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.
Thakkar Travels Bureau Vs. Union of India
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-07-1991
Reported in: 1991(1)DRJ(Suppl)146
P.K. Bahri, J.(1) Rule D.B. (2) The matter is taken up for disposal straight-away. (3) By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged order dated 21st of June 1989 refusing to renew its license to act as Rail Travellers' Service Agent, as also the appellate order dated 6th of May 1991 confirming the same. (4) Grant and renewal of the license is governed by the Rail Travellers' Service Agents Rules, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules). Rule 4 provides for issue of a license. Rule 5 lays down conditions on which it may be granted. Rule 6 empowers the Competent Authority to cancel, at any time, the license for violation of any of the conditions The proviso to this Rule prohibits the exercise of this power unless an opportunity to show cause is given to the Agent. Rule 7 stipulates that a license shall, unless the Competent Authority, for reasons to be recorded in writing, otherwise decides in any case, be renewed for three years and ...
Vidya Sagar Vs. Shakuntala Devi
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-07-1991
Reported in: 1992(22)DRJ123; 1992RLR5
(1) Shri Vidya Sagar, hereinafter referred to as the petitioner has challenged the order of the Add1. Rent Controller Delhi dated 18- 4-91, whereby an order of eviction was passed against him in respect of the disputed premises under section 14D of the Delhi Rent Control(Amendment) Act. (2) In brief, the facts of the case are that Smt. Shakuntala Devi, hereinafter referred to as the respondent in about December, 1989 instituted an eviction petition against the petitioner on the ground under section 14D of the Delhi Rent Control (Amendment) Act. As per the averments made in the petition, she is the owner landlady of the property 58, Banarsi Das Estate, Timarpur and that she is a widow. The suit premises were let out by her husband to the petitioner and that she requires the same for her residence and she does not have any other property for her residence. The ground floor is in occupation of another tenant Shri P.C.Gupta. She wants to live in her own house in Delhi. Since the petition w...
Kanwar Kumar Seth Vs. Mulkh Raj Malhotra
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-07-1991
Reported in: 46(1992)DLT122
S.C. Jain, J. (1) The facts giving rise to this petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India are that the petitioner had filed a petition for eviction dated 24.2.86, against the respondent under Section 14(l)(a)(b)(c)(j) of the Delhi Rent Control Act. As non payment of rent is one of the grounds of eviction, an order under Section 15(1) of the Delhi Rent Control Act was passed on 7.7.87 by the Addl. Rent Controller directing the respondent to pay or deposit the entire arrears of rent @ Rs.90.00 per month from 1.7.85 up to date within one month from the date of the order and to continue to pay or deposit the future rent month by month by the 15th of each succeeding month. In compliance with that order the respondent deposited the arrears of rent w.e f. 1.7.85 to 31.7.86 @ 90.00 p.m. on 48.87 i.e. within one month of the date of the order. (2) The petitioner was not satisfied with the order of the Addl. Rent Controller, as according to him, the Addl. Rent Controller shou...
Som Nath Pahwa and ors. Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-07-1991
Reported in: I(1992)DMC285
V.B. Bansal, J.1. Som Nath Pahwa and others have moved this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing proceedings in FIR No. 350/89, P.S. Paschim Vihar, Delhi under Secs. 406/498A IPC.2. Briefly stated the facts leading to the filing of this petition are that the petitioner No. 1 was married to respondent No. 2 on 1st May, 1987 and thereafter they started living together at Faridabad. Petitioner No. 2 is the other petitioner No. 3 is the brother & petitioner No. 4 is the Bhabhi of petitioner No. 1. On account of matrimonial differences between the parties respondent No. 2 lodged a report with P.S. Paschim Vihar being FIR 350/89 under Secs. 406 and 498A IPC complaining of harassment by the petitioners and also about their having misappropriated her Stridhan. After investigation, challan has and already been filed in Court. The differences continued between the petitioners respondent No. 2 on account of which Smt. Santosh Kumari respondent no 2 filed a pet...
Swaran Singh Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-07-1991
Reported in: II(1992)ACC706
V.B. Bansal, J. 1. Swaran Singh has filed this revision petition thereby challenging his conviction under Sections 279/338/304-A, Indian Penal Code in F.I.R. No. 201 of 1985, Police Station Ashok Vihar. The petitioner-was convicted by Mr. Jaswant Singh, Metropolitan Magistrate, Delhi vide judgment dated 4th February, 1984 and was sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- or in default to undergo R.I. for one month under Section 279, Indian Penal Code, to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- or in default to undergo R.I. for two months under Section 338, Indian Penal Code and to R.I. for one year with a fine of Rs. 1,000 or in default to undergo R.I. for two months for the offence under Section 304-A, Indian Penal Code, vide order dated 7th February, 1989, Appeal filed by the petitioner was dismissed by Ms. Sharda Aggarwal, Additional Sessions Judge, Delhi vide judgment dated 22nd of April, 1989.2. This revision petition came up for hearing in this Court when no one appeared for the petitioner while St...
M.S. Chawla and Co. Vs. Delhi Electricity Supply Unit
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-04-1991
Reported in: 1992RLR35
Mohd. Shamim, J.(1) [ED. facts: Petitioner is manufacturing electronic goods. Desu was supplier of electricity to its factory. Petitioner alleges that meter got defective in Sept., 1988 and up to 21.7.90, Desu carried out 4 surprise inspections and he had deposited Rs. 250.00 as Meter Testing Fee. A joint inspection team of Desu visited the factory on 13.11.90 and reported 'Suspected fraudulent abstraction of energy'. On 27.3.91, Desu sent a bill of more than Rs. 67 lakh for period May, 1989 to Nov., 1990 directing payment by 12-4-91 and upon failing disconnection u/S. 24(1) of Electricity Act. Petitioner challenged the claim on many grounds, one of which is that u/S. 26, Desu cannot ask for more than 6 months if meter is defective and asked for reference of dispute to arbitration. Desu contended that it was a case of theft and could not be so referred. Petitioner applied for interim injunction. After detailing facts, Judgments is : (2) The petitioner has alleged vide para 3 of their p...
L.R. Gupta and ors. Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-04-1991
Reported in: (1992)101CTR(Del)179; 46(1992)DLT14; 1992(22)DRJ1; [1992]194ITR32(Delhi); 1991RLR551
B.N. Kirpal, J.(1) The challenge in this writ petition is to the authorisation which had been issued by Director (Investigation), Income Tax Department (respondent No. 2) under section 132(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short the Act) and the subsequent conduct of search and seizure carried out by respondents 3 to 6 under the said Act. (2) Ri L.R. Gupta (petitioner No. 1) is a Senior Advocate of this Court. The other petitioners are members of his family. Petitioner No. 2, bids son, is also an Advocate. Petitioner No. 3 is the younger son of Shri L.R. Gupta and petitioners 4 and 5 are the wife and daughter, respectively, of petitioner No. 1. (3) It is averred in the writ petition that the petitioners, Along with some other persons had acqired Bhumidari rights in agricultural lands in Delhi. The said lands were acquired under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act and awards in respect thereto were given. The amount of compensation awarded by the Land Acquisition Collector was ...
Madan Lal Vs. Registrar, Delhi High Court and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-04-1991
Reported in: 46(1992)DLT133
B.N. Kirpal, J.(1) The challenge in this writ petition is to the non-fixation of the pay of the petitioner pursuant to the report of the Fourth Pay Commission. (2) The petitioner in Class-IV employee of this Court and Is working as an Usher in the pay-scale of Rs. 30U-43U. This petition appears to have been filed in a representative capacity on behalf of all the Class-1 V employees of this Court, who are Peons, crashes, Safai-Walas, Daftries, Jamadars, Junior Library Attendants, Records Sorters and Junior Gestetner Operators. This judgment will, thereforee, be applicable to all these and other Class-IV employees of this Court. (3) Prior to the Third Pay Commission Report, these employees were in the pay-scales ranging from Rs. 196-232 to Rs. 210-270. The petitioner herein filed a Civil Writ Petition No. 2236/86, inter alia, praying that the pay of Class-IV employees of this Court should be fixed in the pay-scale of Rs. 300-430 inasmuch as similar employees in the High Court of Punjabi ...
Indian Potash Limited Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Nov-01-1991
Reported in: (1992)(59)ELT472TriDel
1. This is a restoration application filed with reference to the order of the Tribunal dated 15-7-1991 dismissing their appeal for default and for non-prosecution.2. The learned counsel drew attention to their petition and emphasised that "on 15-7-1991, the counsel for the appellant was unable to attend to the hearing of this Hon'ble Tribunal because the counsel was under the impression that the present appeal was connected with another appeal filed by the Food Corporation of India. Since the appeal filed by the Food Corporation of India was not listed for hearing on 15-7-1991, the counsel for the appellant assumed that the matter will be adjourned. Accordingly, the counsel for the appellant requested the Senior Assistant of the Appellant namely, B.L. Vashist to attend the hearing of this matter since the matter had only to be adjourned." 3. On 15-7-1991 the Hon'ble Tribunal did not take cognizance of their request for adjournment and felt that since no one was appearing for the appel...
Brahm Prakash Bansal and anr. Vs. Union of India and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-01-1991
Reported in: 45(1991)DLT676
B.N. Kirpal, J.(1) The challenge in this writ petition is to the decision of the respondents contained in its letter dated 2nd May, 1991 wherein it had been decided that uniform rate of commission will be paid to all the hirers/franchisees of S.T.D. local Pay phones, they will be entitled to retain the same by way of commission 20 paise per unit call up to 10,000 calls in a month and 10 paise per unit call thereafter in that month. (2) The grievance of the petitioners is that their application for grant of franchise was approved prior to 2nd May 1991 and at that time the commission payable was 20 paise per unit call for all the calls. (3) There was an advertisement in the newspaper in February 1991 announcing the franchise scheme for Telecom Centres. It is mentioned in this advertisement that a commission of 20 paise per unit call can be renamed by the franchise bolder. There is a note in this very advertisement to the effect that the respondents inter alias reserve the right to prescr...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›