Delhi Court August 1991 Judgments
Home Cases Delhi 1991 Page 12 of about 120 results (0.020 seconds)Hari Chand Vs. Union of India
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 45(1991)DLT61
Sunanda Bhandare, J. (1) This appeal is directed against the judgment and order of the Additional District Judge, Delhi dated 13.5.1980 whereby the market value of the land of the claimants in village Ali was fixed at Rs. 5000.00 per bigha for Block A. (2) After the reference was decided in the present case by the Additional District Judge, this Court in Rfa 383/1976 (Jagmal & Another v. Union of India Etc.) decided on 9.1.1985 has fixed the market value of the land in Village Ali at Rs. 17,000.00 . The notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act in that case was dated 12.6.1969. (3) In the present case, the notifications under Sections 4, 6 and 17 of the Land Acquisition Act were issued on the same date i.e. on 27.7.1973. Since this Court has fixed the market value of the land in Village Ali at Rs. 17,000.00 per bigha in respect of the notification issued in the year 1969, the appellants herein are entitled to get compensation(c) Rs. 21,000.00 per bigha taking into consid...
Tag this Judgment!Gurbux Bhiryani Vs. J.K. Handa
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 45(1991)DLT100
R.L. Gupta, J.(1) This order will dispose off Cr. M (M) 2924 of 1990 filed by Gurbux Bhiryani and Cr. M. (M) 496 of 1991 filed by Rajni Kant Patel, both under Section 439 read .with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for their release on bail. (2) The petitioners are facing trial under Sections 21 and 29 of Ndps Act (hereinafter called the Act) (r)n the alligations that they and some other coaccused persons entered into and were parties to a criminal conspiracy to export heroin out of India in contravention of the provisions of the Act and sell the. same in the United States of America. Petitioner Gurbux Bhiryani has been further accused of having exported 3 kgs of heroin on or about November 19, 1987 through one U.S. Gala and Mrs. Manjulaben respectively whose services are alleged to have been procured by him with the help of co-accused Rajni Kant Patel and Pandya. (3) I have heard arguments advanced by learned Counsel for the parties. The main contention on behalf of the p...
Tag this Judgment!Bansal Construction Co. Vs. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. and anr.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: AIR1993Delhi76; 1991(2)ARBLR409(Delhi); 1991(21)DRJ322
P.K. Bahri, J.(1) This petition has been filed under Sections 8 & 20 of the Arbitration Act for seeking direction for filing of the arbitration agreement and for reference of the disputes mentioned in the petition to the arbitrator to be appointed in accordance with the arbitration clause. (2) The petitioner had entered into a contract with the respondents for the work of 'construction of effluent disposal channel out fall structure and Wbm roads at MRP' operating through Mathura Refinery Project. This work was awarded to the petitioner vide letter dated October 20, 1977, with the stipulation that period of completion would be 20 months reckoned from the date of handing over of the site. It is averred that later on certain discussions took place and it was agreed on December 7, 1977, that the site shall, however, be handed over to the contractor progressively and the entire stretch of land within a maximum period of six months from the date of letter of acceptance. So, it is aveired th...
Tag this Judgment!Uma Shankar Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 45(1991)DLT68
R.L. Gupta, J.(1) This application has been filed for grant of bail on behalf of the petitioner who is facing prosecution for offences under Sections 302/201/364/394 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. (2) I have heard arguments advanced by learned Counsel for the parties, The brief facts necessary for the disposal of this application are that one Rajiv Gupta, brother of the deceased Sunil Gupta informed the police control room on 7.11.90 that his brother Sunil Gupta had gone to his office that morning but did not return. DD4-A was recorded. On 8.11.90 his dead body was found within the jurisdiction of Ps Dadri, District Ghaziabad, Up and a case was registered there under Section 302 JPC. Later on that case was transferred to Ps Connaught Place on 2.1.91. On 5.3.91, the petitioner and two others were arrested. (3) On behalf of the petitioner, it has been contended that at the time of disposal of petitioner's bail application by the learned Asj on 18.4.91,only two circumstanc...
Tag this Judgment!S.N. Aggarwal Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 45(1991)DLT609
B.N. Kirpal, J. (1) The applicant Shri S.N. Aggarwal seeks a review of our judgment dated April 19, 1991 to the limited extent that in so far as while disposing of his writ petition. We directed that be can be appointed only against the vacancy of Point No. 17 of the Roster but that being a reserved vacancy, only after de-reservation by the Central Government in terms of the instructions contained in the Brochure, including the Order issued on April 25, 1989. The High Court was accordingly directed to make a reference for de-reservation in terms of the said circular of the Central Government dated 25th April, 1989. (2) The applicant now states in this application for review, that a working of the roster reveals that the vacancy created by the retirement of Shri G.S. Dakha is a general category, vacancy, even though Shri Dakha belonged to Scheduled Caste category. The observation made by us in our judgment in respect to this vacancy, likely to occur on the retirement of Shri G.S. Dakha ...
Tag this Judgment!Amar Chemical Industries Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1991)LC49Tri(Delhi)
2. M/s. Amar Chemical Industries, hereinafter referred to as the assessee, a manufacturer of Synthetic Organic Dye-stuff falling under the erstwhile T.I. 14D of the Central Excise Tariff submitted a price list in Part I pertaining to sales to wholesale dealers in terms of Section 4(l)(a). On 4-8-1980 the price was duly approved. The assessee also submitted another price list in Part II relating to sale of goods for sale to different class of buyers (not being related persons) in terms of Section 4(l)(a) proviso (i) for sale of goods to two of its customers, namely, Indo-Kem Ltd. and Rama-Kem Ltd. This price list indicated prices of the same goods as shown in the Part I price list, but at somewhat lower level. It may be stated at this stage that there is no allegation whatsoever that the two companies, namely, Indo-Kem Ltd. and Rama-Kem Ltd. are in any way related to the appellants or that the price was influenced by any extra-commercial consideration or that there is any kick back or ...
Tag this Judgment!Ajay Mehra Vs. Poonam Mehra
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 45(1991)DLT39; II(1991)DMC338; 1991(1)DRJ(Suppl)447
Santosh Duggal, J. (1) By this application, the respondent in these proceedings claim litigation expenses The question of maintenance pendente lite is subject matter of the main-petition and for that reason she has not made any fresh claim here. In so far as litigation expenses are concerned, the plea is that her income earlier was enough to meet her requirements but now there is an additional plea that she is out of employment since April 1991. That fact is disputed by the petitioner. The certificate of termination of service has been filed only with the rejoinder and I am informed that the respondent has also filed in the trial Court an application for enhancement of maintenance based on this very plea of termination of employment. It is stated that such an application has been filed and even notice has been served and the petitioner has filed a reply.(2) One of the basic grievance in this revision petition made by the petitioner is that the documentary evidence placed on record by h...
Tag this Judgment!Ramesh Chander Sharma Vs. Saroj Sharma
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 45(1991)DLT35; II(1991)DMC365; 1991(1)DRJ(Suppl)449
Santosh Duggal, J. (1) This is a revision petition against an order of grant of interim maintenance for the daughters of the petitioner, who have filed asuit along with their mother under the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, By means of interim application, the wife of the petitioner, who was plaintifi No. I as well as the daughters, plaintiffs No. 2 and 3, prayed for an interim order of maintenance and on consideration of the entire material on record and keeping in consideration that the wife was also an earning hand, no interim maintenance was ordered for her but so far as the two daughters are concerned, who age at that time was given to be Ii and 15 years respectively, it was ordered that the petitioner pay a sum of Rs. 300.00 for each child from the date of the institution of the suit till its disposal.(2) This amount of Rs. 300.00 per child was fixed obviously in view of the fact that the mother was also earning and it was the joint responsibility of both the parents to maint...
Tag this Judgment!Ravindra Mohan Aggarwal Vs. Delhi Development Authority
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1992RLR84
(1) Plot No. 13 at Site No. 58 Kalkaji was auctioned and the petitioners's bid was accepted and auction was confirmed in his favor. The Delhi Development Authority however, is not able to hand over the plot to the petitioner because according to the D.D.A. the plot is in the green belt. It is for Dda to explain as to how a plot in the green belt was even initially put to auction, but in any case it was not a fault of the petitioner that he has successfully bid in the auction and the auction was confirmed in his favor. Counsel for the respondent D.D.A. however submits that the D.D.A. is not obliged to grant any other plot to the petitioner since there is no privity in regard to the second plot, and under the Rules the second plot cannot be allotted unless fresh auction is held. We do not find any substance in the submission in the face of acute shortage of land and high expectations of citizen to get land. The petitioner has a right to get a plot from the D.D.A. once the bid of the peti...
Tag this Judgment!L.K. Behl Vs. Lt. Governor of Delhi and ors.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 45(1991)DLT573
B.N. Kirpal, J.(1) Rule D.B. (2) The challenge in this writ petition is inter alias to the order dated 14th October, 1987, whereby the petitioner's revision petition under section 80 of the Delhi Cooperative Societies Act was dismissed. The Lt. Governor held that the said revision petition was not maintainable as it was directed against an administrative order, (3) We find that vide order dated 1st April, 1987 of the Deputy Registrar, Cooperative Societies, the petitioner was informed that this membership of the respondent Society stood ceased. Thereafter a revision petition was filed and the impugned order was passed. In our opinion, the Lt. Governor was wrong in holding that the revision was not maintainable. (4) In the present case, a complaint was filed, as per the impugned order dated 1st April, 1987, before the Registrar, Cooperative Societies against the petitioner. It was alleged that the `petitioner was holding dual membership in two societies. Vide order of 1st April, 1987, i...
Tag this Judgment!