Delhi Court August 1991 Judgments
Home Cases Delhi 1991 Page 4 of about 120 results (0.025 seconds)State Trading Corporation of India Vs. Vishwa Oil Corporation Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 49(1993)DLT374
J.K. Mehra, J.(1) By this order I am disposing of the application of the petitioner for stay of the arbitration proceedings before the arbitrators who have been appointed by the Indian Chambers of Commerce purporting to be acting under the arbitration agreement between the parties.(2) The Madhya Pradesh Exports Corporation Limited (herein after referred to as 'MPEC') and the respondents had entered into two agreements dated 18.12.85 and 30.9.86 with the Petitioner-Corporation for the supply of Indian Toasted Soyabean Extraction Meal (pure yellow) for further export to Onab, Algeria in terms of the contract which the petitioner-Corporation had entered into with the said M/s. Onab, Algeria. Under both the said agreements, parties to the agreement had agreed to settle all disputes and differences amicably and failing that by arbitration between Petitioner on the one hand and Mpec and the Respondent on the other. The relevant clause for the purpose of the present case is one relating to th...
Tag this Judgment!Rama Association (P) Ltd. Vs. Delhi Development Authority
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 45(1991)DLT630
S.N. Sapra, J.(1) The present revision petition is directed against the order dated February 15, 1989, whereby, the First Appellate Court, affirmed the order dated July 19, 1986, by which the trial Court had dismissed the application of petitioner, under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 Civil Procedure Code ., for grant of temporary Injunction. (2) Briefly stated, the facts and circumstances, giving rise to the institution of the present petition, are as under : Petitioner, which Is a private limited company, obtained perpetual leasehold rights, from the Delhi Development Authority, respondent herein, in respect of plot No. B-10, Lawrence Road Industrial Area, New Delhi, for a consideration of Rs. 3,13,000.00 , and a regular perpetual lease deed was executed. Thereafter, the construction was raised on the plot, after getting the necessary permission from the Authority from the Authorities. Petitioner has been running its own business in the premises. Clause 4(a) of the lease deed provides that t...
Tag this Judgment!Chittor Co-operative Sugar Ltd. Vs. State Trading Corporation of India ...
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 45(1991)DLT223
Sat Pal, J.(1) These appeals are directed against the order dated 9/03/1989 passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court dismissing the applications of the appellants filed under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act in their respective suits. Since the point of law raised in all these appeals iscommon, these appeals are being decided by this common judgment.(2) The facts pertaining to one of the appeals viz Fao (OS) 176/89briefly stated are that the State Trading Corporation (hereinafter referred to asSTC) which is the respondent in all these appeals, entered into an agreement on 26/02/1982 with the appellant whereby it agreed to purchase from the appellant 1850 M.T.of D-30 grade white crystal sugar of 1981-82 crushing season to be exported by STC. Admittedly the appellant supplied 1406 M.T.of said sugar. Before the contract could be completed, the Government of India imposed an embargo on the export of sugar from India. According to the respondent it was not under any obligation to lif...
Tag this Judgment!Surinder Kumar Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1992CriLJ616; 1991(3)Crimes709; 45(1991)DLT372; II(1991)DMC473
P.N. Nag, J. (1) The decision of this appeal substantially depends upon the question as to how far the dying declarations made by the deceased, Neelam, can be relied upon.(2) By this appeal, the appellant, Surinder Kumar has challenged his conviction under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code for burning his wife by pouring kerosene oil on her from the stove and thereafter setting her on fire. The appellant has been mainly convicted by the Additional Sessions Judge vide his judgment dated 20-8-1987 on the basis of dying declaration of the deceased and the statement of Miss Kiran,(3) The case set up by the prosecution, in substance, is that Smt. Neelam, deceased was married to the appellant on 14-10-1983 and they were living together at C-106 J. J. Colony, Shakurpur, Delhi. On 2-6-1985, in the morning, the appellant asked Neelam to bring a sum of Rs. 500 from her parents, failing which she would be finished by him. The appellant, who was working in Samrat Cinema. Shakurpur, returned at ...
Tag this Judgment!Sudesh Kumari Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 46(1992)DLT95
R.L. Gupta, J. (1) Petitioner has moved this application for grant of bail. She is facing trial in a case under Sections 302/201/120B/34 Indian Penal Code in Fir No. 274/90 of police station Badarpur along with her husband Sukhbir Chand one Subhash. (2) I have heard arguments advanced by Mr. K.K Sud, Advocate for the petitioner, Sh. A.P. Ahluwalia, Advocate for the complainant and Sh. S.K. Aggarwal, Advocate for the State. (3) The brief facts emerging in this case are that on 17.9.1990 at about 10.50 P.M. one Ram Lal, father of the deceased Krishan Kumar lodged Dd report No. 16-A with police station Badarpur that the deceased aged about 30 years had gone to Central Bank of India, Badarpur at about II.30 A.M. for depositing some amount and had not returned and was not available in 96 spite of efforts. On 20.9.90 at about 1.40 A.M., Shobha wife of the deceased came to the police station and lodged an Fir that on 17.9.90 at about 11.30 A.M. her husband had taken Rs. 20,000.00 for deposit ...
Tag this Judgment!Sanjeev Kumar Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 45(1991)DLT320
V.B. Bansal, J. (1) This order is to dispose of an application under Section 482 read with Section 439 Code of Criminal Procedure, moved by Sanjeev Kumar, petitioner, praying for regular bail for an offence under Section 307 Indian Penal Code ., in Fir No. 302 of 1987, Police Station Krishna Nagar, Delhi. (2) This case relates to an incident dated 12th October, 1987 in which the petitioner Is stated to have thrown acid on Gulsban Kumar causing Injuries. The injured is stated to be the tenant of father of Sanjeev Kumar. A number of applications moved for bail by the petitioner were dismissed by the Sessions Court. One application for bail was dismissed by this Court on 24th November, 1987. Subsequently, on the sixth application for bail moved by the petitioner, he was allowed bail by the Addl. Sessions Judge. The said order was cancelled by the Addl. Sessions Judge, Shahdara, vide order dated 3rd May, 1988. This order was upheld by this Court on 17th May, 1988. Thereafter, also the appl...
Tag this Judgment!Sunita Godara Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 45(1991)DLT415
B.N. Kirpal, J.(1) Rule D.B. (2) The petitioner is an athlete two received invitation for taking part in the marathon which was to be run in Malaysia. The Amateur Athletic Federation of India wrote to the Department of Youth Affairs and Sports, Goverament of India and obtained clearance for the petitioner to participate in the said event. Vide letter dated 28th February, 1991, the Government informed the Honorary Secretary of the said Federation that the Government had no objection to the petitioner representing India in defending her title in 1991. (3) The petitioner took part in the race on 8th March, 1991 and stood first. It is alleged in the petition that in February, 1991 the organisers of the maratbon bad issued a list of prizes. One of the prizes which was announced was a Mercedes Benz car of a value less than U.S. $ 30,000, The petitioner wrote to the Government on 27th March, 1991 for customs clearance certificate to enable her to import the Mercedes Benz car which she bad won...
Tag this Judgment!Ved Prakash and ors. Vs. Gurmit Singh and ors.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1992ACJ1147; 45(1991)DLT496
S.B. Wad, J.(1) In an accident caused on 31.3.78 by Vehicle No. Dep 2382, Asa Ram was killed. The claim petition is filed on behalf of his widow and two sons who were minors at that time. The claimants have claimed Rs. l,00,000.00 as compensation. The Tribunal has awarded Rs. 35,000.00 as the compensation. The Tribunal further noted that as the delay was caused by the claimants in producing the witnesses, they were not entitled to interest. The amount of Rs. 3,6000.00 was arrived at by the Tribunal on the basis of the evidence that the deceased was earning Rs.l5.00 per day, i.e. he had a' monthly income of Rs. 450.00 . The Tribunal deducted one-third of the monthly income towards personal expenses of the deceased. The Tribunal found that the deceased could have contributed Rs. 300.00 p?r month for the maintenance of the family. The deceased was 53 years old at the time of accident. The Tribunal applied the multiplier of 12 and, thus, arrived at the figure of Rs. 36,000.00 .(2) In this ...
Tag this Judgment!Jyotsna Raina Vs. Tamilnadu Handicrafts Development Corporation Ltd. a ...
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1991(1)DRJ(Suppl)175
S.C. Jain, J.(1) Mrs. Jyotsna Raina, hereinafter referred to as the petitioner,was at jointed as 'Senior Sales Assistant' vide office order dated 23.7.1987 issued on behalf of the Managing Director of Tamilnadu Handicrafts Development Corporation Ltd., Madras. Clause 4 of the terms and conditions, inter alia, stated that the petitioner will be on probation for a period of six months from the date of joining, but the management will have the right to extend this period of probation up to a maximum period of one year. Clause 5 . further states that the service of the petitioner shall be governed by the service rules of the Corporation. The petitioner joined}w.e,f..4.5,1987 (forenoon) at Poompuhar Sales Show room at New Delhi. Vide office order dated 15.41988 the probation period was extended by another period of six months which expired on 3.5.1988. No order was passed thereafter extending the period of probation. However, she continued to work in that capacity till 31.7.1990 when her se...
Tag this Judgment!Rajeshwari Prasad and anr. Vs. Shyam Chand Prasad
Court: Delhi
Reported in: II(1991)DMC447
S.C. Jain, J.1. Facts giving rise to this revision petition are that in an application filed by the husband, hereinafter referred to as the respondent under Section 13(1)(ia)(ib) of the Hindu Marriage Act against Smt. Rajeshwari Prasad, hereinafter referred to as the petitioner, an application under Section 24 of Hindu Marriage Act was filed by the wife for her maintenance pendente lite and litigation expenses and for maintenance of her minor child Master Saurabh Mani, petitioner No. 2. The Addl. District Judge vide his order dated 7.8.87 awarded Rs. 600/- per month as alimony pendents lite to the wife, Rs. 400/- as maintenance for the minor son who is petitioner No. 2 and Rs. 1100/- as litigation expenses. The review application moved by the respondent against that order was dismissed. His revision C.R. 58/88 filed in the High Court was also dismissed on 19.4.1988.2. The petitioner wife then moved the Addl. District Judge for enhancement of the maintenance Pendente lite on the plea th...
Tag this Judgment!