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.
Nazrul Haq and ors. Vs. Deputy Chief Settlement Commissioner
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-20-1993
Reported in: 49(1993)DLT557
P.N. Nag, J.(1) In this writ petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has sought the quashing of (i)order dated 26.5.1972 passed by Shri S.R. Kapoor, Authorised Chief Settlement Commissioner, New Delhi and (Annexure 6 to the writ petition)and (ii) order dated 24.7.1974 passed by Shri Gulab L.Ajwani, Deputy Chief Settlement Commissioner/Officer with delegated powers of CentralGovernment, whereby the claim of the petitioner for adjusting the amount against the price of the property allotted to him for his prior association of compensation of one Mr. Brahma Nand, claimant, has been ignored.(2) The relevant facts briefly are that the petitioner was allotted property No. XIV/8051 (New). He was held eligible to the transfer of this property as a non-claimant and he deposited Rs. 2.804.00 representing20^ of the price on 9.7.1959, the price of the property being Rs. 14.016.00 He associated the compensation of one Shri Brahma Nand claimant in C.A.F....
Tilak Raj Gulati Vs. Veena Rani
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-20-1993
Reported in: 49(1993)DLT567
Santosh Duggal, J. (1) After hearing the parties, I find that the Addl.Rent Controller has adopted an erroneous approach for appreciating the pleas taken by the petitioner in his affidavit field with application for leave to contest under Section 25-B(4) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958, (in short the 'Act'). The copy of the affidavit has been annexed with this revisionpetition, which reveals that there was a specific plea to the effect that the premises were neither let out by the petitioner nor her deceased huband, and that in fact, it was one Bhisham Kumar Anand who had let out the premises,and it was he who had collected the rent since the inception of the tenancy.Copies of the rent receipts were also filed.(2) In the reply affidavit, that was filed on behalf of the petitioner by herattorney, there was no definite and clear averment that it was the petitioner or her deceased husband who had let out the premises. It was asserted very vaguely that Bhisham Kumar Anand had nothing t...
Ved Pinkash Khultar and ors. Vs. Genelec Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-20-1993
Reported in: 49(1993)DLT491; 1993(25)DRJ92
Arun Kumar, J.(1) This is a suit for possession of Property No.11, Communality Centre, Basant Lok, Vasant Vihar, New Delhi. The tenant has not been paying any rent for years. It neither wants to vacate the premises nor it wants to pay anything towards rent. It claims that these privileges are conferred on it by the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act,1985. The case is a glaring example of abuse of the provisions of the said Act. (2) Vide lease deed dated 25th November,1981, the defendant company took on lease the suit property comprising of ground floor, first floor, basement, loft and mezzanine floor and projector on a monthly rent of Rs.29,686.00 . The lease deed is dated 25th November,1981 and was registered with the Sub-Registrar, New Delhi onllthMarch,1982. The plaintiff has filed the plan of the property comprised in the tenancy of the defendant. The lease deed was initially for a period of three years w.e.f. 1st March, 1982 and contained an option for the defendan...
A.V. Azmi Vs. Lt. Governor of Delhi and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-20-1993
Reported in: 1993(25)DRJ199; 1993RLR180
Y.K. Sabharwal, J. (1) Mr. A.U. Azmi is an ex-member of Parliament and resident of Abul Fazal Enclave, New Delhi. He has come to this court claiming that he is filing this petition for the sake of peace and communal harmony in the country.(2) Mr. Madan Lal Khurana, respondent No.4, is a Member of Parliament belonging to the Bhartiya Janata Party. Respondents 5 to 8 are stated to be the office bearers of the said political party.(3) MR.AZMI says that posters and pamphlets issued by the Bhartiya Janata Party show that Mr.Madan Lal Khurana is organising a rally of several thousand members of the B.J.P.who may march from Hans Raj Sethi Park, Kalkaji to Okhla Zone. The rally and the march is scheduled for Thursday the 21st January 1993. According to the petitioner if the respondent are not restrained from holding the rally there would be imminent apprehension of breach of peace and danger of communal disturbance. Respondent No.1. is the Lt.Governor. Respondent No.2 is the Commissioner of Po...
Chetan Das Lachman Das Vs. Income Tax Officer.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-20-1993
Reported in: (1993)46TTJ(Del)19
ORDERCH. G. KRISHNAMURTHY, PRESIDENT :This is an appeal filed against the imposition of penalty of Rs. 2,00,890 under S. 271(1)(c) of the IT Act, 1961 and confirmed by the Commissioner(A) on appeal.2. The assessed, a firm, dealing in gum filed for the year under appeal a return disclosing an income of Rs. 71,850. The assessment was, however, completed on a total income of Rs. 11,27,429, which was finally reduced on appeal to Rs. 3,90,205. The difference between the income returned and assessed and finally determined arose on account of an addition of Rs. 1,50,000 made in the following circumstances.The assessed is a firm trading in, as we mentioned earlier, gum, dry fruits, heeng and jera both at Bombay and Delhi. During the course of assessment proceedings, it was noticed by the ITO that there were some sales of gum without sufficient stocks on hand. In the course of scrutiny it was found that there was opening balance of Rs. 2,670 kg. of gum on 1st July, 1982 but the assessed sold 97...
K.P. Sharma Vs. Union of India
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-19-1993
Reported in: 51(1993)DLT670; 1993(27)DRJ65
B.N. Kirpal, J.(1) The petitioner who is serving in the B.S.F. was proceeded against on an allegation that he had tried to bribe the D.I.G. (BSF) at Hazari Bagh and a sum of Rs. 16,031.20 Along with other items was recovered from him after he came out of the house of the said D.I.G. Court Martial proceedings were held and on 26th April, 1990 the Court acquitted the petitioner of the charge.(2) The Confirming Authority did not agree with the findings and he directed the Court to re-assemble for considering the revision of the finding. The Court re-assembled and on 11th July, 1990 it decided not to revise the finding of acquittal of the petitioner. In December, 1990 the Confirming Authority did not agree with this finding.(3) On 27/2/1992 an order was passed under Section 105 of the Bsf Act to the effect that the sum of Rs. 16031.20 should be deposited in the Government treasury. The contention of petitioner is that an order like this cannot be passed under Section 105. Section 105 conte...
Kartar Singh Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-19-1993
Reported in: 1993CriLJ2483; 1993(2)Crimes569; 49(1993)DLT458; 1993(25)DRJ246
R.L. Gupta, J.(1) This revision petition under Sections 397/401 read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Code for short) has been filed for quashing charges against the petitioner under Sections 377 and 376 read with Section 511 of IPC.(2) The story of the prosecution is that on 11.10.91, Anuradha aged about 8 years studying in third standard and Divya alias Gullu aged about 6 years were called by the petitioner Kartar Singh to his quarter No.110/22, Railway colony, Kishan ganj, Delhi. Anuradha is the daughter of Hans Raj who resides in H.No. 110/14 Railway colony. Thus both the petitioner and, Hans Raj are neighbours. The.petitioner asked Anuradha to bring a match box from her house and when these two small girls came in his house, the petitioner made Anuradha sit on his right thigh and Divya on left thigh and started kissing them. He put his penis in the mouth of Anuradha and discharged semen in her mouth. On that account she vomited. The petitioner then urinated in t...
Ravinder Pal Singh Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-19-1993
Reported in: 49(1993)DLT726
Sat Pal, J.(1) The learned Counsel for the petitioner has referred to Section 219 of the Criminal Procedure Code and submits that since all the offences are alleged to have been committed within one year, the accused should be charged with and tried at one trial. He, thereforee, submits that instead of furnishing 3 sureties the accused should be directed to furnish one surety. I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and I order that the accused be released on bail on furnishing personal bonds in the sum of Rs. 5000.00 in each cash with one surety of Rs. 5000.00 for all three cases. With this order the petition stands of. The petitioners, who is in Jail may be informed accordingly ...
Nahidco Housing P. Ltd. Vs. the State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-19-1993
Reported in: AIR1993Delhi150; 49(1993)DLT485; 1993(25)DRJ252
R.L. Gupta, J.(1) This petition has been filed by M/s National Housing & Industrial Development Corporation P.Ltd. (NAHIDCO) through its Director Sh. Harvinder Kumar Gupta under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1937 (Code for short) for quashing the impugned order dated 7.10.89 of learned Acmm and 11.1.1991 of learned Asj, New Delhi either further prayer to restore back to the Company three attached flats, namely, M-2, M-3 and M-4, Magnum House, Karam Pura Complex, Najafgarh Road, New Delhi with all its records lying there.(2) I have beard arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties. The circumstances in which these properties came to be attached are that one Sadhu Singh Gill addressed a letter to the Deputy Commissioner of Police (west) Rajouri Garden New Delhi resulting in the recording of Fir 241 dated 10.10.88 at Ps Moti Nagar, New Delhi. He stated that Nahidco having their office at 101, Magnum House, Najafgarh Road, New Delhi published an advertisement in ...
Sri Ram Ojha Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-19-1993
Reported in: 51(1993)DLT168
P.N. Nag, J.(1) The Petitioner in this Writ Petition has challenged the selections made for the post of Inspector/RPF vide impugned letter dated 18-2-1974 of the Northern Railway (Annexure 'A') and also the Joint Seniority list of Sub Inspectors Grade 1 & 2 of Uniform and Armed branches of Northern Railway (Annexure 'B'), issued on 14/09/1973.(2) The main grievance of the petitioner is that his name in the Joint Seniority list of Sub Inspectors Grade I and Ii of the Uniformed and Armed Branches of Railway Protection Force Staff, Northern Railway has been shown at Seriall No. 145, which is not correct. In fact his seniority should have been fixed at Seriall No. 21 in place of Sh. Kulwant Singh and the persons having seniority up to Seriall No.81, namely, Sh. Mukhtiar Singh Dahiya,had been selected for the post of Inspector/RPF vide Annexure 'A' and as such being senior he should also have been considered and selected for the post of Inspector. It amounts to supersession by the junior an...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »