Delhi Court November 1987 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.
D.i. Lal Vs. S. Ganguli and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-02-1987
Reported in: [1990]68CompCas576(Delhi); 34(1988)DLT44
Jagdish Chandra, J.(1) In the execution case No. 56/84, 2375 shares standing in the name of the judgment debtor P.S. Khambete in the Company M/s. Superior Air Products Ltd. were ordered to be attached vide order dated 29th March 1984. The order dated 10th August 1984 shows that the statement of the judgment debtor P.S. Khambere was recorded by the court wherein he stated that the shares of the said company had been lost by him a few years back. There was a letter on the records of this company that the shares mentioned in the records of this case were standing in the name of P.S. Khambete judgment debtor. Vide order dated 10th August 1984 Shri U.L. Watwani Advocate was appointed by the Court a Receiver to take charge of the shares attached from the Delhi Stock Exchange Limited. It was further directed that the Receiver would also take steps to get duplicate shares of M/s, Superior Air Products Ltd. standing in the name of P.S. Khambete who was present in court on that day and he was al...
Krishan Lal Vs. Ajit Pershad JaIn and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-02-1987
Reported in: 35(1988)DLT107
Sunanda Bhandare, J.(1) ADMIT. (2) Since a very short point is involved in the petition I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and proceed to decide the petition itself. (3) This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is directed against the order of the Additional Rent Controller, Delhi dated 6th October 1987. The Additional Rent Controller, Delhi pursuant to the orders of this Court gave one final opportunity to the petitioner herein to adduce his evidence. However, on the date fixed, one witness namely Shri Mam Raj was present, but the lawyer of the petitioner was stated to be out of station and, thereforee, a prayer for adjournment was made. The Additional Rent Controller, Delhi did not accede to this request because this Court had specifically directed that one last final opportunity be given to the petitioner to adduce his evidence. In that sense the Additional Rent Controller was helpless because he was bound to follow and obey the order of this Court....
Shri Niwas Vs. Shakuntala Devi and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-02-1987
Reported in: 1988(1)ARBLR363(Delhi); 35(1988)DLT14
Sananda Bhandare, J.(1) This civil revision under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure is directed against the order of the Sub-Judge, 1st Class, Delhi dated 18th August 1987 whereby the application filed by the petitioner under Order 18 Rule 17-A read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure was dismissed. (2) The respondents who are the original plaintiffs filed a suit for possession and mean profits against the petitioner in the court of Senior Sub- Judge, Delhi being suit No. 522/82. After the evidence of the plaintiff was closed the case was listed for the evidence of the defendant i.e. the petitioner be rein on 13-3-1987, however since there was some talk for compromise, the case was adjourned for 3-4-1987. On that date the compromise was to be recorded in court, however the compromise talks failed, the case was again listed for defendant's evidence on 14.5.197. On that date, defendant's evidence could not be recorded because the counsel for the defendant was not ava...
S.K. JaIn Vs. the State and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-02-1987
Reported in: 35(1988)DLT8; 1987RLR661
D.P. Wadhwa, J. (1) This is an appeal against an order of the learned Commercial Sub-Judge convicting the appellant under S. 228 Indian Penal Code . read with S. 345 of the Code of Criminal Code 1973 and sentencing him to pay a fine of Rs.200.00. The order is dated 9/8/1983. The incident out of which the present proceedings arose was small but 'unfortunately has been blown out of all proportions. (2) In a suit for recovery of about Rs. 10,000.00 summons was issued to the defendant for whom the appellant appeared in the court of the Commercial Sub Judge. The appellant as an advocate appeared for the first time on 30/5/1983 when he filed his memo of appearance and stated that copy of the plaint had not been given to him. On this date. the learned Commercial Sub Judge was on leave and the case was adjourned to 9/8/1983 for further proceedings. On this date, the appellant filed his vakalatnama and again submitted to the court that copy of the plaint had not bean given to him with the summo...
Municipal Corporation of Delhi Vs. Ramesh Ghand
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-02-1987
Reported in: 34(1988)DLT131
Charanjit Talwar, J. (1) In this appeal filed by the Municipal Corporation of Delhi (for short, the Corporation), against the acquittal of the respondent Ramesh Chand for an offence punishable u/s 7 read with Section 16 of the Prevention of Food adulteration Act (hereinafter called 'the Act'), a preliminary objection has been raised by Mr. Gulshan Rai, Counsel for the respondent. The preliminary objection is to the effect that the appeal which has been admittedly filed after 60 days of the order of acquittal is beyond limitation. The plea is that the Corporation had filed the complaint and thus the period of limitation provided for seeking special leave to appeal from the order of acquittal was not six months as has been submitted by the appellant herein. The reliance of the learned counsel is on sub-section (5) of Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which says : '378. Appeal in case of acquittal......(1).................. (5) No application under sub-section (4) for the spe...
K.K. Taneja Vs. Union of India and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-02-1987
Reported in: 1988(14)DRJ121
Sunanda Bhandare, J.(1) The petitioner was appointed as a regular Commissioned Officer in the Indian Army in December, 1965. Thereafter, in the year 1967 he was promoted to the rank of Lieutenant and in April, 1969 to the rank of Acting Captain. The petitioner was working as Acting Major since 1974. While the petitioner was working as an Acting Major he was charged for an offence under Section 69 of the Army Act, 1950 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) on the allegation that on 7th May, 1976 at about 23.00 hours while the train was at Tughlakabad he used criminal force on Mrs. Yashpal Kaur intending to outrage her modesty in a military special train which moved from Gwalior to Delhi. After completing the formality of investigation into the allegations, a charge-sheet was framed against the petitioner and a general court martial was convened to inquire into the said charge. Thereafter, the general court martial proceeded with the trial and though the petitioner pleaded not guilty, the...
Sudesh JaIn Vs. Parkash Chand Gupta
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-02-1987
Reported in: 34(1988)DLT162
P.K. Bahri, J. (1) This civil revision under Section 25-B(8) of the Delhi Rent Control Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') has been brought by the landlady challenging the order dated May 26, 1984, of Shri A.K. Garg, Additional Rent Controller, by which he had dismissed the eviction petition brought by the petitioner on the ground of bonafide requirement for residence of the petitioner and her family members covered by clause (e) ofsub-section(l) of Section 14 of the Act. (2) I have heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner only and have perused. No one has appeared on behalf of the respondent at the time of final hearing of the petition. (3) House No. 2714: Chowk Raiji, Gali Pahar Wali, Delhi-6 is stated to have been owned by one Manovati Devi, mother-in-law of the petitioner. This house had been sold by Manovati to the petitioner and her two sisters-in-law, namely, Smt. Brijbala and Smt. Parkashvati. All these three vendees are married to the sons of Manova...
N.N. Verma Vs. Union of India, Etc.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-02-1987
Reported in: 1988RLR94
S.B. Wad, J. (1) These two W.P. are filed by Shri N.N. Verma, the coloniser of Shyama Prasad Mukerjee Park Colony and the the Association of the plot holders of the colony. They have challenged the decision of the respondents not to release 12.58 acres from land acquisition and have prayed for a restraint order against the respondents for interfering with their possession. According to them the layout plan for the colony measuring 32.58 acres in the village Tatarpur and Chaukhandi, Delhi, was sanctioned by Delhi Development Provisional Authority, the predecessor of the D.D.A. They claim that in the sanctioned plan, the disputed 12.58 acres of land was earmarked for commercial purposes such as cinema theatre, petrol pump and shops. Submission of the petitioners is that the said land measuring 12.58 acres was released from acquisition Along with land of 20 other colonies) by the decision of the Govt. of India announced in the Parliament by Shri Karmarkar, the then Minister on 10.3.1960. ...
Municipal Corporation of Delhi Vs. Mahabir
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-02-1987
Reported in: 35(1988)DLT100
Charanjit Talwar, J.(1) A preliminary objection taken on behalf of the respondents in these six appeals is that these are barred by limitation. The Municipal Corporation of Delhi (for short the Corporation) had filed six complaints against the respondents for an offence under Section 332 of the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as the Act.) (2) After trial the respondents in each case were acquitted. The Corporation at that time was of the view that the applications seeking special leave to appeal from the orders of acquittal could be filed within six months computed from the date of order of acquittal. The preliminary objection taken is that the limitation provided under Section 378(5) of the Code of Criminal Procedure for filing an application seeking special leave is sixty days and thus the appeals are barred by limlitation. The said sub-section reads as follows: '5.No application under Sub-Section (4) for the grant of special leave to appeal from an ord...
Jeewan Kumar Khanna Vs. Ajudhia Pershad Murgai and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-02-1987
Reported in: 34(1988)DLT355; 1988(14)DRJ161
P.K. Bahri, J. (1) This revision petition has been brought under Section 25-B(8) of the Delhi Rent Control Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') against an order dated December 1 1, 1986, of Shri A.K. Garg, Additional Rent Controller, by which he had dismissed the eviction petition brought by the petitioner on the ground of bonafide requirement for residence for himself and his family members covered by Clause (e) of Sub-section (1) of Section 14 of the Act.(2) Facts, in brief, are that the petitioner's father Duni Chand had inducted Daulat Ram, predecessor-in-interest of the respondents, as a tenant in the house No. 313/31-J, plot No. 60, Block-A, Inder Lok, Sarai Rohilla, Delhi, at the rental of Rs. 43.00 per mensern in the year 1960. Duni Chand Along with his family members was residing jointly with his brother-in- law Dewan Chand, AW3, at first in some railway, quarter allotted in the name of Dewan Chand and thereafter in a house belonging to Dewan Chand bearing Municipal No. ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 10
- Next ›
- Last »