Delhi Court November 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.
Harwinder Singh Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-02-1993
Reported in: 1993IVAD(Delhi)578; 54(1994)DLT723
S.C. Jain, J.(1) The facts giving rise to this writ petition are that the petitioner/detune was intercepted at the Igi Airport, New Delhi, on his arrival from Dubai and as a result of search of his baggage, 2913.500 grams of gold of 24carat purity of foreign origin valued at Rs. 11,53,746.00 (M.V.) were recovered from his possession. The statement of the petitioner/detenu was recorded under Section 108 of the Customs Act wherein he stated that in his suit case there was a false cavity which was used for exporting foreign currency to Dubai on 5.1.93. He also admitted about the recovery of the said contraband gold from him. He has alsoadmitted that he had been going abroad and was involved in smuggling activities earlier also. He was arrested and produced before the A.C.M.M., who remanded him to judicial custody. On 3.3.93 a complaint was made against him under Section 132 and 135(1)(a) of the Customs Act. On 15.4.93 he was granted bail by the learned Additional Sessions Judge on his fur...
Ravinder Pal Singh Chawla and ors. Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-02-1993
Reported in: I(1994)DMC332
S.C. Jain, J.1. The facts giving rise to this petition are that on the basis of the complaint filed by the wife, Smt. Kamal Chawla, a case under Sections 498A and 406 I.P.C. being FIR No. 314/88 was registered against Shri Ravinder Pal Singh Chawla, her husband; Shri K.S. Chawla and Smt. Mohinder Kaur her in-laws. The challan was filed against all these three accused persons, who are the petitioners before me.2. After hearing the Counsel for the parties and going through the record, the Metropolitan Magistrate found a prima facie case against all these three accused persons and ordered framing of charge against them under Sections 498-A and 406 I.P.C. vide his order dated 4.6.1992. This order has been challenged by these petitioners in this petition.3. The thrust of the arguments advanced by the learned Counsel for the petitioners is that the allegations made against them are vague and no specific instances have been given involving these accused persons either under Section 498-A or 4...
Anant Raj Agencies Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Delhi Development Authority and Other ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-01-1993
Reported in: 1993IVAD(Delhi)437; 1994(1)ARBLR89(Delhi); 52(1993)DLT295
Sat Pal, J.1. This petition has been filed by M/s. Anant Raj Agencies Pvt. Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the Contractor) against the Delhi Development Authority (hereinafter referred to as the D.D.A.) under Sections 14 and 17 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). In this Petition it has been prayed that defendant No. 2 who was the arbitrator in this case be directed to file the original award Along with the arbitration proceedings and thereafter notice of filing of the award be issued to the parties. After the receipt of the award and the proceedings notice of filing of award was issued to the parties. Thereafter D.D.A. filed the objection petition bearing is No. 172/89 in respect of claims No. 1, 2, 3, 6, 7, 8 and 10 under Sections 30 and 33 of the Act. The objections have been controverter by the contractor in their reply to the said IA. The following issues were framed :- (1) Whether the award is liable to the set aside for the objections filed by t...
Jaspal Singh and ors. Vs. the State (Delhi Administration)
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-01-1993
Reported in: 52(1993)DLT461; 1993(27)DRJ621
Y.K. Sabharwal, J. (1) Jasbir Singh, his brother Jaspal Singh, their two sisters Surjit Kaur and Rajender Kaur, their mother Sumitra Devi and Jasbir Kaur, wife of Jaspal Singh have been tried for an offence under Section 302 read with Section 34 Indian Penal Code The charge against them is that on 19th July 1984 at about 8.45 pm at House No.E-345, Raghubir Nagar Delhi in furtherance of common intention, all of them committed the murder by intentionally causing the death of Harbans Kaur wife of Jasbir Singh by pouring kerosene oil over her and then setting her on fire.(2) The learned Additional Sessions Judge found all the accused guilty of the offence charged and has sentenced Jasbir Singh to death. The other accused have been awarded life imprisonment. All the accused have come up in appeal. There is also a reference, for confirmation of the death sentence. This judgment shall dispose of both the appeals and the reference.(3) The case of the prosecution in short is that Harbans Kaur w...
Maheshwari Proteins Ltd. and ors. Vs. State-delhi Administration and a ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-01-1993
Reported in: 1993IVAD(Delhi)912; I(1994)BC80; 1994(29)DRJ379
S.C. Jain, J.(1) Briefly stated the facts of the case as are apparant on the record are that M/s Maheshwari Proteins Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as petitioner No.1) and M/s As com International (hereinafter referred to as respondent No. 2) entered into an agreement on 9th October, 1992 under which the petitioners had to process Soyabean at their factory for respondent No. 2 on terms and conditions mentioned in the agreement. Soyabean had to be supplied by respondent No.2. Respondent No.2 had to place order on petitioners of minimum quantity of 25,()()()MT during the processing period from 1st October, 1992 to 30th September, 1993. Out to 25,000 Mt, 10,000 Mt Soyabean for processing had to be supplied from 1st October. 1992 to 31st December. 1992 and 15,000 Mt of of left over soyabean had to be supplied to the petitioners between 1st January, 1993 to 31st March, 1993. Respondent No. 2 for the due performance of the agreement dated 9th October, 1992 advanced Rs. 25 lakh to petitioners ...
BurhanuddIn Tahevali Bilaspurwala Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-01-1993
Reported in: 52(1993)DLT341
D.P. Wadhwa, J. (1) The petitioner by this petition filed under Artcle 226 of the Constitution sought a writ of Habeas Corpus or any other writdirection or order requiring the respondents to set him at liberty forthwith.The petitioner was a detenu under the Conservation of Foreign ActivitiesExchange and Prevention of Smuggling Act, 1974 (for short 'the COFEPOSAAct'). There are three respondents. First is the Union of India throughthe Secretary in the Ministry of Finance in the Department of Revenue.The second is the Administrator of the Union Territory of Delhi and thethird is the Superintendent, Central Jail, Tihar, New Delhi. This petitionwas filed on 16/03/1993.(2) The second respondent the Administrator of the Union Territoryof Delhi, passed an order on 16/08/1991 in the exercise of powers conferred upon him by Section 3(1) read with Section 2(f) of the COFEPOSAAct on his satisfaction that it was necessary to detain the pe,titioner with aview to preventing him from smuggling goods ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›