Delhi Court April 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.
Canara Bank Vs. Prem Bhusan Dewan and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-30-1992
Reported in: 1992(23)DRJ245; 1992RLR295
P.N. Nag, J. (1) This revision petition is directed against the order dated 19th March, 1990 passed by Shri R.K. Jain, Sub-Judge First Class, Delhi whereby he has rejected the plaintiff-petitioner's application filed under Order 9 Rule 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure seeking restoration of the suit which was dismissed in default on 14.12.1988. (2) On perusal of the trial court record I find that the application for restoration of the suit was filed on 5th April, 1989 and the ground mentioned in the application was that on 18.8.1988 when the matter came up before the trial court, the lawyers were on strike. The next day, when the counsel for the plaintiff enquired about the next date of hearing in the matter, the reader of the trial court informed him that the matter was adjourned to 6th March, 1989. On 6th March, 1989 when the counsel for the plaintiff attended the court, he found that the matter was not listed. Consequently he made enquiries from the Ahmad and found that in fact the ...
Shakuntala Sharma Vs. Maya Devi and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-30-1992
Reported in: 1992(23)DRJ418; 1992RLR298
P.N. Nag, J. (1) Counsel for the petitioner submits that two suits - one filed before the Sub Judge, Delhi and the other filed in this High Court - are exactly similar and based on same facts and on same cause of action. He submits that lest there should be any conflict of decisions between two suits and in order to avoid inconvenience, it would be expedient in the interest of justice to transfer the suit filed before the subordinate court to this High Court and decide both the suits together.(2) I have perused the plaints of both the suits and reliefs sought for therein. In the suit filed before the subordinate court, the suit is for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from releasing, withdrawing or paying any amount from the accounts of the deceased Rajinder Parshad in his name jointly or individually, the amounts and securities, F.D.Rs., Bonds and lockers etc. to defendant No.1 (petitioner herein). In the suit filed in this High Court, a declaration has been sought for i...
Tarun Chopra and ors. Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-30-1992
Reported in: 1992(23)DRJ285; 1992RLR321
ORDER7 Rule 11(d) reads as under; 'Rejection of a plaint. II. The plaint shall be rejected in the following cases. (d) where the suit appears from the statement in the plaint to be barred by any law.'IN Rahmath Bi and another v. State Wakf Board : AIR1982Mad202 the view has been expressed that non-compliance would be covered by Order 7 Rule ll(d) of the Code of Civil Procedure. In this connection the Madras High Court has relied upon various judgment of the High Courts and also of the Supreme Court.(7) The rejection of plaint is deemed to be included in the definition of 'decree'. Section 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure reads as follows: '(2)'decree', means the formal expression of an adjudication which, so far as regards the Court expressing it, conclusively determines the rights of the parties with regard to all or any of the matter in controversy in the suit and may be either preliminary or final. It shall 1be deemed to include the rejection of a plaint and the termination of any q...
Kishan Das Vs. Municipal Corporation of Delhi and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-30-1992
Reported in: 47(1992)DLT461
Gokul Chand Mittal, C.J.(1) Shri Kishan Dass supplied coal to the Municipal Corporation of Delhi for use by Delhi Electric Supply Undertaking ofRs. 16,00,000.00, out of which Rs. 10,00,000.00 were paid and the supplier filed a suit for recovery of the balance amount and interest thereon.(2) At the outset it may be noted that in order to have a legal contract with the Municipal Corporation of Delhi there has to be a formal contract, as required by Section 203 of the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957 read witht he rules and since in this case without execution of any formal contract, on the basis of request made by the Municipal Corporation of Delhi, supplies of coal were made, the case has to be decided keeping in view the provisions of Section 70 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872 to compensate the supplier for the supply of coal to the Municipal Corporation of Delhi. There is no dispute in this behalf between the parties.(3) After trial, the learned Single Judge fixed the price of 1...
Ravindra Properties Pvt. Ltd. and ors. Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-30-1992
Reported in: 47(1992)DLT538; 1992(23)DRJ270
Sat Pal, J. (1) In this petition the petitioner has challenged the decision of the Government of India dated 17th October, 1985 (conveyed to the petitioner vide letter dated 31st January, 1986) wherein it was stated that the Government had decided to stop construction of multi - storeyed buildings in New Delhi till the Master plan for 2001 was finalised. Further the petitioner has also challenged the decision of the Government of India contained in the letter dated 8th February, 1988 addressed to the then Administrator, New Delhi Municipal Committee, New Delhi. The Commissioner, Municipal Corporation of Delhi and the Secretary Delhi Urban Arts Commission, New Delhi, wherein it is stated that the Government of India has reconsidered its earlier decision dated 17th October, 1985 and have now decided that high rise construction in Delhi may continue to be regulated subject to compliance with conditions of detailed urban design clearance, fire fighting requirement and requirements under ot...
Bennehard J. Framous @ Ortege Francis Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-30-1992
Reported in: 1992CriLJ4009; 1992(2)Crimes788; 48(1992)DLT370
P.K. Bahri, J.(1) The appellant Bennehard J. Framous @ Ortege Francis, a French national, who had come to India as a tourist, has been convicted vide judgment dated April 26, 1989, of an Additional Sessions Judge, New Delhi, for an offence punishable under Section 21 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short 'the Ndps Act') and vide order of the even date has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten years and to pay a fine of Rs. l,00,000.00 and in default of payment of fine to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for six months. He has filed this appeal challenging his conviction and sentence. (2) Elaborate arguments have been advanced by Mr. D.N. Goburdhan, Advocate, on behalf of the appellant and Shri R.N. Kapur, Advocate, on behalf of the State. (3) Facts of the case, in brief, are that during the intervening night of November 8 and November 9, 1988, the appellant was apprehended by Ms. Sonia, an Italian, who was leaving Along with a gro...
Budh Ram Vs. Delhi Development Authority
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-30-1992
Reported in: 1992(23)DRJ289
P.N. Nag, J.(1) This revision petition has been filed against the order dated 12.10.1988 passed by Shri A.S. Yadav, Sub Judge First Class, Delhi. (2) Brief relevant facts giving rise to this revision petition are that the petitioner filed a suit restraining the defendants from demolishing the three rooms in the premise's bearing Municipal No. D-15 (now known as D-40), Acharya Niketan, Patparganj, Delhi-110051 by passing a decree for permanent injunction in favor of the plaintiff and against the defendant and the demolition order dated 6.5.1987 issued by the defendant may be declared null, void and illegal by passing a decree for declaration in favor of the plaintiff and against the defendant. In the said suit, the plaintiff filed an application under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure seeking decreeing the suit on the ground that the property in question has been transferred to the M.C.D. and hence D.D.A. has no jurisdiction over the suit properties. The trial court dismissed t...
Howe (India) (P.) Ltd. Vs. Inspecting Assistant
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Decided on: Apr-29-1992
Reported in: (1992)42ITD214(Delhi)
1. This appeal is directed against the order passed by the CIT (Appeals), for which purpose six grounds have been raised. At the outset, the learned counsel for the appellant stated that he was under instructions not to press ground Nos. 1, 4, 5 & 6. These are, accordingly, being rejected. That the learned CIT (Appeals) has erred in confirming the disallowance of Rs. 2,50,000 made by the learned IAC (Asstt.) amount unrecoverable from M/s. E.M.S.U. Breweries Pvt. Ltd. as being a business loan granted by the Company which has already become bad in view of the debtor become defunct.3. The assessee in this case is a Private Limited Company rendering consultancy services in the branch of Marine Engineering to various authorities including Govt. undertakings. The Assessing Officer, in the course of the assessment proceedings, came across a claim for bad debts on account of a sum of Rs. 2,50,000 advanced to M/s. E.M.S.U.Breweries. It was explained to the Assessing Officer that the amount...
State Trading Corporastion of India Ltd. Vs. Dalmia Cement (Bharat) Lt ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-29-1992
Reported in: ILR1993Delhi181
Usha Mehra, J. (1) State Trading Corporation of India Ltd. has claimed Rs. 14,62,465.73p against M/s. Dalmia Cement (Bharat) Ltd. en account of refund of the deposit made by the plaintiff with interest at the rate of 12. per cent per annum. In. short, the case set un by the plaintiff is that Government of India vide Cement Control Order 1958 (hereinafter called the Order 19581 entrusted the plaintiff With the duty of distribution of cement in India. The defendant at the relevant time was manufacturing and selling cement in the State of Tamil Nadu. Defendant in pursuance to Order 1958 started supplying cement to plaintiff or ii.s agents and other persons as per the directions cf the plaintiff. The Sales Tax authoritier; under Madras Central Sales' Tax Act. claimed Sales Tax horn the defendant for the supplies /;salcs of cement made for and on behalf of the plaintiff of under its direction and also demanded sales tax in respect of'the element of packing charges involved in the sales/supp...
Man Singh Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-28-1992
Reported in: 48(1992)DLT13; 1992(23)DRJ80
Dalveer Bhandari, J. (1) This appeal is directed against the Judgment and Order dated 24th April, 1992 passed by Shri Mohd. Shamirn, the then Additional Sessions Judge, New Delhi, convicting the appellant under Section 366 and 376, of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 3 years and a fine of Rs. 1000.00 , in default, further rigorous imprisonment for one year under Section 366 of the Indian Penal code, and also rigorous imprisonment for 7 years under Section 376 and a Fine of Rs. 3000.00 . In default, further simple imprisonment for 18 months. The learned Judge ordered that all the sentences would run concurently.(2) The brief facts necessary to dispose of this appeal run thus. One Ratti Ram came to Police Post Madangir on 3rd May, 1985 at 8.45 p.m. and presented an application, mentioning therein that his daughter Kusum 15 years of age had been kidnapped by Man Singh, the appellant and one Irshad. The said application was sent to Police Statio...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »