Delhi Court February 1989 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.
New India Assurance Co. Ltd Vs. Saloni Dargan and Others
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-14-1989
Reported in: 1990ACJ127; [1991]71CompCas541(Delhi)
judgment S.B. Wad, J.1. This is an appeal filed by the New Indis Assurance Co.Ltd.against the award made by the Tribunal on August 26,1986,granting Rs.1,19,700 as compensation and further holding that the insurance company was liable to pay the entire amount. The submission of the appellant-company is that their liability is limited to Rs.50,000. 2. At the time of the recording of the evidence,one Shri J.C.Sharma,Assistant Administrative Officer,appered and produced a true copy of the policy. He stated in his evidence that he had prepared the original policy,that the carbon copy of the policy was destroyed and that the insurance company had sent a notice and telegram to the owner, Shri Ravi Dutt,to produce the original in the court. The owner did not produce the original policy. The Tribunal found that the copy produced was neither of the original nor a carbon copy. The Tribunal further held that no date had been mentioned as to when the true copy was prepared. The court also found tha...
Seema Mehta Vs. Lalit Mehta
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-14-1989
Reported in: 1989(16)DRJ285; 1989RLR146
M.K. Chalwa, J. (1) In a petition for dissolution of marriage by a decree of divorce under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, Smt. Seema Mehta, the petitioner averred that the marriage between her and Lalit Mehta was solemnised on 10th March, 1985, according to Hindu rites and ceremonies. Thereafter, they lived as husband and wife till 28th of July, 1985. The grounds for seeking decree of divorce is incorporated in para 4 of the petition. It reads thus :- '4.That the petitioner before her marriage was in love with some other person (whose name she does not want to put on record though she has disclosed before the respondent). She bad illicit sex relations with him. On 28-7-1985 the petitioner somehow disclosed the aforesaid facts with complete details to the respondent on 28-7-1985. The respondent abandoned the petitioner that very moment and the petitioner was forced to live separately in one room. The mother of the petitioner was called who came on 17-8-1985 at her present r...
Thomson Brandt Vs. the Controller of Patents and Designs
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-14-1989
Reported in: AIR1989Delhi249; 1989(1)ARBLR339(Delhi); 38(1989)DLT78
(1) This first appeal under Section 116 of the Patents Act. 1970 is directed against the order dated 8th March, 1984 of the Asstt. Controller of Patents & Designs, New Delhi (hereinafter called 'Controller') whereby application Patent No. 342/Del/SO of the appellant filed on 9th May, 1980 for grant of patent in respect of a process of manufacture was rejected. During the course of hearing before the Controller the statement of claims was amended and remanded and the final statement of claim reads as under: 'Statement of claims: 1. A process, for pacifying a gaseous medium, transparent to optical thermal radiation, the optical and infrared (IR) bands of electromagnetic waves spectrum comprising diffusing in the said medium a boron pacifying aerosol, at a delivery rate sufficient to attenuate electromagnetic radiations extending from 0 4 to 15 urn to an extent greater than 90% 2. The process as claimed in claim I wherein said aerosol is stored, in liquid form, in u receptacle comprising ...
Satish Kumar Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-14-1989
Reported in: ILR1989Delhi413
P.K. Bahri, J. (1) One kilogram of opium is stated to have been recovered from the petitioner. The petitioner has sought bail alleging that he has been falsely implicated in this case. It is not possible to hold that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case in absence of any satisfactory material brought on record. Counsel for the petitioner has argued that no evidence has been collected by the prosecution to show that the contents of the goods recovered from the petitioner are opium as defined in the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as 'NDPS Act'). I have seen the copy of the C.F.S.L. report placed before me by the learned counsel for the petitioner which shows that the sample of the contents seized from the petitioner was examined and the expert opined that the sample gave positive test for opium and the percentage of morphine found in the sample is 2.4% approximately. Counsel for the petitioner has made reference to Sushil ...
Ashok Patney Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-14-1989
Reported in: 1989(2)Crimes27; 38(1989)DLT7
P.K. Bahri, J. (1) This writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, for quashing the detention order dated July 7, 1988, passed by respondent No. 2 under Section 3(1) of the Prevention of Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Ordinance, 1988 and a declaration dated August 10, 1988, issued by respondent No. I under section 10(1) of the said Ordinance. (2) Various grounds have been taken for challenging the aforesaid impugned orders but the writ petition is liable to succeed on a very short ground, so it is not necessary to make reference to other grounds. (3) The facts, in brief, are that the petitioner was working with Aeroflot Airlines as Traffic Officer for the last about six years and he was stated to have entered into a conspiracy with one Sansar Chand in order to help the two suit-cases containing psychotropic drug to be smuggled in the aircraft of the said Aeroflot Air...
Nallattu Thodika Hamza Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-14-1989
Reported in: 38(1989)DLT35
Bahri, J. (1) This petition has been brought under Article 226 of the Constitution of India read with Section 482, Cr. P.C. seeking quashment of the detention order dated 28th May, 1987 issued under Section 3(l)(i) and 3(l)(iii) of the Cofeposa Act and declaration dated 16th July, 1987 issued under Section 9 of the Act.(2) I need not refer to various grounds, taken in the writ petition challenging the impugned orders because the petition is liable to succeed on a very short ground. It is averred in the petition that the petitioner had applied for bail in respect of the offence committed by him on the basis of which the impugned orders are made and the bail order was passed on 20th April, 1987 but neither the application seeking bail nor the order granting bail were placed before the detaining authority before the detention order was passed. This fact is not disputed in the counter filed on behalf of respondents 2 and 3. The contention raised on behalf of respondents 2 and 3 is that the...
Kulwant Singh Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-14-1989
Reported in: 37(1989)DLT37a; ILR1989Delhi249
Charanjit Talwar, J.(1) By this writ petition Bhupinder Singh challenges the validity of the detention order passed against him under Section 3(1) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 (hereinafter referred to as Cofeposa Act). The said order was passed on 14th October, 1988 by Shri K. L. Verma,. Joint Secretary to the Government of India, specially empowered under the Cofeposa Act, with .a view to preventing the petitioner from engaging in transporting, keeping and dealing in smuggled goods, otherwise than by engaging in concealing smuggled goods. The grounds of detention also dated the 14th October, 1988 were served on the petitioner on 15th October, 1988, the date on which he was detained. (2) A number of grounds have been taken in the petition to challenge the legality and validity of the impugned order. Mr. R. M. Bagai, learned counsel for the petitioner during arguments has confined himself to only one ground. It is urged that th...
New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Saloni Dargan and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-14-1989
Reported in: 1(1989)ACC339
S.B. Wad, J.1. This is an appeal filed by New India Assurance Company Limited against the award made by the Tribunal on 26-8-1986 granting Rs. 1,19,700/- as compensation and further holding that the Insurance Company was liable to pay the entire amount. The submission of the appellants-company is that their liability is limited to Rs. 50,000/-.2. At the time of the recording of the evidence one Shri J.C. Sharma, Assistant Administrative Officer, appeared and produced the true copy of the policy. He stated in his evidence that he had prepared the original policy, that the carbon copy of the policy was destroyed and that the Insurance Company had sent the notice and telegram to the owner Shri Ravi Dutt to produce the original in the court. The owner did not produce the original policy. The Tribunal found that the copy produced was neither of the original nor a carbon copy. The Tribunal further held that no date has been mentioned as to why the true copy was prepared. The court also found...
NafisuddIn Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-13-1989
Reported in: 1989(2)Crimes313; 37(1989)DLT27
Bahri, J.(1) This is a petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India read with Section 482, Criminal Procedure Code . seeking quashment of the detention order dated July 11, 1988 passed by Respondent No. 2 and under Section 3(1) of the Cofeposa Act and the declaration dated August 2, 1988 issued under Section 9 of the Act by Respondent No. 3. Various grounds have been raised in challenging the impugned orders but it is not necessary to deal with all such grounds because this petition is liable to succeed on a very short ground.(2) The learned counsel for the petitioner has urged that the representation made by the detenu dated September 7, 1988 to the appropriate authority i.e. the Central Government in the present case had not been considered expeditiously which has the effect of vitiating the impugned orders. In the affidavit of Shri S. K. Chaudhry Under Secretary to the Government of India, Ministry of Finance dated January 18, 1989, it has been mentioned that the sa...
Raj Kumari Chopra Vs. Delhi Development Authority
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-11-1989
Reported in: 40(1990)DLT216; 1990(18)DRJ175
B.N. Kirpal, J.(1) Rule D.B.(2) The challenge in this writ petition is to the non-handing over of a flat had been allotted to the petitioner.(3) Briefly stated, the facts are that the son of the petitioner had registered himself for a Mig flat with the respondent. An application was filed and the Dda transferred the registration to the petitioner's name. It appears that another application was filed for conversion of registration from Mig to Sfs category. By letter dated 13th June. 1985 the petitioner was informed that her request has been granted 'for conversion of registration from Mig to SFS-IV under Cat-11.' It was. however, stipulated that the petitioner would be treated en bloc junior to the persons who were already registered under SFS-IV.(4) By a letter dated 10th June, 1986 the petitioner was informed that she should pay 90% of the estimated costs of Rs. 2,37,500 by Installments. It is not in dispute that all the Installments were paid in time. Thereafter, draw of lots took pl...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- Next ›
- Last »