him. Rule was issued on 31st May, 1982. On 30th June. 1982, the Vacation Judge released the petitioner on parole pending the decision of this habeas corpus petition, as it was not possible to hear the matter due to paucity of time. (2) The petitioner who is a businessman was detained on 23rd January, 1982 by an order under section 3(1) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 (hereinafter referred to as 'COFEPOSA Act'). The grounds of detention were also served on him. On 10th February, 1982 the petitionermade a representation to the Advisory Board and as a result of the Advisory Board's order dated 8th April. 1982 he was released on 12th April, 1982. (3) Subsequently, on 30th April, 1982 the present impugned order was passed and the petitioner was re-arrested on 2nd May, 1982. The detention...
Ashok Kumar Vs. Radha Kishan Vij and Others
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-01-1982
Reported in: 1983CriLJ48; 1983(2)Crimes935; 23(1983)DLT27; ILR1982Delhi991
ORDER1. The main question raised upon this revision is a pure question of law, and depends upon the true construction to be placed on Section 499 IPC. A brief narration of facts is necessary. The petitioner Ashok Kumar filed a complaint against three respondents under Section 500 IPC for launching false criminal proceedings under Section 107 and 151, Cr.P.C. against him with a view to defame him as a bad character. He says that he has been lowered in the estimation of his relatives, friends and others. He alleges that people shun and avoid him. 2. The facts are as follows. Then petitioner preferred a criminal complaint against (1) Radha Kishan Vij, (2) Pritam Das, and (3) Thakur Chanderbadan Singh on 31-10-1973, under Section 500/120-B-/427 IPC. His case is that these persons entered into a criminal conspiracy to implicate him in a false case of teasing Vanita, daughter of Vij. Accused Vij was the complainant in the proceedings under Section 107/151 Cr.P.C. Pritam Das was a witness in ...
Ram Chandera Ram Kishan Dass Vs. Dewan Chand
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-01-1982
Reported in: 1983(5)DRJ51
N.N. Goswamy, J. (1) This complaint under Section 340 of the Criminal Procedure Code read with Section 193, Indian Penal Code has been filed by the plaintiff-decree-holder against Dewan Chand, judgment debtor. The plaintiff filed a suit for the recovery of 1,04.488,70 on the ground that Dewan Chand respondent acting for M/s. Hukam Chand Dewan Chand approached theplaintbT for the purchase and supply of cotton cloth etc. on 8-6-1977. The plaintiff who is acting as puce arhtiya, at the instance of Dewan Chand, purchased the said goods to be supplied to M/s. Hukam Chand Dewan Chand. The goods worth Rs. 37,983.95 were purchased on 8-6-1977, goods worth Rs. 34,522.43 were purchased on 9-6-1977, goods worth Rs. 21,121.32 were purchased on 10-6-1977 and goods worth Rs. 4,316.24 were purchased on 11-6-1977. The plaintiff also claimed arahat, interest, commission and other customary charges amounting to Rs. 759.64. The plaintiff also debited defendant No. 1 for certain cash withdrawals. The suit...
Ram Dev Vs. the Deputy Commissioner and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-01-1982
Reported in: 23(1983)DLT2
S.B. Wad, J.(1) The petitioner is an illiterate person but knows to sign his signatures in Hindi. On 13-6-1949 he applied to the Superintendent, Kilokri, .Sewage Pumping Station under Delhi Joint Water and Sewage Board, for appointment as Beldar. The application was made in Hindi. Its translation reads as follows : 'HAVINGlearnt that there is a vacant post of Beldar I most respectfully pray that you may consider my poverty and appoint me to the said post.'On the same date he was appointed as a Beldar. The office endorsement to that effect is made on the application itself. It may be noted that there was no prescribed application form. The application in Hindi is written by somebody else and is signed by the petitioner. Three months after his appointment a service full in the prescribed form was prepared. A service roll is; required to be maintained for inferior servants for whom no service books are maintained. In the prescribed form against the column 'date of birth of Christian Era a...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »