Delhi Court March 1986 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.
Hari Kishan Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-20-1986
Reported in: 1986(2)Crimes431; ILR1986Delhi473
Malik Sharief-Ud-Din, J. (1) Two persons, one Ramesh Babu and the appellant Hari Kishan were charged by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Delhi, for the murder of Ram Ditta Mal. Ramesh Babu was acquitted while [Hari Kishan appellant was convicted by his order dated 24-12-81. By a separate order of even date the appellant was sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life. There is no acquittal appeal against the acquittal of Ramesh Babu. We are not as such concerned with it. (2) The facts are that the deceased Ram Ditta Mal in partnership with Public Witness 2 Tajinder Singh was running Vikas Restaurant. D-L-F-32, Najafgarh Road, Industrial Area Moti Nagar. On the relevant date he was at the cash counter of the restaurant in the absence of his partner who had gone to see a movie. It wss on 28th November 1980. At about 11.15 P.M. while he was closing and counting cash he asked the appellant, who was a waiter in the restaurant, to place his dinner at the first table near the counter. After c...
S.V. Motwani Vs. Union of India
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-20-1986
Reported in: ILR1986Delhi108; 1988LabIC126
T.P.S. Chawla, J. (1) The appellant, Mr. S. V. Motwani, was appointed an overseer in the Central Public Works Department of the Government of India in 1941. He rose in the service and, on 24th July 1953, was promoted to the post of Executive Engineer. On that day, he took over charge as Executive Engineer of Delhi State Division No. 1 from Mr. C. P. Govil, the Executive Engineer who previously held that post. (2) Mr. C. P. Govil had been the Executive Engineer, Delhi State Division No. I since 1st May 1950. During his tenure, the work of widening Delhi-Gurgaon road mile 612 to 1315 was sanctioned by the Ministry of Transport. The technical approval and financial sanction was granted by the competent authorities on 4th December 1952. The estimated cost of the work was Rs. 3,53,4001- plus agency charges. (3) In pursuance of the sanction, a draft notice in duplicate inviting tenders was submitted for the approval of Mr. M. L. Nanda, the Superintending Engineer. It was approved by the Supe...
Ram Lubbaya Kapoor Vs. J.R. Chawala and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-20-1986
Reported in: 1986(10)DRJ359; 1986RLR432
J.D. Jain, J.(1) The controversy in this revision petition lies in a very narrow compass, the sole question which falls for determination being whether the civil courts have jurisdiction to try the suit instituted by the plaintiff-petitioner against the defendants-respondents with respect to a plot of land bearing No. 46 (old)/10 (new) Manohar Park situated in the revenue estate of Basai Darapur. (2) The facts germane to the decision of this petition in brief are that way back in 1966 the petitioner instituted a suit for possession of a plot of land measuring 200 sq. yards and bearing No. 46 (old)/10 (new) on the ground that he bad purchased the same from Raghbir Singb, respondent No. 2 vide registered sale deed dated 25th March 1960 and be was put into possession thereof by the vendor. However, sometime in 1965 be learnt that respondents, l, 3 & 4 respondent 3 & 4 being daughters of respondent No. I had illegally occupied the same and bad built a boundary wall and some rooms thereon. ...
Pramod Kumar and ors. Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-20-1986
Reported in: 30(1986)DLT195
(1) The petition under Article 226 of the Constitution has come up before us on transfer from the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi under Section 29 of the Administrative Tribunals Act The case of the six petitioners is that having been selected by the Railway Service Communion along with other respondents in 1982 as Apprentice Elect ''e Chargemen, they were given along with the respondents a concentrated six months training instead of the normal two year training. After six months of training they appeared along with the respondents in a departmental test and interview on 26-12-1982 and while the six petitioners were successful 17 other apprentices of their batch failed. While the six petitioners were given working posts after successful correlation of the concentrated training on passing the test, the failed 17 apprentices continued with extended training and took the second test held on 7-11-1983. In the second test 15 out of 17 apprentices passed and the two failed candidates were given ...
Bharat Art Jewellers Vs. Collector of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Mar-19-1986
Reported in: (1990)(46)ELT333TriDel
1. This appeal is directed against Order-in-Original No. 6/85 dated 22-8-1985 passed by the Collector of Central Excise, New Delhi.2. Brief facts of the case so far as relevant for the purpose of this appeal are that the officers of the Gold (Preventive), Central Excise, New Delhi searched the business premises of the appellant firm and found that 265 pieces weighing 1788.000 gms. of gold ornaments of 22 carat purity were in excess. On further search, primary gold in kothali form of 22 carat purity weighing 37.200 gms. and primary gold in raini form of 18 carat purity weighing 164.500 gms. were found to be not recorded in the statutory books. In other words, 267 pieces weighing 1989.700 gms. were found to be lying in the premises of the appellant firm, but they were pot shown in the statutory books. Consequently, a show-cause notice was issued to the appellant firm to show-cause as to why the seized gold/gold ornaments weighing 1989.700 gms. be not confiscated u/s.71 of the Gold (Cont...
Life Insurance Corporation of India Vs. Ravinder Singh Chahal
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-19-1986
Reported in: [1986]60CompCas522(Delhi); 1986(11)DRJ102
B.N. Kirpal, J. 1. The short but interesting question which arises for consideration in this civil revision filed under section 115, Civil Procedure Code, is whether the death of an assured in Delhi would give the courts in Delhi jurisdiction to try a suit against the Life Insurance Corporation for recovery of the sum assured. 2. Briefly stated, the facts are that the deceased had taken out a life insurance policy for a sum of Rs. 98,000 and had made the plaintiff as her nominee. This policy was issued by the Jullundur Divisional Office of the Life Insurance Corporation. 3. The assured died in Delhi, on January 19, 1982. The plaintiff, being the nominee and heir of the deceased, applied to the Life Insurance Corporation for payment of money. The money was not paid and the plaintiff filed a suit in the Court of the District Judge, Delhi, for the recovery of Rs. 99,990. 4. In the plaint it was, inter alia, stated that a part of the cause of action had arisen in Delhi, because it was here...
Surjit Singh Vs. the State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-19-1986
Reported in: ILR1986Delhi481
Malik Sharief-Ud-Din, J. 1. The appellant Surjit Singh, alias Tite, was found guilty of offence under S. 302 IPC by the Addl. Sessions Judge, Delhi. He was convicted by his order dated 13-12-82 and was sentenced to life imprisonment vide order dated 16-12-82. Beside, a fine of Rs. 2000/- was also imposed, in default of payment of which he was also sentenced to undergo six months imprisonment. Feeling aggrieved, this appeal has been preferred. 2. The incident is of 24-10-81 at about 5.35 p.m. in the area of Central Market, Madangir. The victim is one Sheel Kumar. The facts are that the deceased Sheel Kumar was selling golgappas on a Rehri in front of the shop of P.W. 5 Shri Suraj Pal. His brother P.W. 1 Kishan Lal was also running a book shop in the same market about 60 to 65 yards away from him. Just before the incident the appellant had allegedly eaten golgappas from the deceased but when the deceased demanded the price thereof, there was an argument. On the insistence of the deceased...
Banwari Lal and anr. Vs. Kishori Lal and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-19-1986
Reported in: 30(1986)DLT43
D.K. Kapur, C.J. (1) This appeal has been heard after a notice to show cause was issued to the respordent. The appeal is directed against the order dated 20th December, 1985 whereby the factory belonging to a partnership was being disposed of in suit No. 845 of 1977. It appears that the Court had decided that the offer of Harbhajan Singh and another should be accepted. In fact, the parties to the suit are agreed that we should direct the property to be transferred to one of the partners. So, we proceed to admit the appeal and decide the same in accordance with the wishes of the parties. (2) The Court had appointed Mr. C.L. Arora to be a Commissioner for taking the accounts to the partnership which was under dissolution. One of the partnership assets was the land and partnership factory situated at Sahibabad border. The Local Commissioner was considering the sale of the machinery and land etc. There were some attempts to get a division of the factory and factory land amongst the four pa...
Gian Chand Garg Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-19-1986
Reported in: ILR1986Delhi90; 1986RLR445
S.S. Chadha, J.(1) This petition and other connected petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seek a writ of mandamus directing the Railway Administration to give matching delivery of coal against the wagons belonging to the petitioners containing coal wrongfully diverted to loco sheds/power houses/public undertakings for their use. (2) In order to appreciate the rival contentions, we may state the facts from this petition. The petitioner is a brick kiln owner at Sangrur and for the sake of his business to manufacture bricks, he purchases coal wagons from various places and have them booked through railways for dispatch to Sangrur. Two consignments of coal were booked with the Railway Administration, one under invoice No. 10 and 11, Rr No. 019001 and 019002 on March 9,1981 from Butibari to Ludhiana and the other under invoice No. 2 Rr No. 147270 dated March 20, 1981 from Satna to Sangrur. The Railway Administration had thus agreed to carry the coal from the forwarding s...
Satish Dayal Mathur Vs. Mackinnon Mackenzie and Company and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-19-1986
Reported in: [1988]64CompCas750(Delhi); 1986(3)Crimes203; ILR1986Delhi92
J.D. Jain, J.(1) The facts giving rise to this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as 'the Code') succinctly are that the respondent-Company institute a complaint against the petitioner under Section 630(1) of the Companies Act on 7th December, 1982 on the allegations that it (respondent-Company) was a tenant in respect of a part of the ground floor of house No. 8A, Paschim Marg, C-Block, Vasant Vihar, under lease-deed dated 26th April. 1979. The petitioner was then in the employment of the respondent- Company as an executive. The said premises were, thereforee, given to him for residence on the specific condition that he would vacate the same and surrender possession thereof to the respondent-Company on the termination of his employment. Certain items of furniture and an air-conditioner were also supplied to the petitioner by the respondent. The petitioner resigned from the service of the respondent vide his letter dated 8th October, 1...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »