Delhi Court September 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.
Shakkir Ahmed Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-29-1988
Reported in: ILR1988Delhi538; 1988RLR671
Malik, J.(1) The petitioner who himself is a detenu has challenged the validity of the detention order dated 3rd of March 1988 passed by Shri K. L.Verma, Joint Secretary to the Government of India, under section 3(1) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 (as amended). The detention order was passed with a view to preventing the petitioner from smuggling goods.(2) Mr. Madan Lokur, right in the beginning, pointed out that in the detention order the word Under Secretary written under the signatures of Mr. K. L. Verma is a clerical error as Shri K. L. Verma who has passed the order is a Joint Secretary to Government of India and has been specially empowered under Section 3(1) of the Cofeposa Act.(3) The detention order followed an incident dated 5th of January 1988 when the petitioner who was traveling in flight No. BG-691 from Singapore to Calcutta via Dhaka, Bangla Desh had landed at Calcutta Airport. The customs authorities felt suspici...
Harbans Kaur Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-29-1988
Reported in: 36(1988)DLT263; 1988RLR691
Malik Sharief-Ud-Din, J.(1) The petitioner has challenged the validity of the order dated 16th of September 1982 passed by the Metropolitan Magistrate directing that the charge be framed against the petitioner under section 9 of the Delhi Lands (Restrictions on Transfer) Act, 1972. Earlier the case was sent up by the police also under section 420 and 120B Indian Penal Code . but it seems that the learned Magistrate declined to frame charge under these sections. This order of the learned Magistrate was passed despite an application made by the petitioner under section 239 Cr.P.C. asserting that there were no grounds for framing of the charge. (2) Now for purpose of determination of the controversy I may take notice of certain dates. Section 4 notification under the land Acquisition Act was issued on 24th October 1961. Admittedly, the land in dispute comprised in khasra Nos. 20 and 39, Azadpur. At the time when section 4 notification was issued it was an evacuee land and the aforesaid se...
Anand Sarup Sharma Vs. P.P. Khurana and Others
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-28-1988
Reported in: AIR1989Delhi88; [1989]65CompCas413(Delhi); 1989(16)DRJ27; 1988RLR693
G.C. Jain, J.1. A learned single judge of this court, agreeing with the decision of the full Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Madineni Kondaiah v. Yaseen Fatima [1986] 60 C C 762; AIR 1986 AP 62, which was in conflict with the Division Bench decision of this court Oriental Fire and General Insurance Co,. Ltd. Vimal Roy, : AIR1973Delhi115 , has referred the following questions of law for decision of the the Full Bench : 'Whether the third party liability of the insurance company comes to an end on transfer of vehicle by the insured to someone else ?' 2. The facts leading t the reference, briefly stated, are these, Shri A. N. Wadhwa (for 'Wadhwa') was the owner of a two wheels scooter registration No. DLO-7451. It was insured with M/s. Vanguard Insurance Co. Ltd. (for short 'the insurance company') for the period from September 27, 1968, to September 26, 1969. Wadhwa sold the sector to P. P. Khurana (for short 'Khurana') on November 27, 1968, and delivered possession thereof. Fi...
State (Delhi Administration) Vs. Jagdamba Parshad Etc.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-28-1988
Reported in: 36(1988)DLT288
Charanjit Talwar, J.(1) The State had filed this appeal against even persons challenging their acquittal under Sections 304/325 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The impugned Judgment is by an Additional Sessions Judge, Shahdara and is dated March 6, 1978. On August 10, 1978, leave to appeal against acquittal of Jagdamba only, who is respondent no. 2 in the Memo of parties, was granted. (2) Jagdamba Parshed and Radhika Parshad were tried for an offence punishable under Section 304 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The prosecution case was that Radhika Parshad had caught hold of Brahm Dutt (since deceased) while Jagdamba Parshad, respondent herein had struck a phatta (wooden plank) blow on the head of Brahm Dutt. There were two witnesses to this occurrence; PW-I Ashok Kumar and PW-2 Radhey Shyam. In a nutshell, these two witnesses stated that the respondent herein an Radhika Parshad were giving abuses to Brahm Dutt and others and then Jagdamba Parshad inflicted...
Chander and ors. Vs. Mauji and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-28-1988
Reported in: AIR1989Delhi97; 1988(15)DRJ380
S.S. Chadha, J.(1) The Delhi Administration vide notification dated October 20, 1961 issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) notified that it appeared to the appropriate Government that land specified therein was needed for a public purpose, namely, for the planned development of Delhi. The declaration under Section 6 of the Act was made by the Delhi Administration vide notification dated March 27, 1963. This was in respect of 865 bighas 14 bids was of land in village Asalatpur Khadar, Tehsil and District Delhi. The Land Acquisition Collector (for short called the Collector) made his award No. 1685 and notified it on March 19, 1964. The Collector directed that the owners and the interested persons would be paid compensation according to the shares as entered in Jamabandi of the village. There were occupancy tenants as well as non-occupancy tenants in the land under acquisition. Occupancy tenants were held entitled to a substantial a...
Joginder Singh Vs. Union of India and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-28-1988
Reported in: 1988(3)Crimes907; ILR1988Delhi148
Malik, J. (1) The petitioner has challenged the detention order dated 5th of March 1988 passed in respect of his brother Shri Joginder Singh under Section 3(1) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 (as amended) by Shri K. L. Verma, Joint Secretary to the Government of India. The detention order has been passed with a view to preventing the detenu from acting in any manner prejudicial to the augmentation of foreign exchange. Pursuant to this detention order the detenu was actually listen into custody on 6th of April 1988. (2) The order of detention was passed following an incident dated 23rd of January 1988 when the detenu along with one Manjit Kumar was traveling from Ludhiana to Jalandhar in a taxi which was intercepted by the police en route near Phagwara and on search Us $ 10,000 and Rs. 10,110 Indian currency were recovered from the detenu while the search of his corrugation Manjit Kumar resulted in the recovery of Us $ 7075 and Ca...
Anand Sarup Sharma Vs. P.P. Khurana and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-28-1988
Reported in: I(1990)ACC155
G. C. Jain, J.1. A learned single Judge of this Court, agreeing with the decision of the full Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Madineni Kondaiah v. Yaseen Fatima 1986 ACJ 1, which was in conflict with the Division Bench decision of this Court in Oriental Fire & General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Vimal Roy, 1972 ACJ 314 (Delhi), has referred the following question of law for decision of the Full Bench.Whether the third party liability of insurance company comes to an end on transfer of vehicle by the insured to someone else2. The facts leading to the reference briefly stated, are these. Mr. A.N. Wadhwa (for short 'Wadhwa') was the owner of a two- wheeler scooter registration No. DLO 7451. It was insured with Vanguard Insurance Co. Ltd. (for short 'the insurance company') for the period from 27.9.1968 to 26.9.1969. Wadhwa sold the scooter to P.P. Khurana (for short 'Khurana') on 27.11.1968 and delivered the possession thereof. Final receipt was to be given after the permission from t...
Anil Sharma Vs. Union of India and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-27-1988
Reported in: 1989(2)ARBLR5(Delhi); 36(1988)DLT405
B.N. Kirpal, J.(1) This is a petition under Section 20 of the Arbitration Act in which the petitioner prays that certain dispute specified in paragraph 14 of the petition should be referred to arbitration. (2) It is the common ground that an agreement was entered into between the parties pursuant to which certain works had to be executed by the petitioner. The said agreement contained an arbitration clause which, inter alia. provided that in the event of any dispute arising between the parties, the same shall be referred to arbitration in terms of clause 64 of the General Conditions of Contract. (3) It appears that the contract was terminated by the respondents. According to the petitioner this termination was illegal and arbitrary. Vide a letter dated 18th March, 1985 the petitioner invoked the arbitration clause and requested the General Manager, Northern Railway to appoint the arbitrator. The arbitrator not having been appointed, the present petition under section 20 was filed. (4) ...
State (Delhi Administration) Vs. Giasa Ram
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-27-1988
Reported in: 1989(1)Crimes49; 36(1988)DLT299
Charanjit Talwar, J.(1) Giasa Ram was tried under Sections 279 and 338 of the Indian Penal Code. The allegations against him were that on 4th June, 1974 at about 10.3J Am he was driving truck No. Dll 9692 in the locality of Rani Bagh in such a manner as to endanger human life and public safety and thereby caused grievous hurt to one Pushpa. He wai also tried for the offence under Section 88/112 of the Motor vehicles Act. After trial the learned Metropolitan Magistrate vide his judgment of 2nd February, 1978 acquitted Giasa Ram. (2) The main ground on which the acquittal is based is that the driver of the truck who had admittedly run away from the spot after causing the accident was not got identified in the identification parade after his arrest. (3) By this appeal the State has challenged the validity and legality of the said judgment. With the assistance of Mr. Lao, we have gone through the record. (4) Apart from the injured, three eye-witnesses to the occurrence had been produced. P...
Jagdish Chander Vs. State and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-27-1988
Reported in: 36(1988)DLT272; 1988RLR678
P.K. Bahri, J.(1) This appeal has been brought against order dated December 17, 1982, of the District Judge, Delhi, by which he had dismissed the objection petition filed by the appellant under Section 263 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925, for annulment and revocation of letters of administration already granted in favor of respondent No. 2-Inderjit Marwah on the basis of a will allegedly executed by Hakumat Rai. The appellant was held to be having no locus standi to challenge the letters of administration granted in favor of respondent No. 2. (2) Admittedly, the appellant is a tenant in a portion of house No. 10/2461, Beadon Pura, Karol Bagh, New Delhi. Hakumat Rai and his wife had brought an eviction case against the appellant on the ground of bona fide requirement for residence but they remained unsuccessful in that effort up to the High Court. After the death of his wife, Hakumat Rai is stated to have brought another eviction case against the appellant in which he pleaded that hi...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- Next ›
- Last »