Delhi Court May 1990 Judgments

Rehabilitation Ministry Employees Cooperative House Building Society L ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 42(1990)DLT76

V.B. Bansal, J. (1) Rehabilitation Ministry Employees Cooperative Housing Building Society Limited (hereinafter to be referred to as the 'Society') has filed this writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India praying that the award dated June 12, 1987 of Major General H.N. Shingal (Retired) and the orders dated December 3, 1987 and April 13, 1988 of Shri Madan Jha, Presiding Officer, Delhi Cooperative Tribunal, Delhi be quashed. (2) The admitted facts are that V.K. Bansal respondent No. 1 applied for membership of the Society by moving an application supported by affidavit. He was enrolled as a member of the Society on December 12, 1973. A share certificate No. 571 was also issued to him as required under the law. He paid a sum of Rs. 2500.00 at the time of his enrolment. A letter dated. May 26, 1976 was written to respondent No. 1 by Shri A.L. Handa, Administrator of the petitioner informing him that his name has been removed from the list of 'effective eligibl...

Rehabilitation Ministry Employees Cooperative House Building Society L ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 1990(2)ARBLR200(Delhi); 42(1990)DLT72

V.B. Bansal, J. (1) By this order we will dispose of Civil Writ Petition Nos. 1129, 1130, 1131 and 1132 of 1987 since they arise out of the same order dated August 7,1986 of the Lieutenant Governor, Delhi setting aside the resolution dated March 25, 1984 approved by the Deputy Registrar, Cooperative Societies on August 9, 1985 removing respondent No. 3 from the membership of the Rehabilitation Employees Cooperative House Building Society Limited (hereinafter to be referred to as the 'society') The prayer made by the petitioner is for the issue of a writ of certiorari for calling the record of the case and quashing the aforesaid order. (2) The society was formed by the Employees of the Ministry of Rehabilitation, Government of India with a view to get land allotted from the Government of India so that the plots could be given to the members for the construction of houses. Krishan Lal Rathi, Ramesh Chander, Ram Niwas and Uma Shankar Saxena were enrolled as members of the Society on Febru...

G.M. Mahanagar Telephones Nigam Ltd. Vs. Gulshan Rai

Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi

Prithvi Raj, President: (1) This appeal is directed against the order dated 21.11.89 passed by the District Forum, Delhi. (2) The brief facts of the case are that the respondent filed complaint alleging that he had been billed for excessive calls (3479 calls against telephone No. 644-5481 and 2895 calls against telephone No. 644-9230) and consequently prayed for relief contending that he may be billed on the basis of the calls made by him in the past. The District Forum by its impugned order holding that there was no measure to determine whether the defect was with the appellant or with the complainant, ordered that in the interest of justice the complainant should be billed on the basis of the highest calls made from these telephones during the last six months. Accordingly the Forum held that against telephone bearing No. 6449230 he should be billed for 2366 calls and in respect of the telephone No. 6445481, the numbers of calls be determined at 1262. By way of relief the Forum direct...

Sharvati Devi Vs. Shiv Kumar and anr.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 1990(2)Crimes685; 42(1990)DLT113; 1990(19)DRJ82

P.K. Bahri, J. (1) This criminal revision is directed against a judgment of an Additional Sessions Judge, New Delhi, dated August 18,1978,by which he had accepted the appeal and acquitted respondent No. 1. (2) The facts of this case in brief are that Public Witness . 1 Sharbati is the real sister of the wife of respondent No. 1, and they arc living in the neighborhood of each other. On October 16, 1973, Public Witness I came to the Police Station and lodged Daily Diary Report No. 20 at about 7.15 P.M. wherein she mentioned that in the morning she had a quarrel with her sister Santosh, wife of respondent No. I and she was not having good relations with her earlier also and on that day at about 7.30 A.M. when she was talking with one Durgi that respondent No. I came there and had objected to putting of some fencing ; that Shiv Kumar respondent No. 1 gave her beating with fist blows and one brick blow. Public Witness 1 was got medically examined and the doctor (Public Witness 4) found som...

Mahashian Dl Hatti (Pvt.) Ltd. Vs. State (Delhi Administration)

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 1992CriLJ1048

P.K. Bahri, J. (1) Mahashian Di Hatti Private Limited has filed this criminal revision challenging the order of the Metropolitan Magistrate dated December 3 1,980, by which the Magistrate had declined to discharge the petitioner and others. The petitioner and some other persons are facing trial before the Magistrate for an offence punishable under Section 7 read with Section 16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. (2) The short question which arises for consideration is whether the sample which was lifted of 'Chane Ka Masala' is mis-branded under Section 2(ix)(g) of the said Act which reads as follows:- 'If the package containing it, or the label on the package bears any statement, design or device regarding the ingredients or the substances contained therein, which is false or misleading in any material particular; or if the package is otherwise deceptive with respect to its contents.' The label on the package from which the sample of 'Chane Ka Masala' was taken indicated that...

B.S. Bhatnagar Vs. Chairman, Delhi Development Authority

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 1990RLR355

D.P. Wadhwa, J.(1) Plaintiff, a member of Coop. Society took sub-lease of a plot from Dda on 30.3.67 for Rs. 8,630.40. He then built on it spending Rs. 88,000.00 on construction. He then agreed to sell same to one K.C. Shukla on 24.3.77. As lease hold rights could not be sold without permission of Dda, he asked for it on 28.3.77 which was granted on payment of Rs. 88,394.00 on 19 5.79. Earlier he had applied for no objection certificate on 30.3.77 under Urban Land (C&R;) Act was granted on 21.6.77. The vendee (Shukla) was allowed on 4.9.77 to mortgage property to raise loan. Plaintiff claiming that Dda, illegally over charged by showing excessive unearned increase sued for refund Along with interest ] After detailing facts, judgment is : (2) Plaintiff, a member of Coop. Society took sub-lease of a plot from Dda on 30.3.67 for Rs. 8,630.40. He then built on it spending Rs. 88,000.00 on construction. He then agreed to sell same to one K.C. Shukla on 24.3.77. As lease hold rights could no...

Surindra Alloys Vs. Municipal Corporation of Delhi and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: ILR1991Delhi420

R.L. Gupta, J. (1) This order will dispose of I.As. Nos. 3109 3140 3139, 3139A, 2873, 2874, 2?78, 2909, 2908, 2900, 3033 3032 3031, 3030, 3055, 2960, 2795, 2S92, 2942, 3344, 3337 3406 3335, 3457, 3505 and 2953 of 1990 in Suits Nos. 1265 1270 1274, 1271, 1154, 1155, 1156, 1157. 1158A, 1162 1223 1222, 1221, 1220A, 1239,1191, 1116, 1029, 1030 1329 1350, 1372, 1349, 1406, 1427 and 1198 of 1990 respectively because all these lAs basically raise the same question. Most of these suits are petitions under Section 20 of the Arbitration Act while some these Indian Administrative Service have been moved in suits for perpetual injunction. For the sake of reference averments in Suit No. 1198/90 filed by M/s. Surindra Alloys P. Ltd. are being extracted in order to understand the controversy between the parties(2) By this suit the petitioner seeks a direction to respondent No. 2 to file the original arbitration agreement existing between the petitioner and respondent No. .2 and directing reference of...

Narinder Pal Sood and anr. Vs. State (Delhi Administration) and anr.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 1991CriLJ141; 1990RLR296

P.K. Bahri, J. (1) This criminal revision is directed against 'the order of Additional Sessions Judge dated February 23, 1981, by which he has allowed the criminal revision filed by the complainant and required the Metropolitan Magistrate to serve notice on the petitioners for offence punishable under Section 341 of the Indian Penal Code (for short 'IPC') as well. (2) Facts, in brief, are that the complainant, who is a landlord had filed a complaint against the petitioners for offences punishable under Sections 341, 506 read with the allegations that the complainant on June 22, .1979. at about 10.00 A.M. was dragged from the staircase leading to the second floor from the first floor and was held out threat that he would not be allowed to go to the second floor at any time and he was given abuses. The Magistrate after recording preliminary evidence had directed for service of notice on the petitioners for an offence punishable bunder Section 506 Part I, IPC and had discharged the accuse...

Seema Puri and ors. Vs. State

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 41(1990)DLT660; II(1990)DMC374; 1990(19)DRJ347

Y.K. Sabharwal, J. (1) Rashmi, the deceased was married to Navin Puri, petitioner No. 3 on 17-2-1988. Seema Puri, petitioner No.1and D.R.Puri, petitioner No 2, are parents of Navin Puri. Rashmi committed suicide on 3rd April 1989 by drinking two glasses of kerosene oil and then by dousing herself with kerosene oil and setting herself ablaze. The petitioners are being prosecuted for offences under Sections 304B/406/498A IPC. On 21st July 1989 the bail applications or the petitioners were dismissed as withdrawn by orders made by R.L Gupta. J (Cr. Misc. Main 793/89 and Cr. Misc. Main 928/89) Another application filed by Seema Puri was dismissed by Gupta, J. on 21st August 1989 by a detailed order (Cr. Misc Main 1245/89). On 3rd October 1989 the bail application filed by the petitioners was dismissed as withdrawn by Santosh Duggal, J. (Cr. Misc. (M) 1547/89). By the present application petitioners have again approached this court. seeking bail. (2) The dismissal of earlier bail application...

WavIn India Ltd. Vs. Collector of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1990)(49)ELT269TriDel

1. The appellants have pleaded for extension of the concession under Notification No. 40/78 dated 01-03-1978, SI. No. 14, which pertains to 'Plastic Extruder' above 150 mm screw diameter.2. Shri N.C. Sogani, Ld. Consultant, appearing on behalf of the appellant produced the catalogue of the product imported, namely, "Twin Screw Extruders" and explained that the two screw diameters put together will exceed 150 mm and would fulfil the requirement of the notification. He submitted that a Public Notice had been issued vide No. 318/83 dated 22-11-1983 consequent to the decision taken in the Collectors' Conference held at Delhi on 23-09-1983 and 24-09-1983, by which the Conference had decided that the benefit of the notification will be available to the Plastic Extruder above 150 mm screw diameter irrespective of whether there is a single screw or twin screw in the extruder. In support of his contention he further argued that as per the catalogue the screw diameters were of 91 mm and 125 mm ...