Delhi Court July 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.
Om Prakash Dikshit Vs. Rajender Kr. Khandelwal
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-31-1992
Reported in: 48(1992)DLT244
Santosh Duggal, J. (1) By a consolidated order passed on 22nd December, 1990, the learned Senior Sub Judge disposed of two applications filed by the petitioner, one of which was under the provisions of Order 6 Rule 17 Civil Procedure Code and the other under Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 CPC. (2) The plaintiff had brought a suit on the ground that he was Pujari of the Sankat Mochan Hanuman Mandir for the last about 50 years and was residing with his family members in a room situated in the precincts of the said Mandir. It was further pleaded that he had been appointed Pujari by the forefathers of the present respondent who had built this temple. There is an added plea that one other room was built for the purpose of Dharamshala or. for other religious purposes. It is further contended in the same plaint that the land had been acquired by Delhi Administration, but this piece of land was left out for the purpose of the temple, and as such the respondent has no right or interest in the same. Alleg...
Bhavnesh Kumar @ Pappu Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-31-1992
Reported in: 1992(3)Crimes777; 1992(24)DRJ136; ILR1993Delhi352
Usha Mehra, J. (1) A very interesting legal point has been raised by Mr. S.S. Dass, counsel for the respondent/Union of India on the maintainability of this petition. According to him even though adjudicating authority has exonerated the petitioner, pursuance to which criminal action initialed by the respondent on the same facts and circumstances cannot be sustained, yet the petitioner should first approach the trial court under Section 245(2) Cr. P.C. instead of invoking the inherent jurisdiction of this Court.(2) In order to deal with this contention, in nutshell the case of the prosecution is that on 23rd April, 1988 two trucks Nos. HYO-7141 and Hyo 2297 were intercepted by U.P. Police at Ghaziabad Delhi border. 167 gunny bags containing 6012 kgs. of synthetic yarn were seized from truck No. HYO-714.1 and 149 gunny bags containing 5643 kns. of the same material were seized from truck No. HYO-2297. The seized trucks and the yarn were handed over by the police to the Directorate of Re...
G.D. Rathi Steels Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Delhi Development Authority
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-30-1992
Reported in: AIR1992Delhi343; 1992(2)ARBLR494(Delhi); 1992(23)DRJ403
S.C. Jain, J. (1) Disputes and differences, having been arisen between the parties with respect to agreement No.38/EE/HD/III/82-83, were referred to the arbitration of Shri G.R. Hingorani by the Engineer Member, Dda vide letter dated 25.11.85 as per the Arbitration clause.(2) The Arbitrator entered upon the reference and invited claims from the parties. After considering the respective claims and the documentary evidence the Arbitrator made and published his award on 4.1.1988. The petitioner claimant submitted its claim for goods supplied as claim No. 1. The Arbitrator awarded Rs 617450.00 towards this claim.(3) The second claim submitted by the petitioner was for Rs 5.00.000.00 towards damages suffered on account of breach of contract by the Department. The Arbitrator did not Find that claim to be justified and rejected the same.(4) The claim No.3 was to the extent of Rs. 20,000.00 towards refund of security deposit which was disallowed by the Arbitrator as he had already allowed the ...
Aman Kumar Mahajan @ Vicky Vs. State (Delhi Administration)
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-30-1992
Reported in: 1992CriLJ4041; 48(1992)DLT549
Usha Mehra, J.(1) Aman Kumar Mahajan @ Vicky has been charged under Section 302/120-B/34, Ipc, in the murder of S/Shri Ved Prakash and Gureharan Kumar @ Lali. The brief facts leading to the filing of this petition are that on 7.6.91, S.H.O. Police Station Saraswati Vihar was present in the area when he received an information on wireless at about 725 a which he Along with other officials reached road No. 4S DDA Park opposite Chanderlok and found S.I. Gurnam Singh Along with other official two wheeler scooter bearing No.DDR 5602 was also found parked at the spot where many persons were present and blood was also found at the spot There was no eye witness of the incident at the spot. S.I. Gurnam Singh was left at the spot and the Sho went to Esi Hospital and collected the M.L.C Prakash Kohli who was declared as brought .dead. He also collected the M.L.C of Gureharan Kumar @ Lali who was admitted in the Hospital with injuries and that Gureharan Kumar was declared to be fit for making stat...
Tilak Raj Kohli Vs. Devender Kumar and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-30-1992
Reported in: 1992CriLJ4000; 1992(3)Crimes266; 1992(24)DRJ160
Usha Mehra, J.(1) Consideration for cancellation of bail is whether there has been prima facia case. The gravity of offence and whether the accused has misused the liberty after he is enlarged on bail resulting in reasonable apprehension of tampering with the evidence are to be established buy the prosecution on preponderence of probabilities. The supervening circumstances have to be taken into consideration while considering such an application for cancellation of bail. Proving by the test of balance of probabilities that the accused has misused his liberty or that there is a reasonable apprehension that he will interfere with the course of justice is all that is necessary for the prosecution to prove in order to succeed in an application for cancellation of bail. With this proposition of law in view, that we have to see in the present case is whether the application has made out any case for the cancellation of the bail already granted in this case.(2) In nut shell the case is that o...
Raj Kumar Mahajan Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-30-1992
Reported in: 1992(24)DRJ245
Usha Mehra, J.(1) The petitioner. Raj Kumar Mahajan has challenged the order of detention passed on 7th November, 1990 under Section 3 of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 hereinafter called as the 'COFEPOSA ACT') served on him on 5th September, 1991. The order of detention was issued by Mr. Mahendra Prashad, joint Secretary, to the Govt. of India. It is stated therein that with a view to preventing the petitioner from acting in any manner prejudicial to the augmentation of foreign exchange. It was also ordered that the petitioner be detained and kept in custody in the Central Jail, Tihar, New Delhi. The grounds of detention were served on the petitioner but on September 9, 1991. (2) In nutshell, the case is that on 17th August, 1990, the information was received by the Delhi Zonal Office of the Enforcement Directorate that the petitioner Raj Kumar, resident of A.2219,Paschim Vihar and having business premises at shop No.21, Nehru Baz...
Raj Kumar Mahajan Vs. U.O.i. and Others
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-29-1992
Reported in: 1993CriLJ287; 1992(23)DRJ497; 1993(41)ECC267
ORDER1. The petitioner, Raj Kumar Mahajan has challenged the order of detention passed on 7th November, 1990 under S. 3(1) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 (hereinafter called as the 'COFEPOSA Act') served on him on 5th September, 1991. The order of detention was issued by Mr. Mathura Prasad, Joint Secretary to the Government of India. It is stated therein that with a view to preventing the petitioner from acting in any manner prejudicial to the augmentation of foreign exchange, it was also ordered that the petitioner be detained and kept in custody in the Central Jail, Tihar, New Delhi. The grounds of detention were served on the petitioner but on September 9, 1991. 2. In nutshell, the case is that on 17th August, 1990, the information was received by the Delhi Zonal Office of the Enforcement Directorate that the petitioner Raj Kumar, resident of A-2/219, Paschim Vihar and having business premises at shop No. 21, Nehru Bazar, is ...
Mohd. Ishaq and ors. Vs. Rais Ahmad and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-29-1992
Reported in: 48(1992)DLT493; 1992(24)DRJ584
Santosh Duggal, J. (1) In this revision petition under Section 25-B(8) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958, (for short 'the Act'), the contentions raised are that the letting purpose has not been proved to be residential, and further that bona fide requirement of respondent No.1 (petition No. I in the eviction petition), has been erroneously assessed and taken into consideration. (2) I have perused the relevant portions of the impugned order where findings are recorded. There is an admission of the petitioner to the effect that the premises were taken on rent originally for residential purposes. All that he added was that the wife of the original tenant used to stitch clothes on sewing machine. The Rent Controller has rightly held that stitching of clothes by the house-wife, even on the charge basis, does not amount to commercial activity, when the premises are admittedly of residential nature and let out for being used as residence, and where the family of the tenant has been residing...
Subhash Manchanda Vs. Maya Devi
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-29-1992
Reported in: 48(1992)DLT449; 1992(24)DRJ94; 1992RLR394
Santosh Duggal, J. (1) The issue raised in this civil revision petition under the provisions o,f Section 25-B(8) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (for short 'the Act') lies within a very narrow compass and is thus being disposed of at the admission stage itself.(2) The petitioner is a tenant under the respondent in a portion of the ground floor of house No. 17/12, Shakti Nagar, Delhi. The landlady filed an eviction petition against him in October, 1988, invoking ground (h) of proviso to section 14(1) of the Act to the effect that the tenant during the pendency of the tenancy had acquired vacant possession of a flat, which was allotted to him by Delhi Development Authority; possession whereof had been offered. Besides alleging that a number of property brokers were visiting the tenant for either letting out the said flat or sale thereof. it was contended that in any case when the respondent had been allotted another residential accommodation, he was liable to be evicted from the tena...
Manju Goel Vs. Life Insurance Corporation of India
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-28-1992
Reported in: I(1993)BC35; 49(1993)DLT145
C.M. Nayar, J. (1) This is an application by the plaintiff under Order 12 Rule 8 read with Section 151 of Civil Procedure Code, praying that a decree may be passed in favor of the plaintiff against the defendant, in respect of the amount admittedly payable by the defendant to the plaintiff. The brief facts of the case are that the suit for declaration has been filed in this Court by Smt. Manju Goel, who is the wife of Shri Munish Chander Goel son of Shri Devi Dayal, to the effect that the said Shri Munish Goel died between 17th August and 20th August, 1978, or in any event prior to June, 1980. and for the recovery of amount of Rs. 2,17,78070 or in the alternative Rs. 2,23,500.00 , being the amount of death claim in respect of the Life Insurance Policies of said Shri Munish Goel. The said Shri Munish Goel was holder of four Life Insurance Policies, issued by the defendant Corporation and the particulars of these policies are mentioned in paragraph 3 of the plaint. The plaintiff has furt...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »