Delhi Court October 1988 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.
Ravi Kumar and anr. Vs. Ram Parkash and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-11-1988
Reported in: I(1989)ACC133; AIR1989Delhi261; ILR1988Delhi420
D.P. Wadhwa, J.(1) The principal question that arises for decision in this petition is if the insurance company is liable to pay compensation in the cases mentioned under S. 92-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (for short 'the Act') on the principle of no fault. A motor vehicle accident on 16-2-1986 resulted in the death of Smt. Karma Wali. The vehicle involved in the accident was a two-wheeler scooter bearing registration No. Deo 5103. It was insured against third party risk with the National Insurance Company Limited, who is respondent No. 8 before me. (2) The legal heirs of deceased Karma Wali numbering six, being. her husband and children, filed an application under Ss. 92A and 110A of the Act before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Delhi. There we're four respondents. First respondent was Ravi Kumar Dhooper, who was driving the vehicle at the time of the accident, the second respondent was Smt. Santosh Kumari, owner of the vehicle, the third respondent was the insurance company...
Reena Miechandani Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-11-1988
Reported in: 1989(2)Crimes637; 37(1989)DLT20; 1989(16)DRJ209
Malik Sharief-ud-din, J.(1) The petitioner has challenged the validity of the detention order dated 5th of February, 1988 passed under Section 3(1) read with Section 2(f) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974. This was done with a view to preventing the detenu from smuggling goods.(2) The petitioner was working as a stewardess in British Airways and on 2nd of November, 1987 she was scheduled to fly on board the British. Airways flight Ba 019 from New Delhi to Hongkong as a member of .the Crew. She presented herself for clearance by the customs officials and on being questioned she made a declaration as to what she was carrying with her. However, on search of her baggage she was found carrying Indian currency totalling Rs. 7,59,000, Pounds Sterling 135, Hongkong Dollar 300, U.A.E. Dirhams 25, Bangladesh Taka 5 and Kuwaiti Diner 1/4. She failed to produce any evidence or permission for carrying these currencies about which- she did not m...
Sriyansh Woollen Mills (Pvt.) Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Oct-10-1988
Reported in: (1990)(46)ELT190TriDel
1. The above captioned appellants have come in appeal being aggrieved from the orders passed by the Additional Collector of Customs, New Delhi. Since the facts of both the appeals are similar and as such the same are disposed of by a consolidated order.M/s. Sriyansh Woollen Mills Pvt. Ltd. v. Collector of Customs, New Delhi, are reproduced below: In pursuit of an information that three containers No. SRIU 4167010, SRIU 1226252 and SRIU 2752912 shipped from Felixstowe by M.V. Lanka Amila V-12E of Ceylon Shipping Corporation and consigned to M/s. Sriyansh Woollen Mills Pvt. Ltd., G.T. Road, Ludhiana and shipped for Delhi from Bombay vide tranship permit No. 282 and 313 dated 24th September, 1985 and 25th July, 1985 respectively stated to be containing wool waste/Viscose staple fibre, but actually most of the bales containing polyester fibre, were lying at the internal container Depot Customs, Pragati Maidan, New Delhi on November 20, 1985. No bill of entry had been filed by the appellan...
Syndicate Bank Vs. West Bengal Cements Lts. and Others
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-10-1988
Reported in: [1991]71CompCas602(Delhi)
ORDERY.K. Sabharwal, J.1. The plaintiff, Syndicate Bank, has filed this suit for recovery of Rs. 33,39,026.75. The case as set up in the plaint is that the bank, amongst various other facilities,sanctioned an overdraft limit of Rs. 10,00,000 to defendant No. 1 company against hypothecation of fiat cars, jeeps and commercial vehicles. The defendants, in consideration of the said overdraft limit, executed a demand promissory note dated February 2, 1972, for the said sum of Rs. 10,00,000 carrying interest at 10.5% per annum for the time being. The defendants also executed further documents as set out in the plaint and availed of the said overdraft limit of Rs.10,00,000. The defendants acknowledged their liabilities in writing to the extent of Rs. 11,83,327.95 as on December 31, 1974, by acknowledgement of debt dated January 31, 1975. It is further claimed that in spite of acknowledgment pf liability, the defendants failed to deposit money in the said overdraft account and when called upon...
Manju Khan Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-10-1988
Reported in: 1989(16)DRJ167
M.K. Chawla, J.(1) Chaudhary Khazan Singh (Public Witness -3) is the owner of a house situated in Arvind Mohalla, Village Gonda, East Delhi. It consists of small rooms on all the four sides and an open space in the centre. There is one main door of entrance. Each room is occupied by tenants. Qayum Khan deceased Along with his nephews Saleem (Public Witness -2) and Tahir (Public Witness -I) and Manju Khan, accused, was in occupation of one of the rooms. On 21st August, 1983, Manju Khan is alleged to have caused the death of Qayum Khan by stabbing him in the chest with a dagger under the circumstances as stated by Saleem (Public Witness -2) before the Police at the Police Station, Seelampur (2) According to Saleem, his uncle Qayum Khan had agreed to engage his daughter Nargis aged about 14/15 years with Manju Khan about two months prior to the date of incident. Later on, the relations of Qayum Khan opposed the engagement on account of vast difference in the age of the girl and the accuse...
Jaimal Singh Vs. Jaswant Singh and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-10-1988
Reported in: 37(1989)DLT76; 1989(16)DRJ55
P.K. Bahri, J.(1) This Regular Second Appeal has been brought against the judgment and decree dated February 3, 1986 passed by Sbri J.D. Kapur, Additional District Judge by which he had allowed the appeal filed by the respondents against the judgment and decree dated February 28, 1985 of Shri Shiv Charan, Sub-judge and bad dismissed the suit brought by the appellant- plaintiff seeking possession of the premises in possession of the respondents.(2) The case has a chequered history. Sawan Singh, the Predecessor- in-interest of the respondents, as a displaced person had occupied a room, verandah, kitchen open court-yards and latrine as shown in red colour in Exhibit P-3 in House No. 2669, Gali No. 2, Beadonpura, Karol Bagh, New Delhi and admittedly lived in that portion along with his family members. This house was an evacuee property.. The Plaintiff-Appellant, Jaimal Singh, was also an occupant of a part of the same house as a displaced person. Shri Sawan Singh was admittedly living as a...
Ram NaraIn Vs. Tek Chand and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-10-1988
Reported in: 36(1988)DLT438
Sunanda Bhandare, J. (1) This second appeal is directed against order of the Rent Control Tribunal, Delhi dated 16th January 1788 whereby the appeal filed by the appellant against the order of the Additional Rent Controller dated 18th December 1986 was rejected. (2) The respondents herein filed an eviction petition under Section 14(l)(b) of the Delhi Rent Control Act in the court of the Additional Rent Controller against the appellant herein in respect of a portion of the property known as Sanjay Market. Block C, Kewal Nagar Extension Azadpur, Delhi shown in red colour in site plan exhibited as Ext. AWl/l. The appellant was the tenant in respect of the said premises at a monthly rent of Rs. 400.00 ft was alleged in the petition that the appellant had sub-let, assigned and parted with possession of one shop forming part of the disputed property to M/s Rajindra Motors and one room on first floor to M/s New Rohtak Haryana Goods Carrier. It is not disputed by the appellant that the appella...
Vijay Kumar Nathan Vs. Tek Chand JaIn and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-07-1988
Reported in: 1989(16)DRJ235
S.S. Chadha, J.(1) We have seen the record of suit No. 203/81 is No. 6684/86 was filed through Shri P. K. Bajaj, Advocate. There is an endorse- ment on the opening sheet that Senior Advocate was not available and the petition not to be listed on 21.10 1986. it further states, 'Not to be listed till his availability and he will inform the date'. Case was listed on 1st December, 1986 and there was no appearance and it was adjourned to 11th December, 1986 and the applications were dismissed in default on account of non-appearance. Learned counsel relies on Rafiq and another v. Munshilal and another, and Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnaq and another v. Mst. Katiji and others, to contend that a litigant should not suffer for an inaction, deliberate omission, or misdemeanour of his counsel. Admit.(2) Mr. Y. K. Jain states that the appeal be decided on the existing record. Heard. The appeal is directed against an order dated 7th December, 1987 of the learned Single Judge dismissing IAs 15...
Mohd. Usman Alias Haji Vs. State (Delhi Administration)
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-07-1988
Reported in: 1989(16)DRJ54
Charanjit Talwar, J.(1) By this petition, Mohd. Usman @ Haji seeks directions to the respondents to remove his name from the surveillance register and also to close the history sheet, which was opened on the directions of the Station House Officer of Police Station, Chandni Mahal, Delhi. A number of grounds have been taken in the petition. However, the only plea pressed before us is that on the respondents' own showing, the Deputy Commissioner of Police (Central District) while approving of the recommendations of the Assistant Commissioner of Police of that very area, who had recommended that the petitioner's name be kept on the surveillance register, did not pass any speaking order. The admitted position is given in the affidavit of Shri M.S. Chhikara, S.H.O. of Police Station, Chandni Mahal, Delhi, which affidavit was filed on behalf of the respondents in answer to the show cause. It is averred: 'AS the petitioner has been a notorious satta gambler the A.C.P. of the Area recommended ...
P.K. Bansal Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-07-1988
Reported in: 37(1989)DLT37
P.K. Bahri, J. 1. By virtue of this writ petition brought under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner seeks quotient of orders dated January 31, 1986, of respondent No. 3 and February 11 1986 of respondent No. 4 and decision of Delhi School Tribunal dated August 12 1987 on the ground that the same are illegal, arbitrary and without jurisdiction and void ab initio. He has also sought directions to respondents 3 & 4 for taking back the petitioner on duty with full back wages and continuity of service.2. The facts, in brief, are that the petitioner was working as Head-clerk-cum-Assistant in the scale of Rs. 425-750 with effect from April 1, 1976, in Nava Hind Girls Senior Secondary School, New Rohtak Road, New Delhi, Respondent No. 4, which is a recognised aided school under Director of Education, Delhi Administration Respondent No 3, under the Delhi School Education Act, 1973 (for short 'the Act'). The petitioner was charge-sheeted on April 6, 1983. The Enquiry Officer...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »