Delhi Court November 1991 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.
Puran Chand Saini Vs. Mithlesh Saini
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-25-1991
Reported in: 46(1992)DLT161; I(1992)DMC210
Santosh Duggal, J. (1) ADMIT. (2) This revision petition is directed against an order passed under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, on the application of the respondentwife who is also respondent in the proceedings under Section 13 of the Act. The trial Court on the basis of the averments made by the respondent/wife and accepting the statements of both the parties as to their respective salaries and considering the circumstance that the petitioner/husband was maintaining the two children of the wedlock as also his old mother, thought it fit to grant a maintenance of Rs 250.00 p.m. with effect from 2nd May, 1989 which, I am informed, was the date of the application. (3) The main grievance of the petitioner is that the trial Court passed the impugned order without there being sufficient material on record in support of what the applicant (respondent/wife) had pleaded as to her income, or in respect to deductions from the salary, by Installments of Rs. 260.00 p.m., which she alleged ...
Mohan Lal Rathi and anr. Vs. Additional Registrar of Companies
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-25-1991
Reported in: 46(1992)DLT73; 1992(22)DRJ164
(1) The statement as well as order recorded by the learned trial Court indicate that there is a note by the Auditors of the petitioners wherein they have stated that petitioners have not complied with the provisions of section 58A of the Companies Act, 1956. This would clearly mean prima facie that the petitioner should have filed retunes in respect of the deposits received by them under the Companies (Acceptance and Deposits) Rules; 1975. Prima facie when their own Auditors are certifying that the petitioners have not complied with the provisions of section 58-A of the Companies Act, 1956, there is reason to believe that some of those deposits might not be falling within the provisions of the exempted deposits. thereforee, at the stage when learned trial Court has ony ordered the framing of charge against the petitioners, it is not possible to say that there is no evidence against the petitioners available for that purpose. In any case, it is not a fit case for invoking jurisdiction u...
Ramesh Kumar Wadhera Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-25-1991
Reported in: 46(1992)DLT158
B.V. Bansal, J.(1) Ramesh Kumar Wadhera, petitioner, has filed this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, with a prayer that the detention order dated 14.9.90, may be quashed and he may be released (2) In exercise of the powers under Section 3(1) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), Shri Mahendra Prasad, specially empowered officer and Joint Secretary to the Government of India, Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue, passed an order dated 14.9.90, for the detention of the petitioner with a view to preventing him from engaging in keeping smuggled goods and dealing in smuggled goods otherwise than by transporting and concealing smuggled goods. This order was served upon the petitioner on 15th September, 1990, when grounds of detention along with the documents relied upon were also supplied. (3) A number of grounds have b...
Pawan Goel Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-25-1991
Reported in: 46(1992)DLT261
V.B. Bansal, J.(1) This order will dispose of Criminal Misc. (M) 2495/91 (Pawan Goel v. Collector of Customs, Crl. M (M) 2493 of 1991 (Sushil Goel v. Collector of Customs), and Crl. M.(M) 2494 of 1991 (B. Garg v. Collector of Customs), since they arise out of the same incident and so can be disposed of together conveniently. (2) By way of these applications under Sec. 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure the petitioners have prayed for being released in anticipation of their arrest in respect of the import of Brass Scrap 'Honey' pursuant to the bill of entry No. (01585 from Jordan by M/s Kunal Metals Pvt. Ltd. S/Shri Pawan Goel, Sushil Goel, B. Garg petitioners and Anil Goel are stated to be the directors of the aforesaid firm. (3) The case of the petitioners has been that the Company had imported a consignment of Brass Scrap 'Honey' and the bill of entry was submitted through their agent for clearance. It has also been claimed that the goods in question imported by them are an Ogl it...
Balwant Rai Gupta Vs. Jammu and Kashmir Bank Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-25-1991
Reported in: 47(1992)DLT39
Sonanda Bhandare, J. (1) The petitioner was appointed as a Clerk with the respondent-Jammu & Kashmir Bank Limited in the year 1958 and continued to work with the Bank in various capacities and ultimately was promoted as Chief Manager. He was transferred to the Divisional Office at New,Delhi in April 1984. The petitioner was served with a charge-sheet dated19.7.1984 on alleged charges of misconduct. He submitted a reply on 13.8.1984denying the allegations. Thereafter, a supplementary charge-sheet was given to the petitioner on 20.11.1984 and additional allegations of misconduct were leveled against him. The petitioner submitted a further detailed reply on28.121984 to the supplementary charge and denied the correctness of the alleged charges. Not being satisfied by the reply given by the petitioner, the respondent communicated to the petitioner that it had been decided to hold an enquiry against him and appointed Dr. B.L. Wanchoo, Deputy GeneralManager, Delhi as Enquiry Officer in the ma...
Mangat Vs. Delhi Development Authority
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-22-1991
Reported in: 46(1992)DLT151
Santosh Duggal, J.(1) This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed against the order dated 18th November, 1991 passed by the trial Court before whom a suit filed by the petitioner herein is pending. It appears from the perusal of the impugned order that the case stood adjourned to 27th November, 1991 when it came up on 14th November, 1991. Mr. Rajinder Dutt, learned Counsel for the petitioner, informs that while filing the suit, the petitioner had also moved an application under Order 39 Rules I & 2 Civil Procedure Code seeking an order of interim injunction restraining the respondent (D.D.A.) from demolishing the structure on the property in suit or disposing the plaintiff. He has also filed a copy of the plaint and the main prayer in the suit is also for grant of a decree of perpetual injunction which is reproduced below: 'That the plain tiff prays that a decree for issue of perpetual injunction restraining the defendant from taking demolition action an...
Metro Guest House Vs. the State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-22-1991
Reported in: 1991(3)Crimes838; 1992(22)DRJ126
(1) It is not possible to say that simply because of pendency of appeal against the order of dismissal of the application for grant of license such an application would be deemed to revive. Assuming even if it were so, admittedly the appeal has been dismissed when the petition has come up for final disposal. thereforee on the date the application for grant of license is finally dismissed. The authorities cited by the learned counsel have no bearing on the facts of the petition. The petitioner cannot seek quashing of its prosecution when it has no license to run the guest House....
Krishna Vs. Attar Singh
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-22-1991
Reported in: 46(1992)DLT342; I(1992)DMC218; 1992RLR95
Mahinder Narain, J. (1) The appellant relying upon the judgment of Division Bench of this Court in L.P.A. No. 62 of 1989 dated, 15-11-1989 (Harish Opal. v. Smt.Neera Dixit) reported as 1989 RLR 376, has filed an application bearing C.M. No. 2273 of 1991, seeking divorce from this Court on the basis of mutual consent. In the said L.P.A. No. 62 of 1989 also, the parties had moved an application under Section 13(B) of the Hindu Marriage Act, read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure. (2) The parties were married on 16-11-1983 at Delhi. There is no children born from the marriage of the parties. Since 26-5-1987, the parties have been living separately. (3) A petition was filed by the appellant-wife on 8-1-1988, seeking dissoultion of the marriage on the ground of cruelty under section 13(l)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act. That petition was, however dismissed, on 20-3-1990, (4) Aggrieved, the appellant came in appeal. (5) The appellant-wife is 30 years old, and the respondent-husb...
Rongi Ram Tah Vs. Delhi Administration and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-22-1991
Reported in: 46(1992)DLT90
P.N. Nag, J. (1) The petitioner has challenged the impugned communication dated 25th September, 1989 issued by Shri Gita Sagar, Joint Secretary (L&B;) (Annexure P-8 to the writ petition) vide which the case of the petitioner for allotment of alternative plot in lieu of the petitioner's land, which was acquired vide Award No. 2052 dated 30.12.1967, in village Dallupura, Shahdara, Delhi, has been rejected on the ground that the land in question has been purchased by him after the date of notification u/Sec. 4; which does not allow eligibility in accordance with the policy. (2) The brief facts set out in the petition are that the petitioner purchased 1200 sq. yards of land in Khasra No. 12, in village Dallupura, Shahdara, Delhi from one Shri Harbans Kaur and Smt. Sheila Malhotra vide a registered sale deed dated 7.2 1967 which was duly registered on 16.2.1967 in the office of the Sub-registrar, Delhi. This land admittedly was purchased after the issue of the notification issued under Sect...
Om Prakash Vs. Delhi Administration and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-22-1991
Reported in: 46(1992)DLT403
Sunanda Bhandare, J.(1) This petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the detention order dated 15.6.1990 passed in the name of the Administrator, Union Territory of Delhi under Section 3(i) read with Section 2(f) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 (hereinafter referred to as COFEPOSA). (2) The petitioner was employed as Aerobridge Operator with the International Airport Authority of India at the Indira Gandhi International Airport, New Delhi. On 52.1990 one Ajit Singh was apprehended in the Immigration Hall and in his statement under Section 108 he stated that he was to hand over gold of about I kg. to a person in blue uniform. The petitioner who was on duty on that day was arrested by the Customs (Preventive) Officer on an allegation that he was helping Ajit Singh in smuggling gold. The petitioner in his statement under Section 108 of the Customs Act denied that he knew Ajit Singh and also denied having any connection...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »