Delhi Court January 1993 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
Roger Enterprises Pvt Ltd. Vs. Union of India
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-25-1993
Reported in: 1993(2)ARBLR26(Delhi); 1993(25)DRJ185; 1993RLR253
S.C. Jain, J. (1) M/S. Roger Enterprises Pvt Ltd, hereinafter called the petitioner was awarded, a contract under At No. AM-5/110/288/28.12.81/456/24.3.82/75/COAD/229 dated 14.7.82 for supply of one Ratrac Tracked Over Snow Vehicle model Sr 300-VK with its standard accessories and spare parts. The disputes ana differences arose between the petitioner and Union of India ( Director General of Supplies & Disposal) out of the said contract. The disputes were referred to Shri R.N.Mishra and consequent upon his resignation, the reference was made to Shri Shiv Parkash, Legal Adviser to the Govt, of India who entered upon the reference and made his award on 11.9.90 disallowing the claim of Union of India being unjustified. The counter claim of the respondent was also not accepted being vague. However, they were allowed to prefer the said claim by a separate reference in the other contract for adjudication after furnishing necessary details if the amount is withheld by the Union of India agains...
V.K. Dewan and Co. Vs. N.B.C.C. and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-25-1993
Reported in: 1993(25)DRJ135
Dalveer Bhandari, J.(1) The plaintiff has filed this Suit under Order 37 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Summons were issued to the defendants under Form Iv, Schedule B of Order 37 of the Code of Civil Procedure on 17.12.91 by the order of this court. On 20th August, 1992, summons for judgment were issued for 21st September, 1992. Reply has been filed. Thereafter an application under Order 37 Rule 3(5) and Section 151, Code of Civil Procedure for leave to defend and contest the Suit was filed by the defendants. (2) Brief facts are recapitulated which are necessary for the disposal of this application. (3) The plaintiff was the highest tenderer in the category of tenders for which he sent his offer to the defendants for construction of community centre-cum-shopping complex at Pragati Vihar, New Delhi. The lowest rated tender was accepted. As per the tender document, earnest money was to be deposited by the plaintiff. After the finalisation of the tender, the defendant corporation offere...
Ramji Lal Goel and ors. Vs. State and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-25-1993
Reported in: 49(1993)DLT461
R.L. Gupta, J.(1) This petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Code for short) seeks quashing of an Fir No. 104/90under Section 498A/34 Indian Penal Code registered in Police Station Vinay Nagar, New Delhi on 27.3.90 against the petitioners.(2) I have beard learned Counsel for the parties.The case of the prosecution appearing from the statement of Smt.Shanti Goel is that she was married to the son of the petitioners 1 and 2 and brother of petitioners 3 and 4 on 12.5.1989. After only one month of marriage the in-laws started mal-treating her for bringing less dowry and everyday their cruel treatment towards her was increasing. Her father gave dowry articles according to his capacity but now he was hopeless to fulfilll their demands because he was a retired Govt, Servant. She further said that herein-laws give beating to her and use filthy language saying that she must bringmoney, whether from her parents or even by prostitution. She further mentioned in the Fir tha...
Ajay Bhushan Kalia Vs. University of Delhi
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-22-1993
Reported in: AIR1993Delhi152
ORDER1. This order will dispose of Civil Miscellaneous Application No. 8040/92 in C. W. 3886/ 92. CM. 376/ 92 in C.W. 2671/92,CM. 8037/92 in C.W. 3744/92, C.M. 8042/ 92 in C.W. 3959/92, C.M. 8043/92 in C.W. 3899/92, C.M. 8045/92 in C.W. 2960/ 92, C.M. 8042/92 in C.W. 3919/92, C.M. 8044/92 in C.W. 3995/92, C.M. 8059/ 92 in C.W. 193/92 & C.M. 376/93 to C.W. 2671/92.2. The petitioner is a graduate from University of Delhi having scored 44% marks. He is seeking admission to the LL.B. 1st course of the University of Delhi for the academic year 1992-93. On 22-6-1992 the respondent University issued an advertisement in the local newspaper signifying that there would be a test for the admission to the LL.B. three years degree course. It was further provided that the test was open to candidates who have passed Master's/ Bachelor's degree examination under 10 + 2 + 3 scheme of Delhi University or an examination recognised by Delhi University as equivalent thereto securing at least 50% marks in t...
Har Bhagwan Vs. Delhi Development Authority and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-22-1993
Reported in: 1993(25)DRJ137
Dalveer Bhandari, J. (1) Shri V.R.Vaish, Arbitrator has Filed the award dated 31.1.1989 and proceedings in the arbitration matter between Shri Harbhagwan vs. D.D.A. and others. The notice of filing of the award was issued to the parties and the objections were filed to the award on 8th May, 1989. (2) On 25th September, 1990 after hearing the parties, the Court framed the issues. In the objection petition, it is mentioned that the arbitrator ignored the material evidence on record and acted contrary to the terms of the agreement and consequently misconducted himself. It is also submitted in the application that under clause 25 of the agreement and also under the terms of reference, the Arbitrator was required to give a reasoned award, but the Arbitrator in the present case, has failed to give a reasoned award and the reasons so appended to the award are no reasons at all and in no way indicate the mental process of the Arbitrator. thereforee, the award is liable to be set aside on this ...
Brij NaraIn Singh Vs. University of Delhi
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-22-1993
Reported in: 50(1993)DLT89
C.L. Chandhry, J.(1) The petitioner is seeking admission to the 1styear LL.B. course conducted by the University of Delhi. The petitioner appeared in the LL.B. entrance examination and secured 150 marks out of600. He was declined admission by the University of Delhi on the ground that he had completed graduation on the 10+2+2 pattern of education and he could be granted admission only if he had obtained 55/o marks in Graduation. The petitioner filed writ petition being C.W.P. No. 3983/1992 challenging the eligibility condition of 55% marks prescribed by the University for admission to the LL.B. Course which provides that candidates who have passed Bachelor's degree examination in 10+2+2/11 +3 pattern leading to the award of the decree after 14 years of study securing atleast 55% marks in the aggregate and should have completed atleast 19 years of age as on31.10.1992. According to the petitioner, in Graduation he had secured50.40% marks and he was entitled to the admission in the LL.B. ...
Jayshree Rani Vs. University of Delhi
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-22-1993
Reported in: 51(1993)DLT34
C.L. Chandhry, J.(1) The petitioners are seeking admission to theLL.B. Course conducted by University of Delhi. The petitioner No. 1,Jayshree Ravi graduated from the University of Delhi in the year 1983 securing 47.75% marks. The petitioner No. 2 also graduated from University of Delhi in the year 1980 securing 46% marks. The petitioners were desirous of taking admission in LL.B. course in the Faculty of Law, University of Delhi. The University of Delhi decided to hold an entrance test. Accordingly an advertisement dated 22.6.1992 was published in the Newspaper wherein eligibility criteria was laid down as under : 'TEST is open to candidates (a) who have passed Master'sBachelor's Degree examination under 10+2+3 Scheme or Delhi University securing atleast 50% marks in the aggregate and have completed 20 years of age as on 1.10.1992.'(2) According to the petitioners they submitted their application forms for taking entrance examination to be conducted by the University of Delhi for entra...
Pushkar Dutt Joshi Vs. National Seeds Corporation Ltd. and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-21-1993
Reported in: 1993(1)ARBLR483(Delhi); 1993(25)DRJ226
C.M. Nayar, J. (1) The present petition has been filed under Sections 14(2) and 17 of the Arbitration Act for directing respondent no.2 to file the Award together with proceedings of the arbitration, in this Court and for directing notice of filing of the award to the parties concerned and for proceeding in accordance with law:(2) Notice was issued to the arbitrator and the award Along with the proceedings were filed in this Court.(3) The petitioner had earlier moved an application under Section 20 of the Arbitration Act, being Suit No. 39-A of 1979 and vide order dated March 6, 1979, the disputes were ordered to be referred to the Arbitrator, to be appointed by respondent no.1.Respondent no.1 appointed(3) Smt. Anna R. Malhotra, the then Chairman of the respondent No.1, as the sole Arbitrator upon reference on March 30,1979. The said arbitrator did not complete the proceedings, whereupon the petitioner filed another Miscellaneous petition being O.M.P.'No.76ofl982 and in response to the...
Delhi Transport Corporation Vs. Rajiv Kumar
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-21-1993
Reported in: 50(1993)DLT252
Santosh Dnggal, J.(1) HEARD. In view of the affidavit of the Counsel himself filed in support of the application, and the delay being of only six days, the application is allowed and delay is condoned.C.M. stands disposed of.FAO 1221921. As a result of the application for condensation of delay beingallowed, the appeal has been taken up.(2) Mr. R.D. Shahalia. Counsel for the respondent accepts notice.He has already filed reply on merits. There is an application also for early hearing filed by the appellant. In view of this. I have heard the appeal.(3) Learned Counsel for the appellant has taken me through the impugned order. I find from the facts. Which have been found as established by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, that the respondent was run over by Dtc bus No. DLP-1578 on 7-9-1979. There is no dispute that the driver was in the service of the appellant. I am further satisfied that the finding of the Tribunal about accident being result of rash and negligent driving on the part ...
Syndicate Bank Vs. Doaba Paint House and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-20-1993
Reported in: 1993(25)DRJ178
C.M. Nayar, J. (1) The present suit is filed by the plaintiff for recovery of Rs.1,24,441.18 against the defendants. (2) The plaintiff is a Bank, constituted and functioning under the Banking Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertekings) Act, 1970, with the Head office at Manipal, South Kanara District of Karnataka State and a branch, amongst others at Punjabi Bagh, Delhi It is alleged in the plaint that the plaint is signed, verified and the suit instituted by Smt.Vathsala Pant, who was the Manager and Principal Officer of the plaintiff Bank at Punjabi Bagh, New Delhi. She was duly authorised to file the suit, sign and verify the plaint and-was also conversant with the facts of the case. (3) Defendants 2 and 3, who are father and son respectively have been carrying on business in the partnership under the name and style of defendant no.1. It is alleged that at the request of the defendants, the plaintiff bank granted overdraft limit of Rs.25,000.00 against hypothecation of stoc...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »