Delhi Court December 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.
Subhash Kamboj and anr. Vs. the State and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-02-1991
Reported in: 1992(22)DRJ178
Malik Sharief-Ud-Din, J.(1) This is a reference made by the Learned Single Judge of this court, as according to the Learned Single Judge, there was a judicial conflict regarding the question that arises in the bail petition. The issue for reference has not been specifically framed. But as we noticed from the facts of this case, the question that needs to be answered is whether this Court has the power to grant anticipatory bail in respect of the petitioner who is living within the jurisdiction of this court and apprehends arrest even though the case against the petitioner has been registered at Mussoorie, falling within the jurisdiction of Allahabad High Court. (2) Mr. Mathur has invited our attention to Captain Satish Chander Sharma v. Delhi Administration and others. Crl.W.No-265/90. decided on 11.9.1990, by a Division Bench of this Court in which a similar question arose and the Court held that this court has the power to grant anticipatory bail in respect of the petitioner who is r...
Municipal Corporation of Delhi Vs. Savitri Devi
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-02-1991
Reported in: 46(1991)DLT634; 1992(22)DRJ218; 1992RLR124
Malik Sharief-Ud-Din, J.(1) We may note that even though this case was at no. 1 on our board, none appeared for the respondent. Mr. Lao, however, has fairly taken us through the record and has put forth his point of view. The respondent herein was prosecuted under Sections 332/461 of the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, for rising some unauthorised construction which was noticed by Shri S.B.Singh, Junior Engineer of the Corporation on 23.4.80. According to the complaint, the construction was in the nature of two rooms and one passage on the third floor of premises no.2096/IV, Kinari Bazar, Delhi. According to Shri S.B. Singh, who has been cited as prosecution witness, when he inspected the site and found the illegal construction being raised he made a report to the Police and brought the police party and the photographer to the scene and that this unauthorised construction was also noticed by the Police party as the photographer who took the photographs. The trial court dismissed the c...
Dimpy Fashions (India) Vs. Delhi Development Authority
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-02-1991
Reported in: 46(1992)DLT176; 1992RLR92
Sunanda Bhandare, J. (1) Rule D.B.(2) SINCE.A very short point-is involved we proceed to decide the wr ite petition finally.(3) Plot No. 48/7 measuring 501.66 mts. in E Block, Okhla Industrial Area, Phase 11,NeW Delhi was auctioned by the respondent-Delhi Development Authority by way of a public auction held on 22.10.1984 The petitioner, a partnership firm made- the highest bid for the sum ofs 74,OoO.00 . The petitioner paid.a sum of Rs. 2 lacs at the fall of the hammer, on 14.l2.1984 the Delhi Development Authority issued a letter to the petitioner confirming acceptance of its bid by Vice-Chairman and asked the petitioner to deposit the balance sum of Rs. 5,40,11.00 . By another letter dated 31.12.1984 the respondent Delhi Development Authority informed the petitioner that the due date for payment of the balance amount was 13.1.1985 The petitioner however did not make the payment and vide letter dated 11.l. 1985 prayed that since the petitioner had suffered in the riots of November 19...
Radha Soami Satsang Beas Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-02-1991
Reported in: 46(1992)DLT414; 1991(1)DRJ(Suppl)459
D.P. Wadhwa, J. (1) This is an appeal under section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short 'the Act') against judgment dated 16 July, 1977 of Mr. C.D. Vashishta, Additional District Judge, Delhi, whereby on reference made to him under section 18 of the Act, he declined to interfere in the award given by the Land Acquisition Collector. In his award No, 1745 of 20 November 1964 the Land Acquisition Collector had fixed the market value of the appellant's land at Rs. 4,OO0.00 per bigha. The village in which the land of the appellant was situated was Khampur Raya and notification under section 4 of the Act respecting the appellant's land and some other land in all measuring 237 bighas 9 bids was was issued on 26 July 1976. Then notification under section 6 was issued on 27 March 1958. The land of the appellant measured 33 bighas 5 biswas.(2) In this appeal the appellant has claimed that the compensation be enhanced to Rs. 21.00 per sq. yd. besides solarium and interest. During the ...
Hansipra Gmbh Vs. Dresdner Bank, Frankfurt and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-01-1991
Reported in: 1992(22)DRJ260
Sat Pal, J.(1) This appeal is directed against the order dated 28th February, 1989 passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court in I As No-4666/85 and 8806/87 in Suit No-488/85. By this order the learned Single Judge has stayed further proceedings in the suit with liberty to have the proceedings revived in accordance with law on revival or re-registration of the plaintiff company.(2) The facts of the case briefly stated are that M/s. Hansipra Gmbh (hereinafter referred to as 'Hansipra') the plaintiff in the suit was company with limited liability registered at Frankfurt, West Germany. Hansipra filed a suit under the provision of Order Xxxiii of the Code of Civil Procedure in the Court of Civil Judge, Unnao for recovery of real pearls and precious stones mentioned in the plaint or recovery of Rs.2,07,00,000.00 in case the recovery of said pearls and precious stones cannot be obtained and further for the recovery of Rs.93,00,000.00 towards compensation for wrongful detention of the goo...
State Vs. Rajit Ram
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-01-1991
Reported in: 1992(22)DRJ322
Dalveer Bhandari, J.(1) This murder reference has been preferred from the Judgment dated 27/28th February, 1991, passed by Shri Padam Singh, Additional Sessions Judge, New Delhi. (2) The learned Additional Sessions Judge has convicted the respondent under Section 302/201 Indian Penal Code . and awarded death sentence and imposed a fine of Rs. 2000.00 under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, and in default of payment of fine, R.I. for one year. The court also convicted the accused under Section 201, Indian Penal Code . and awarded him R.I. for 5 years and a fine of RS.1,000.00 and in default of payment of fine, R.I. for six months. Both the sentences shall run concurrently. The murder reference has been placed before us for confirmation of death sentence and the accused filed appeal against his conviction. Both the murder reference and appeal of the accused are being disposed by this common judgment. Brief facts which are necessary to decide the Murder reference are set out as under:...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- Next ›