Delhi Court November 1992 Judgments
Browse smarter
Turn browsing into brief-ready notes
Open any judgment and get a structured AI Brief in seconds — plus Semantic Search when you need to hunt by meaning, not keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed — log in to pick up where you left off.
Major Y.K. Bammi Vs. Jawaharlal Nehur University and Another
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-30-1992
Reported in: AIR1993Delhi239; 50(1993)DLT588; ILR1993Delhi22
ORDERMahinder Narain, J.1. This writ petition has been filed by Major General Y. M. Bammi. He has asserted in the petition that he is the father of one Ms. Deep Shikha Bammi, who was a student of the Jawaharlal Nehru Univeristy.2. The said Ms, Deep Shikha Bammi has enrolled herself for a 10 semester five-year M. A. course in the Jawaharlal Nehru University for obtaining M. A. degree in Japanese language. It is asserted in the petition that the 10th semester of the said course commenced in January, 1991, and was due to be completed in April/May, 1991.3. It is further asserted that MOMBUSHO Scholarship for M. Phil in Japanese language at OCHANOMIZU University, Tokyo (Japan) was offered by the Government of Japan to the Ministry of Human Resource and Development, Government of India, New Delhi, routed through the Jawaharlal Nehru University (School of Language). The minimum qualification for the said Scholarship was M.A., and the students in the final 10th semester were also permitted to ...
Rajimal Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-30-1992
Reported in: 1993CriLJ1985; 49(1993)DLT163; 1993(25)DRJ124
Usha Mehra, J. (1) Rajmal, appellant herein, was convicted and sentenced to undergo R.I. for a period of one year and a fine of Rs. 3,000.00 vide order dated 12th May, 1986 by the Metropolitan Magistrate. Against this order of sentence and conviction appellant filed an appeal which was beard and disposed of by the Add). Sessions Judge, Delhi, vide his order dated 21.2.81 reducing the sentence from one year to six months R.I. and fine from Rs. 3,000.00 to Rs. l,000.00 and in default to undergo R.I. for two months more. With these observations the appeal was disposed of. (2) It is against these impugned orders that the present Revision has been filed inter alias on the grounds that the trial court as well as the first appellate court have completely ignored the fact that the sample which was taken was not Khoa but was Dhap. In the rules under Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, the percentage of fat in Dhap has not been prescribed. The Dhap being not Khoa the Public Analysis Repor...
Blue Star Limited Vs. K.S. Khurana and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-30-1992
Reported in: 49(1993)DLT329; 1993(25)DRJ162; (1994)IILLJ590Del
J.K. Mehra, J.(1) This petition has been filed by the petitioner feeling aggrieved by the impugned order of the Labour Court whereby the Labour Court instead of concluding the proceedings and making an award in term of settlement or declaring the reference as infructous or making a 'No dispute' award in the light of the joint application moved by the parties, had on account of certain subsequent submissions by the workmen proceeded to hold a further inquiry by ordering nearly all the senior executives of the management who were alleged to be connected with the negotiations for settlement as court witnesses even before the -workmen had examined themselves or led any evidence whatsoever to prove their allegations in their application pleading that prior to the written settlement there was an oral agreement with regard to the payment of the back wages. (2) Briefly staling the facts are as under:- (3) (I) that the management had taken certain disciplinary action against a number of employe...
Harbans Lal Gupta Vs. Income-tax Officer
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Decided on: Nov-27-1992
Reported in: (1993)44ITD512(Delhi)
1. The assessee in this appeal filed a petition under Section 154 on 9-1-1986 asking, inter alia, for the grant of interest under Section 244(1A) of the Income-tax Act in respect of the tax paid in excess. The original assessment order was passed in this case under Section 144 on 26-12-1974 raising a demand of Rs. 5,98,398. This amount was collected by the department in full. This assessment was reopened on 9-3-1977 under Section 146. A fresh assessment was made on 3-9-1979, the tax in respect of which was also collected. As a consequence of the order passed under Section 146 cancelling the exparle assessment made, the assessee claimed that the entire amount collected from him became refundable and on that refund he was also entitled to interest under Section 244( 1A). This claim for the allowance of interest was the one made by making an application under Section 54 on 9-1 -1986. The Income-tax Officer found this application to be in order and allowed interest from the date of paymen...
Hemkunt Builders Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Punjabi University, Patiala
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-25-1992
Reported in: 1993(1)ARBLR348(Delhi); 49(1993)DLT314
Chaudhry, J.(1) By an agreement in writing dated 30.1.1984 M/s.Hemkunt Builders Pvt. Ltd. (hereinafter called the Objector) entered into an agreement with Punjabi University, Patiala for construction of Holiday Home of Punjabi University, Patiala at Mussorie. The terms and conditions were incorporated in the agreement which also contained an arbitration Clause,being Clause No. 11 in the following terms :Clause 11: 'IN case there is any dispute of any nature whatsoever relating to the terms and conditions, interpretation, performance/non-performance of this agreement, or arising there from or touching it in any way, the same shall be referred by any party of this agreement to the sole arbitration of the Vice Chancellor of the PunjabiUniversity, Patiala, or any person nominated by him, for this purpose agreeable to both the parties aad the arbitrator will give award in accordance with the provisions of Arbitration Act, 1940,which will be final and binding on the parties.'(2) Certain disp...
Avtar Singh Vs. Union of India and Another
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-24-1992
Reported in: AIR1993Delhi56; 1992(24)DRJ141
ORDER1. In this writ petition, the petitioner challenges the revisional order on the Central Government dated 24-11-1984 passed under S. 30 of the Mines & Minerals (Regulation & Development) Act, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) read with Rule 54 of the Mineral Concession Rules, 1960 (Annexure P-1) and order of review dated June 3, 1985 (Annexure P-2) whereby the order of cancellation of lease dated 27-4-1984 (Annexure P-14) has been upheld.2. The petitioner was granted a lease of an area of 684 kanals and 6 marlas in village Palli, Taluk Ballabhgarh in the State of Haryana for extraction of Silica Sand for a period of 10 years effective from 8-7-1981 to 7-7-1991. In pursuance of the Order dated 3-7-1981, the petitioner entered into a lease agreement with respondent No. 2 which incorporated by reproduction the terms which are mentioned in R. 27 of the Mineral Concession Rules. 1960 (hereinafter referredto as 'The Rules 1960'). In the aforesaid lease agreement, special conditio...
Chand Ram Vs. State and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-23-1992
Reported in: 49(1993)DLT20; 1993(25)DRJ127; 1993RLR134
C.L. Chaudhry, J.(1) This petition under Article 22 of the Constitution of India is directed against the order dated 7.2.1992 passed by Additional District Judge, Delhi by which certain directions were given to the Land Acquisition Collector. The brief facts leading to the present petition are that the petitioner was the owner of agricultural land in the revenue estate of Bharthal, New Delhi. The land was acquired by the Government by an Award made by the Land Acquisition Collector. The petitioner being dis-satisfied with the compensation awarded by the Land Acquisition Collector, preferred a petition under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act before the Addl. District Judge for enhancement of the compensation was enhanced by the District Judge but the matter did not rest there. petitioner was still not satisfied with the compensation awarded by the District Judge and thereafter he approached Delhi High Court under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act by means of a Regular First Ap...
Madan Gopal @ Madan Bhaiya Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-23-1992
Reported in: 1993CriLJ818; 1993(1)Crimes483; 49(1993)DLT174; 1993(25)DRJ269; 1993RLR15
Usha Mehra, J. (1) Shri Madan Gopal @ Madan Bhaiya, the petitioner herein, has assailed the order of his detention by the present criminal writ petition. The detention order was passed against him on 3rd January, 1992 under Section 3(2) of the National Security Act, 1980 (hereinafter called the Act). The impugned order was passed with a view to preventing him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. The impugned order was passed by Shri Arun Bhagat, the then Commissioner of Police, Delhi, and was served upon him in Central Jail, Delhi, on 3rd January, 1992. The grounds of detention were served on the petitioner on 7th January, 1992.(2) The facts germane to the present petition are that the petitioner resident of Village Jawali, Police Station Loni, District Ghaziabad (U.P.) had been an active criminal indulging in acts of violence, murder, attempt to murder, planning turn dacoity, attack on public servant, criminal intimidation, robbery and use of Explo...
Anil Kumar and ors. Vs. Moti Ram and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-20-1992
Reported in: 1993(2)Crimes43; 49(1993)DLT267; 1993(25)DRJ157; 1993RLR76
Usha Mehra, J. (1) This petition involved an important question of law regarding the inherent powers of High Court vis-a-vis the scope and ambit of the provisions contained under Sub Section 3 of Section 39, Code of Criminal Procedure. It is well settled that the inherent power of the Court can ordinarily be exercised when there is no express provision on the subject matter. Where there is an express provision, barring a particular remedy, the Court cannot resort to the exercise of inherent powers. The Supreme Court in the case of Madhu Limaye Vs . State : 1978CriLJ165 , has laid down three principles in relation to exercise of inherent powers of the High Court: '1.That the power is not to be resorted if there is a specific provision in the Code for the redress of grievance of the aggrieved party. 2. That it should be exercised very sparingly to prevent abuse of any proceeds of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice, 3.That it should not be exercised as against the expres...
O. Bahree Vs. Rikhi Bros.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-19-1992
Reported in: 49(1993)DLT71; 1993(25)DRJ325
Santosh Duggal, J. (1) The appellant O.Bahree, who is the owner of property bearing No. 1/4, E.P. Railway Co-operative House Building Society, Greater Kailash Enclave I, New Delhi, let out the same to the respondent through his attorney, Shri I.C.Bahree, after obtaining permission of the Rent Controller, Delhi under section 21 of the Act, for a limited period of three years effective from 27.10.1978. On the expiry of the aforesaid period, he made an application through the aforesaid attorney. Subsequently on objections by the tenant, inter alia, that the attorney could not seek possession of the property, he got his name substituted. (2) This application styled as an execution application was moved on 5.1.1982, when the tenant besides filing reply, also look up objections to the effect that the permission of the Rent Controller was obtained by fraudulent mis-representation that premises were available for letting for three years, for the reason that the owner was expected to retire the...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »