Delhi Court February 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.
Ram Rakha Aggarwal Vs. Banwari Lal
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-25-1993
Reported in: 50(1993)DLT178
P.K. Bahri. J. (1) The case had been on Board last month as well as in this week, but no one appeared on behalf of the respondent to assist the Court in deciding this case. Mr. Seth informs that he had contactedSh. K.K. Sharma, Advocate, whose power of attorney appears on the record of this case, twice in this week, but he has told him that he was not appearing in this case. (2) This second appeal is directed against the judgment dated 16/03/1974 of Senior Sub-Judge, Delhi, by which had allowed the appeal and had granted mandatory injunction requiring the appellant to demolish the room existing on the second floor of the property in question and had also granted perpetual injunction restraining the appellant from making any permanent construction in the property in question a.nd had left the parties to bear their own cost. (3) Facts of the case, in brief, are that the property bearing MunicipalNo. 3591-3594, Chawri Bazar, Delhi, is owned by the respondent and initially in the year 1956...
Rajinder Singh Bagga Vs. Harish Chander Chopra
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-25-1993
Reported in: 50(1993)DLT224
P.K. Bahri, J. (1) This second appeal is directed against judgment and decree of Additional District Judge dated 7/11/1973 by which he had accepted the appeal and set aside the judgment and decree dated 28/04/1973 passed by Sub-Judge decreeing the suit of the appellant for recovery of Rs. 7,595.28 paise with costs.(2) The appellant died during the pendency of the proceedings and his legal heirs namely Smt. Devinder Kaur Bagga and Smt. Virinder Kataria,were brought on record but later on one of the LRs has also died and her sole legal heir namely Smt. Virinder Kaur was already on the record and the name of deceased Devinder Kaur Bagga was struck out.(3) Facts, in brief, are that the plaintiff, who was a timber merchant had supplied on hire centering material comprising of planks 6 brand new 400 in number on 2/07/1962 and another 400 on 21/07/1962 and pallu 8' each hundred in number on first date and 150 more on the second date. The planks were at the rental of Rs. 2.00 per diem while th...
Ramesh Bhandari Vs. Charan Dass Puri and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-24-1993
Reported in: 1993(2)ALT(Cri)1; 1993(1)Crimes1207; 50(1993)DLT81; I(1993)DMC296
R.L. Gupta, J. (1) This petition has been filed under Section439(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Code for short) for cancellation of the bail granted to the three respondents by the learned Asj, Delhi vide order dated 2-7-92 (2) I have heard the arguments advanced by learned Counsel for the parties and have also perused the statements of various witnesses examined by the police as also the order passed by the learned ASJ. The deceasedSmt. Mamta Puri was married to third respondent Kamal Kumar Puri on14-4-1992. She died in West City Nursing Home at about 7.30 p.m. on21-4-1992 i. e. just after a week of her marriage, as a result of a fall from the top storey of the matrimonial home. Inquest proceedings were initiated by the Sdm, Patel Nagar and the case was registered on 27-4-1992 i.e.after about six days of her death. I have been taken through the statements of the various witnesses. Fhe statement of the brother Harish Bhandari,mother, Smt. Prem Bhandari and father Sh. Ramesh Bhan...
Sharad Dutt and ors. Vs. Kiran and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-24-1993
Reported in: 1993(2)ALT(Cri)2; 1993(1)Crimes1201; 50(1993)DLT291; I(1993)DMC255; 1993(26)DRJ14
R.L. Gupta, J. (1) This petition has been filed under Section 482 read with Section 397 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Code for short) for quashing the complaint filed by the first respondent against the petitioners and the order dated 20.1.92 by which learned Mm summoned the petitioners for commission of offence under Section 498A IPC.(2) I have heard arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties.(3) The respondent Smt. Kiran was married to the first petitioner Sharad Dutt on 9.12.84. Petitioners 2,3 and 4 are the mother, uncle and wife of the uncle respectively of the 1st petitioner. In the complaint the allegations are that at the time of marriage, parents of the respondent provided all necessary how; hold articles besides jewellary worth about Rs. 55,000.00 . But expectation of the petitioner were very high. Petitioner No.1 is employed in Door Darshan where he is stated to & busy in work from 9.00 Am to 10-11 Pm while the respondent is a teacher in J.D.Tytler School. Th...
Sukhdev Singh Roy Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-24-1993
Reported in: 50(1993)DLT319; 1993(25)DRJ522
Anil Dev Singh, J.(1) This writ petition calls in question some provisions of the Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972 as amended by Act 44 of 1991. The petitioner claims to be an agriculturist owning land in village Qutabpur, Tehsil Garhmukteshwar, District Ghaziabad, U.P. and submits that the Parliament in passing the amendment Act has encroached upon the legislative field reserved for the States. Mr.Narender Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner points out that under Section 62 of the unamended Act the States had been given power to declare any wild animal other than those specified in Schedule. I and Part Ii of Schedule Ii to be vermin for any area for such period as may be specified therein, but under the amending Act this power has been taken over by the Centre. He has invited our attention to Section 62 of the amended Act, by virtue of which the Central Government has been given power to declare by means of a notification any wild animal other than those specified in Schedule I a...
Rathi Ispat Ltd. Vs. Deputy Commissioner of
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Decided on: Feb-23-1993
Reported in: (1993)45ITD540(Delhi)
1. The assessee a limited company has filed this appeal and has raised a few issues. From amongst the issues, the claim relating to the disallowance of 1/5th out of car expenses for personal use by the Director and disallowance made under Section 37(3A) was not pressed during the course of hearing and accordingly these two grounds are treated as dismissed.2. The assessee has raised the issue of treating the amount of Rs. 13,48,215 representing provision that was made towards interest on deposits received from public in the earlier years and written back by credit to the Profit & Loss A/c in the year as income under Section 41(1) of the Act. The brief facts in regard to this issue arises as a consequence of the note that was appended to the balance sheet by the auditor which read "excess provision write back includes Rs. 13,48,215 being the interest provided in the earlier years on public deposits although company's liability to pay interest still exists. In the view of the managem...
Sheru Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Police, (Licensing), Delhi
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-23-1993
Reported in: 1993CriLJ3289; 1993(2)Crimes687; 50(1993)DLT390; 1993(25)DRJ358; ILR1993Delhi268; 1993RLR399
ORDER CUM SHOW CAUSE NOTICE Whereas Shri Sheru s/o Shri Suban r/o village Chandan Holla, P.S. Mehrauli, New Delhi is holding an arms license No. SDMH-020020 for one .12 bore DBBL Gun No. 013141 issued by this office valid up to 23-2-1993. 2. And whereas, DCP/South Distt., New Delhi has intimated that on 7-7-91 one Shakruddin has reported that when he was working at Anrool Farm, Sh. Fazloo and Saeed came and started abusing and beating him. He escaped from there and entered the house of Noor Mohd. ex-Pardhan of vill. Chandan Holla. In the meantime supporters of Fazloo and Saeed were gathered and started pelting stones and bricks on the house of Ex-pradhan. In this connection FIR No. 203/91 under sections 147/148/149/323, IPC PS Mehrauli has been registered. Shakruddin and others got injuries in the quarrel and all the accused were arrested. DCP/South Distt. has further stated that Shri Sheru, who is also an accused in the said case has a licensed gun and there is likelihood that he ma...
Arun Berry Vs. Hindustan Pilkington Glass Works Ltd. and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-23-1993
Reported in: I(1993)BC489; 50(1993)DLT175
Usha Mehra, J. (1) By this revision, Mr. Arun Berry, revisionist has as sailed the order of Commercial Sub-Judge, Delhi, dated Jan. 6 1979,on the ground that the Court below passed the impugned order by not properly exercising its jurisdiction vested in it under the law. The impugned order has been passed by exercising the jurisdiction with material irregularity when it held that the application of the revisionist under Order 37, R. 4 CPC was barred by time and that no sufficient . ground has been made. The respondent herein filed a summary suit against the revisionist and two other son 30/07/1973. Summons were issued on 31/07/1973 for 20thSeptember, 1973, under Order 37 CPC. .On 20/09/1973, in theproceeding, it is recorded that respondent not served, hence fresh summons be issued for 24/10/1973. Case was not taken up on 24/10/1973 because 24-10-1973 was declared a holiday; hence it was taken up on 26/10/1973, on which date it is recorded 'respondent not served',fresh summons for 11-12...
Parmeshwari Devi Vs. Jogdhyan Harbhajan Rastogi
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-23-1993
Reported in: 50(1993)DLT212
P.K. Bahri, J.(1) This second appeal is directed against the judgment of the Additional District Judge dated 3/01/1981 by which he had dismissed the appeal brought by the appellant challenging the judgment and decree of the learned Sub-Judge dated January 10. 1975 by which he had granted a mandatory injunction requiring the appellant to remove and demolish the platform marked Afg and iron shutter marked Ef existing in front of the tenanted shop of the appellant and the permanent injunction is also granted restraining the appellants from using the land in front of the shop for any purpose other than the common passage after demolishing the platform and the iron shutter. This shop of the appellant which is tenanted by him is situated at the end of a blind lane. In front of the shop the disputed chabutra and iron shutter have been put.(2) The case of the owner was that this common land in front of theshop was meant for use of all the customers and the shopkeepers and appellant had convert...
Sanjay Pahari Vs. Delhi Administration and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-23-1993
Reported in: 50(1993)DLT47; 1993(26)DRJ19; 1993RLR257
Mahinder Narain, J. (1) Rule D.B.(2) By consent of parties, we proceed to bear this petition which involves a short question of construction of section 47 of the Delhi Police Act. Section 47 of the Delhi Police Act reads as under:- 47. Removal of persons about tc commit offe.ices.-Whenever it appears to the Commissioner of Police- (a) that the movements or acts of any person are causing or are calculated to cause alarm, danger or harm to person or property; or (b) that there are reasonable grounds for believing that such person is engaged or is about to be engaged in the commission of an offence involving force or violence or an offence punishable under Chapter Xh, Chapter Xvi, Chapter Xvii or Chapter Xxii of the Indian Penal Code, 1960 (45 of 1860) or under Section 290 or Sections 489A to 489E (both inclusive) of that Code or in the abetment of any such offence; or (c) that such person- (i) is so desperate and dangerous as to render his being at large in Delhi or in any part thereof h...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- Next ›
- Last »