Delhi Court August 1991 Judgments
Home Cases Delhi 1991 Page 7 of about 120 results (0.020 seconds)Delhi Development Authority Vs. R.L. JaIn and ors.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 45(1991)DLT421
S.N. Sapra, J.(1) By the impugned judgment dated March 18, 1989, Shri, V.S. Aggarwal, Additional District Judge, Delhi, accepted the appeal, relating to the contempt of Court, filed by the appellant, Dda, in part, but, confirmed the decree and judgment of the trial Court in other respect, whereby, appellant herein, was directed to remove superstructure from the plot in question, within a period of 4 months. (2) Aggrieved by the impugned decree and judgment, appellant has filed the present Regular Second Appeal. (3) Briefly stated, the facts, giving rise to the filing of the appeal are as under: Shri ft.L. Jain, respondent no. I herein, filed a suit for perpetual injunction, agai'nst Union of India, Secretary, Land and Building, Delhi Administration, and Delhi Development Authority to restrain them, from making or proceeding with any construction upon the plot of land in dispute, or disposal of the same, by means of sale, in any manner, whatsoever. * (4) According to plaintiff in suit, ...
Tag this Judgment!Raj Bahadur Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 45(1991)DLT144; II(1991)DMC381; 1991(21)DRJ340
V.B. Bansal, J. (1) Raj Bahadur s/o Mehar Bahadur r/o House No. 16/71, Hardhian Singh Road, Delhi was convicted for the offence under Sec. 302 Indian Penal Code vide judgment dated 26th October, 1987 and sentenced to imprisonment for life vide order dated 29th October, 1987 by an Additional Sessions Judge, Delhi for having committed the murder of his wife Smt. Bimla @ Billo. (2) Being not satisfied with the judgment and order Raj Bahadur filed this appeal. (3) Before discussing the arguments advanced at the Bar it would be appropriate to mention the necessary facts of the case. (4) Smt. Bimla @ Billo was married to Raj Bahadur about 14/15 'years prior to 27th February, 1984, the date of incident. They had three children including Master Amit out of this wed-lock. Raj Bahadur was working as a mason and they were residing in House No. 16/89 Hardhian Singh Road, Bapa Nagar Delhi, Om Parkash along with his wife Smt. Prem Lata was residing in another portion of the same house No. 16/18 Bapa...
Tag this Judgment!Sunil Saxena Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 45(1991)DLT394
R.L. Gupta, J. (1) Petitioner who Is facing prosecution in a case under Sections 376/506/341 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code in FIRNo. 80/91 registered at Police Station Chankaya Puri, has applied for bail.(2) I have heard arguments advanced by learned Counsel for the petitioner as well as the State. The case of the prosecution is based on the statement of the prosecutrix, Sheela Devi wife of Babu Lal. She had accompanied one Sat Pal to Budha Jayanti Garden on 2.4.91. They were sitting under a thereafter taking some rounds in the garden. Satpal told her that his friend Onkaris working in the garden and he wanted to meet him. They got up and bad hardly walked a few paces when the co-accused whose name was later on known as Parhlad Singh met them and said that be had over heard their talks. He knew Onkar Siagh and he offered to take them to him. He took them towards bushes inside the garden at a considerable distance near fencing wire. He asked them to stay there so that he...
Tag this Judgment!State (Delhi Administration) Vs. Frithl Singh
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1991(3)Crimes468; 45(1991)DLT172; 1991(21)DRJ245
Malik Sharief-ud-Din, J. (1) The respondent was prosecuted for an offence under Section 364 cf the Indian Penal Code (I. P. C.) for having abducted Bimla Devi, his wife from village Kadipur Delhi with the intention to murder her. The learned Additional Sessions Judge. Delhi, by his order dated 4th October, 1980 acquitted him. as according to him there was no satisfactory evidence to connect the accused with the crime.(2) It is against this order of acquittal that this appeal has been preferred by the State (Delhi Administration)(3) Now briefly stated the facts are that Bimla was married to accused on 22nd June, 1973. The accused was working in Indian Army as sepoy. Bimla was not pulling on well with her in-laws though there is no indication in the prosecution case that her relations with the respondent were also strained. On the other band it is clear that she had no grievance against the respondent On 15th March, 1976, Bimla bad run away from her in-laws house and lodged a report with...
Tag this Judgment!A.M. Berry Vs. Ravi Arora and ors.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1992CriLJ1327; 45(1991)DLT127; 1991RLR475
S.C. Jain, J. (1) Facts giving rise to this petition are that one Shri Ravi Arora, hereinafter referred to as respondent No. 1, filed a criminal complaint in the Court of the Metropolitan Magistrate Delhi under Sections 336/338/ 420/34 Indian Penal Code against Dr. A M. Berry, hereinafter referred to as the petitioner, Dr. Tripta Dutta (respondent No. 2), Dr. (Mrs.) Chander Kanta Bhalla (Respondent No. 3) and Dr. O.P. Sharma (Respondent No. 4) all attached to Sir Ganga Ram Hospital. (2) The concerned Metropolitan Magistrate took cognizance in the matter and found a prima fade case for rash and negligence Act on the part of Dr. Tripta Gupta, Dr. Chander Kanta Bhalla and Dr. A.M. Berry. He summoned them for the offences punishable under Sections 336 and 338 IPC. According to him, all these three accused persons conducted an operation of parotid abcess on the face of a baby 17 days old in a rash and negligent manner causing damage to the nerves. The incision given was not transverse rathe...
Tag this Judgment!Union of India and anr. Vs. Arun Kumar and ors.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 45(1991)DLT436; 1991RLR508
Sat Pal, J.(1) The learned counsel for the applicant (respondent No. 1) does not press this application as she submits that the said respondent wants to approach the departmental authorities to seek relief in respect of the points raised in this application. The application is dismissed as not pressed. Lpa 104/75(2) This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 22nd September, 1975 passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court in Cw 773/75. By this judgment the learned Single Judge quashed the impugned order of reversion of respondent No. 1 from the post of Assistant Engineer (Electrical).(3) The brief facts of the case are that at the relevant time there were no statutory regulations in the office of the appellants for promotion to the post of Assistant Engineer (Electrical). Respondent No. 1 who is an engineer graduate and was working as Section Officer (Electrical) was promoted temporarily and on ad-hoc basis as Assistant Engineer (Electrical) along with four others on January...
Tag this Judgment!R.K. Anand Vs. Union of India and anr.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1991(21)DRJ185
D.P. Wadhwa, J.(1) The petitioner, a Lt. General in the Army, has filed this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution. He seeks quashing of the order dated 3 March, 1990 of the respondents retiring him from Army service on 31 December, 1990 on his attaining compulsory retirement age of 57 years on 19 December, 1990 This order retiring the petitioner was issued in terms of letter dated 9 September, 1986 of the second respondent being the Chief of Army Staff. The petitioner seeks quashing of this letter of 9 September, 1986 and says rather he should have been given the benefit of letter dated 9 March, 1985 of the first respondent fixing the retirement age of Lt. General at 58 years. The bearing of the writ petition which was filed on 17 December, 1990 was expedited as in case the petitioner succeeded he could get the benefit of retirement age of 58 and retire on 31 December, 1992.(2) Section 191 of the Army Act, 1950 (for brevity 'the Act') empowers the Central Government, among ot...
Tag this Judgment!Rohit Kumar Mehra Vs. Collector of Customs and Central
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1992)(40)LC201Tri(Delhi)
1. On 6.2.1981, the appellant and his brother Shri Kapil Mehra were apprehended by the Central Excise Preventive Officers, when they were about to board the Tata Express bound for Coimbatore. The search of the baggage of Shri Kapil Mehra did not yield anything incriminating.However, from a secret cavity in an attache case whose key was allegedly produced by the appellant 16 gold biscuits of 10 tolas each, collectively valued at Rs. 3 lakhs were seized under the provisions of the Customs Act, 1962 and the Gold (Control) Act, 1968.2. Statements of Shri Kapil Mehra were recorded on 6.2.1981 and 10.2.1981. The appellant's statement was also recorded on 6.2.1981 and thereafter he gave two statements on 7.2.1981. On 9.2.1981, the appellant's statement was recorded once again. On completion of the investigation, proceedings for confiscation of the seized gold and imposition of personal penalty were initiated vide show cause notice dated 31.7.1981 against the appellant, his brother Shri Kapil...
Tag this Judgment!Prem Family (Specific) Trust Vs. Income-tax Officer
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Reported in: (1991)39ITD78(Delhi)
1. These are appeals by the assessee arising out of its assessments for assessment years 1982-83 and 1983-84.2. We have heard the learned counsel for the assessee and the learned Departmental Representative and have perused the material placed before us.3. The assessee claimed itself to be a private trust in which the shares of the beneficiaries were specified. It filed its return of income for assessment year 1982-83, the previous year for which was the financial year 1981-82, declaring an income of Rs. 1,10,179 and describing its status as individual. The Assessing Officer for the detailed reasons given in the assessment order concluded that the trust was bogus and fictitious and he, therefore, assessed it on a protective basis in the status of AOP without prejudice to the income being assessed and charged to tax in the hands of the correct persons according to law. The assessee appealed to the CIT (Appeals) who concurred with the findings recorded by the CIT (Appeals). The appeals ...
Tag this Judgment!Hasmukh Trivedi Vs. State and anr.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 45(1991)DLT379; II(1991)DMC479
R.L. Gopta, J.(1) This revision filed by the husband seeks quashing of the charge framed by learned Metropolitan Magistrate, New Delhi against him on 30.3.90. The charge framed was that in the year 1979 the petitioner husband being entrusted with Stridhan of his wife Smt. Darshna Trivedi at the time of her marriage in 1979 dishonestly converted the same to his own use despite demands and thus committed an offence punishable under Section 406 Indian Penal Code. The charge also mentions the Stridhan with reference to two lists Marks A and B. (2) I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties. The first grievance made by learned Counsel for the petitioner is that the lists shown as Mark A and B are not so marked in the file of the learned Magistrate and on this ground alone the charge was likely to be quashed, I have perused the file of the trial Court. It does contain two lists. But it appears that by inadvertence those lists are not marked as A and B. There is no bar for a Magistrate ...
Tag this Judgment!