Delhi Court August 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.
M.R. Kohli and ors. Vs. State Transport Authority and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-31-1992
Reported in: 1992(24)DRJ612
P.N. Nag, J.(1) In pursuance to a Brochure issued by State Transport Authority for the grant of stage carriage permitss, the petitioner applied for grant of such permits. According to the Brochure an individual shall not be granted more than five permits. The State Transport Authority on 29th May, 1992 conducted draw of lot for grant of permits and the petitioner in the draw of lots succeeded in getting two more than two permits. Petitioners have also alleged that after grant of permits, most of the petitioner have made investment in purchasing specified model of buses for operating on the route. Since, however, according to the petitioner, they are not being issued permits in accordance with the draw of lots, they have filed this writ petition.(2) The stand taken by the respondent in the counter-affidavit is that applications were invited for allotment of 3,000 Stage Carriage Permits to the parties. In all, 10,347 applications were received. After scrutiny, 9635 applications were fond...
Dinesh Kumar Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-31-1992
Reported in: 1992(24)DRJ361; 1992RLR445
P.N. Nag, J. (1) The petitioner has challenged the order of dismissal dated 17th June, 1991 on the ground that the Comdt. was not empowered to dismiss the petitioner. The stand taken in the counter affidavit by the respondent is that the petitioner has not in fact been dismissed by the Comdt. but he was discharged under Rule 13 read with Appendix I thereto and the form of enrolment (para II) forming part of it, in which para 4 reads as under: 'YOU are liable to be discharged during the first two years of your service if .you are not likely to become efficient member of the Force.'(2) The power given under this rule and as given to the Comdt. is absolute in nature in order to give effect to such discharge. It is not necessary that there should be any charge sheet or show cause notice to be served upon the petitioner. On his being satisfied that the petitioner was not likely to become an efficient member of the force, he discharged him from service under the above said provisions of Rule...
Satya Wati Gupta Vs. Sashi JaIn and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-31-1992
Reported in: 48(1992)DLT649
Santosh Duggal, J.(1) In this petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the main contention urged is that no formal order for bringing the petitioners on record as legal representative of deceased Shri P.C. Gupta was passed, during proceedings in the eviction petition, brought by the landlady under Section 14(1)(b) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (for short the Act), and as such, the eviction order is vitiated. (2) I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties. I find from the order sheets in the original case records that after the eviction petition was filed by the previous owner Smt. Usha Jain, an application was moved by respondent No. 2, Smt. Shashi Jain under Order 22 rule 10 Civil Procedure Code praying to be substituted as petitioner, on the plea that she had since purchased the property. At the same time i.e. on 2.2.1984 another application was filed by her, under Order 22 Rule 4 Civil Procedure Code staling that respondent No. 2, Shri P.C. Gupta, w...
Hindustan Development Corporation Ltd. and anr. Vs. Union of India and ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-28-1992
Reported in: 48(1992)DLT255; 1992(24)DRJ54
Sat Pal, J. (1) Since both these writ petitions involve common question for decision the same arc being disposed of by this judgment. (2) In these writ petitions, the petitioners have challenged the action on the part of respondents 1 to 3 in fixing two different prices for the supply of railway bogies of the same specification manufactured by different manufacturers thereby giving undue favor to respondents 4 to 12 causing approximately a loss of Rs.20 crores to the Government of India. (3) Since the facts in both the writ petitions are identical, it may be sufficient to set out the facts in Civil Writ Petition No.1 152/92 to provide a factual background. The petitioners are regular suppliers of railway bogies along with respondent 4 1013 to respondents 1 to 3 for the last about 8 years. Prior to the year in question i.e. 1992-93 respondents 1 to 3 had been placing orders on these manufactures at the uniform price per bogie. For the period in question (i.e. 1-4-1992 to 31-3-1993) the ...
V.P. Airy Vs. Union of India and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-28-1992
Reported in: ILR1993Delhi255
Y.K. Sabharwal, J. (1) The petitioner was commissioned as an Officer of the Indian Army on 3rd June 1956 and has a high career profile. In due course the petitioner rose to the rank of Lt. General. He was also awarded the Mahavir Chakra, the second highest gallantry award during 1971 War. Petitioner was approved for promotion to the acting rank of a Lt. General on 18th October 1989 and was posted as Director General Military Training (DGMT). By letter dated 5th June 1990 the petitioner was informed by Army Headquarters that bids promotion to the substantive rank of Lt. General with effect from 30th November, 1989 has been approved and notified in Gazette of India dated 2nd June, 1990. (2) In the writ petition the petitioner says that he has learnt from a report published in one of the newspapers that the Government is proposing to post him as Director General, Assam Rifles (for short 'D.G.A.R'.) and post Lt. General R. V. Kulkarni as Adjutant General in Army Headquarters. The post of A...
Anand Prakash and ors. Vs. GaIn Chand Swara and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-28-1992
Reported in: 48(1992)DLT270; 1992(24)DRJ232
Gokal Chand Mital, C.J.(1) MR.CHAMAN Dass and two others had filed an earlier application for eviction in 1968 against Gian Chand Swara on several grounds, including non-payment of rent. The tenant deposited the arrears of rent pursuant to an order passed under Section 15(1) read with section 15(3) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958. As a result, the eviction application was dismissed on 3rd January, 1969. In those proceedings, the tenant had taken the plea of fixation of standard rent and the Rent Controller fixed the standard rent, but on appeal that order was set aside. (2) Chaman Lal. landlord, served a notice dated 7th February, 1971, Ex.A- 5, demanding the arrears of rent from the tenant w.e.f. 1st December. 1968 onwards. On 1st March. 1971. the landlord died and his legal representatives served notice under section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act dated 8th April, 1971, Ex.A- 2, by which they terminated the contract of tenancy and demanded the arrears of rent w.e.f. 1st Dece...
Union of India Vs. Jai Kishan Paruthi
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-27-1992
Reported in: 1993(1)ARBLR441(Delhi); 48(1992)DLT306; 1992(24)DRJ664
C.L. Chaudhry, J. (1) This judgment will dispose of Civil Revisions 638 and 639/1991 which are directed against the order of Subordinate Judge by which the arbitration proceedings pending before the Arbitrator stayed till the decision of the main petition. The respondent entered into a contract with the Union of India for the supply of meat and eggs during the period 1973-74. Certain disputes arose between the parties out of the execution of the said contract. The respondent/contractor moved an application under Section 20 of the Arbitration Act in the Court of Shri R.C. Jain, Sub Judge 1st Class, Delhi, for appointment of an arbitrator and reference of the disputes between the parties. (2) The Union of India filed a reply to the said application wherein it was stated that the Union of India has already appointed major General J.R.K. Batra as the arbitrator for adjudication of the disputes between the parties. Under these circumstances the Court ruled that since that arbitrator has alr...
Modi Carpets Ltd. Vs. Income Tax Officer (Also Iac V. Modi Carpets Ltd ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-27-1992
Reported in: (1993)46TTJ(Del)155
ORDERA KALYANASUNDHARAM, A.M. :The assessed and the Revenue are in cross-appeals for the same assessment year and, thereforee, these two appeals have been put together and are being disposed of by this composite order.ITA No. 533/Del/88 - Appeal by the assessed2. The assessed has raised the legal issue regarding the CIT(A) refusing to accept the audited accounts of the assessed and confirming some of the additions despite the fact that various records were destroyed on fire which event was not at all disputed.3. Appearing for the assessed, Shri Ajay Vohra submitted that there was a fire in the premises of the assessed on 3rd June, 1984 destroying records apart from other items. It was in these circumstances that the assessed was not in a position to compile the details and furnish them. He submitted that the assessed carries on the business of manufacturing carpets and tufted carpets for industrial business houses, hotels, etc. Shri Vohra submitted that the Revenue having noted the fac...
C. Lyall Vs. Delhi Development
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-26-1992
Reported in: 1993(1)ARBLR91(Delhi); 1992(23)DRJ537
Arun Kumar, J. (1) This order will dispose of the objections filed against the award dated 9th February 1987 by the Delhi Development Authority. (2) By an agreement No,14/CD.IX/70-71 the work of construction of a 23 storeyed office building of the Delhi Development Authority was entrusted to M/s C. Lyall & Co., petitioner herein. The petitioner had certain claims against the respondent in relation to the execution of the said work. The agreement between the parties contained an arbitration clause being clause No.25 under which all questions and disputes in relation to the said agreement were liable to be referred to the sole arbitration of the person appointed by the Vice Chairman, Delhi Development Authority. Accordingly Shri G.Subramanyam, Superintending Engineer (Arbitration) was initially appointed as a sole arbitrator. Shri Subramanyam died on 19th August 1984. thereforee, vide letter dated 22nd January 1985, (he Vice Chairman of the respondent appointed Shri 0.P. Mittal as the so...
Satyavarat, Shri Niwas Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-26-1992
Reported in: 1992RLR460
R.L. Gupta, J.(1) [ED. facts : One Jokhu Pershad's daughter who was alleged to be minor was missing and suspects were alleged to have a hand in her kidnapping etc. Tulsi Ram was alleged to be main culprit. He was taken to Police Station more than once. A lawyer applied for bail on his behalf. Report of the Sho was called for. The lawyer made another application levelling serious charges against the Police about atrocities being committed against Tulsi Ram suspect and also he was in Police custody since several days without producing him before a Magistrate. The Magistrate took serious view of the matter and started proceedings against Police officers. The latter moved High Court for quashing proceedings, pointing out besides other things that during the said period, the suspect was arrested by Kashmere Gate Police and on his confession had been convicted with fine.] After detailing above facts, Judgment is : (2) The main thing, thereforee, that emerges in this case is that already an F...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »