Delhi Court January 1993 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 Gupta Vs. Mukesh and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-29-1993
Reported in: I(1993)DMC188; 1993(25)DRJ417; 1993RLR140
R.L. Gupta, J.(1) It is really most unfortunate that an officer of the level of Additional Sessions Judge should have passed such a non speaking order in such a serious matter wherein deceased Sunita whose marriage was solemnized with the respondent Mukesh only on 27.1.91 and who lost her life just after about 14 months only on 15.3.1992. The bail was granted to the respondent within less than a month's time by the following order: 'HEARD.The petitioner be enlarged on bail on his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 10,000.00 with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned.'(2) It will be necessary to understand the circumstances in which the Gist respondent was sought to be implicated in the murder of his wife. Om Prakash Gupta, father of the deceased made the following statement to the police. 'I run a retail (PARCHOON) shop and reside at 2080 Mukim Pura, Delhi. The Marriage of my daughter Sunita was solemnized on 27.1.1991 with the respondent. W...
Delhi Development Authority Vs. Nehru Place Hotels Ltd. and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-29-1993
Reported in: 49(1993)DLT711; 1993(25)DRJ286
Sat Pal, J. (1) Both these appeals are directed against the order dated 21st December, 1990 passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court in is Nos.4435, 4436, 4437, 4985 and 6058 of 1990 in Suit No. 1800 of 199H. By this order the learned Single Judge dismissed the applications of the defendants (appellants herein) seeking rejection of the plaint and allowed the applications of the plaintiff (respondent No.1 herein) and granted interim mandatory injunction requiring the appellant to issue occupancy certificate and also no objection certificate to respondent No.1 in respect of two blocks subject to their depositing Rs.5,00,000.00 with the appellant and further directed the appellant Delhi Electric Supply Under (hereinafter referred as 'DESU') to grant the electricity connection to the said blocks on furnishing of occupancy certificate to DESU. The learned Single Judge also granted the. injunction restraining the appellant from enforcing the demand of penalty amount raised in their let...
Suraj Prakash Mahajan Vs. Lachman Dass
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-29-1993
Reported in: 50(1993)DLT5
Y.K. Sabharwal, J.(1) This revision petition is directed against the order made by learned Additional District Judge, Delhi, on 27-7-1992 whereby the application of the petitioner/plaintiff .under 2, Civil Procedure Code wasdismissed. With a view to appreciate the nature of the Order 6 Rule 17, Code of Civil Procedure as well as application under Order 13 Rule amendment sought for the petitioner it would by useful to briefly notice the facts of the case asunder :-(2) Eviction proceedings initiated by the petitioner against the respondent resulted in an order of eviction being passed against the respondent and in favor of the petitioner under Section 19(1)(f) of the Delhi Rent ControlAct. Under Clause (f) an order of recovery of possession of the premises can be made if the premises have become unsafe or unfit for human habitation and are required bona fide by the landlord for carrying out repairs which cannot be carried out without the premises being vacated. The litigation under the R...
Shaw Wallace and Co. Ltd. Vs. Tajinder Singh Jolly
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-29-1993
Reported in: 49(1993)DLT578
Santosh Duggal, J.(1) This revision petition is directed against an order dated 3.2.1992 whereby the application filed by the petitioner for leave to contest the eviction petition, instituted by the respondent/landlord under Clause (e) to proviso to Sub-section (1) of Section 14 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958, (for short 'the Act'), was dismissed.(2) The application for leave to contest had been filed, as a reading of the impugned order reveals, accompanied by an affidavit of one T.K.Ramaswamy. It transpired during hearing before the Additional Rent Controller that the said T.K. Ramaswamy did not possess any authority on behalf of the company, (respondent in the petition), to file an affidavit or to take part in any Court proceedings on behalf of the said Company. On thesefacts, the learned Additional Rent Controller came to the view that the application for leave to contest had been filed by a person not duly authorised by or on behalf of the Company, and in the eye of law there ...
Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. K. K. GuptA.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-29-1993
Reported in: (1993)46TTJ(Del)695
ORDERR. M. MEHTA, A. M. :These appeals filed by the Revenue involve identical issues and having been heard together, are disposed of by means of a consolidated order.2. The respondent in this case is an individual, the assessment years involved being 1975-76 to 1980-81. The discussion which now follows disposes of the appeals for the various years under consideration.ITA No. 2112 (Del) of 1989; Asst. yr. 1975-76 :3. The original return for this year was filed on 29th Aug., 1975 declaring income of Rs. 15,000 on estimate. This return was treated as invalid in the absence of relevant statement of accounts, being filed Along with it. Subsequently, another return was filed declaring a lower income of Rs. 13,600, the reasons for revising the return being that complete details were not available at the time of filing the original return. In the first round of assessment proceedings the assessed filed a consolidated P&L; account for his income from business and interest. The income from busin...
Pishori Lal Magu Vs. Delhi Development Authority and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-28-1993
Reported in: 53(1994)DLT521
Mohd. Shamim, J. (1) This is a petition under Sections 14, 17 and 29 of the Arbitration Act for issue of a direction to the Arbitrator to file the award and to make the same a rule of the Court. (2) Brieffactswhichgavcrisetothepresentpetition areas under: thatcertain disputes and differences arose in between the petitioner and respondent No. I in connection with the construction of Central Stores with Railway siding facilities at G.T. Kamal Road in Phase Ii SH: CC/o Cement Codowns in Part I and Part Ii in agreement No. 52/EE/HDIII/DDA/81- 82.Consequently, the petitioner approached the Engineer Member, Delhi Development Authority, to appoint an Arbitrator in terms of the arbitration agreement as a corollary whereof the respondent No. 2 was nominated as an Arbitrator vide letter dated August 26,1985. The said Arbitrator entered the reference and gave and published his award on October 16,1987.(3) Notices were issued to both the parties with regard to the filing of the award. The petition...
Alpine Industries Vs. Union of India and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-28-1993
Reported in: 1993(25)DRJ236
C.M. Nayar, J. (1) This is a petition under Sections 14, 17 and 29 of the Arbitration Act, 1940, on behalf of the. petitioner M/s Alpine Industries, for directing respondent no.2 to file the award dated October 14, 1988, in this Court along with all the relevant record of the case and making the Award a Rule of the Court.(2) The Brief facts of the case are that in response to a Tender Enquiry due for opening on November 18, 1986, the petitioner submitted a tender bearing No. 86-87/AI/DGS&D;/1-RE/1609 dated November 3, 1986. The said tender of the petitioner was accepted by respondent no.1 Union of India, vide their advance acceptance of rate contract dated December Ii, 1986, which was followed by a formal rate contract No.DM-2/RC-1660/Mcthyldopa/86-87/52/COAD/202 dated December 1986/7th January, 1987, for the supply of drugs for the period 1st December, 1986, to November 30,1987.(3) The disputes and differences arose between the parties and the matter was referred to the sole arbitrati...
Hari Mohan Sharma and ors. Vs. Csr Poultry Research and Breeding Farm
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-28-1993
Reported in: AIR1993Delhi293; 53(1994)DLT486; 1993(25)DRJ187; 1993RLR163
S.C. Jain, J.(1) This application has been filed on behalf of the plaintiffs under Order 39 Rules 1-2 and Order 40 Rule 1 Civil Procedure Code for appointment of a receiver with the direction to assume possession of the property in dispute and then to hand over the same to the plaintiff. Relief of mandatory injunction directing the defendants to hand over the possession of the property in suit to the plaintiff has also been claimed. (2) In brief the facts of the case as are apparent on record are that on the basis of agreement to sell dated 14.9.90 entered into between Shri Charanjit Singh Rekhi and his wife Smt Manjit Kaur Rekhi, herein-after called respondent- defendant and Shri Hari Mohan Sharma and others, hereinafter referred to as the plaintiffs-applicants. Shri Hari Mohan Sharma and others filed a suit for specific performance praying for a decree for specific performance against the defendant seeking direction to the defendant to specifically perform the agreement dated 14.9.90...
Navneet Bansal Vs. the Vice Chancellor University of Delhi and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-28-1993
Reported in: AIR1993Delhi289; 49(1993)DLT610; 1993(25)DRJ413; ILR1993Delhi9
Vhender Jain, J.(1) This order shall dispose of Civil Writs Nos. 2577 to 2581, 3707 and 3792 of 1992.(2) This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, challenging Clause Vlll(a) of the Bulletin of Information and the relative Ordinance (s), if any, issued by the University of Delhi providing that the Medical Course Admission Committee may assign a particular candidate to one institution, on the basis of the seats initially available in that particular institution and no shifting from one institution to another institution will be allowed once the allotment of institution/college has been finalised by the Admission Committee even though the candidate may become eligible for admission to the institution of his first choice on the basis of admitted merit-cum-choice criteria and the seats that remain or fall vacant as a result of some candidate not taking up admission or dropping out after taking admission. (3) Since common questions arise in all these matters, we may ...
Binoy Jacob Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-28-1993
Reported in: 1993CriLJ1293; 49(1993)DLT640; 1993RLR263
Y.K. Sabharwal, J.(1) Binoy Jacob, the petitioner, who seeks an order from this Court for being released on bail is one of the accused in First Information Report bearing No. Rca (A) 92-ACU Vi dated 28/11/1992. The other named accused in the F.I.R. are V. Krishnamurthy and his two sons K. Chandra Sandy and K. Jayakar. The case of the prosecution inbrief, is as under :(2) In the year 1982 V. Krishnamurthy while functioning as Vice-Chairman and Managing Director for Maruti Udyog Limited (MUL) joined hands with Binoy Jacob, Director of M/s. Apten Marketing and Management Services (P) Ltd. and K. Jayakar in order to earn ill-gotten money in the form of commission from various multi-nationals in connection with the transactions held by these multi-nationals with the companies under the control and influence of V. Krishnamurthy in his capacity as a public servant. In pursuance of the said object Binoy Jacob and K. Jayakar Along with Prem Kumar set up a company on 6/07/1982 with the following...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »