Delhi Court February 1993 Judgments

Umed Singh Vs. State

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 1993(25)DRJ381

Sat Pal, J. (1) This is a petition under section 439 Criminal Procedure Code . for grant bail on behalf of the petitioner, Uimed Singh. The case of the prosecution is that on the night intervening 26/27-6-1992 complaint Sandeep along with his grand father was sleeping outside his house and atabout2.3()/3.()()a.m.onthc said night complainant got up suddenly on hearing the sound of some movements and he found co-accused Brahin along with his brothers Raj Singh and Uimed Singh (petitioner) and co- accused Randhir Singh standing around their cots. It is further alleged that the complainant was secured by the petitioner and co-accused Brahin and on hearing the sound of altercation complainant's grandfather Chander Bhan also got up but immediately he was shot at by co-accused Raj Singh with his country made revolver. Thereafter co-accused Raj Singh is alleged to have fired a shot from his country made revolver at the complainant also. Shri Chander Bhan died at the spot as a result of the tir...

Ravi Kapoor Vs. Union of India and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 50(1993)DLT191; 1993(25)DRJ352

Sat Pal, J.(1) In this case the petitioner has been detained pursuant to an order dated 6 the June, 1991 passed by the Joint Secretary to (he Government of India in exercise of the powers conferred by section 3(1) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange & Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 (hereinafter referred to as 'COFEPOSA'). It may be relevant to point out here that before the order was served on the petitioner, the petitioner approached Calcutta High Court by filing a writ petition bearing No.4202/91 and in the said writ petition the respondent Government of India was restrained from serving on the petitioner any order of detention under the provision of Cofeposa or on any other ground on which a criminal case had been started against the petitioner. The aforesaid restrained order was, however, vacated by the Calcutta High Court on 12th April. 1991 and it was thereafter that the impugned detention order was passed on 6.6.1991 as slated hereinabove. Pursuant to the order...

The Kerala State Coir Corporation Ltd. Vs. Delhi Intercontinental (Hot ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 51(1993)DLT676; 1993(27)DRJ62; 1993RLR410

P.N. Nag. J. (1) This revision petition has been filed by the petitioner-Judgment Debtor against the judgment dated 2/7/1992 passed by Shri Mohinder pal, Additional District Judge, Delhi whereby he has dismissed the objections filed on behalf of the petitioner-Judgment Debtor against the execution of the decree and issued warrants of attachment. (2) The short facts giving rise to this revision petition are that the respondent-Decree Holder (plaintiff) filed a suit for mesne profits and ejectment against the petitioner-Judgment Debtor. The matter was compromised vide Ext.C-1 dated 14/3/1990, the relevant portion of which reads as under:- 'DISCUSSED in details the cases filed by landlord in the New Delhi court and finally decided the following terms to withdraw the case bar/suit. 1.The rent to the showroom is to be increased from 21/11/1984, as mutually agreed is from Rs.4560.00 to 6750.00 up to 20/11/1990. 2.The landlord Dr. Chandra Prakash Pahwa and management of Kerala State Coir Corp...

Mohd. Lais Vs. State

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 1993(2)Crimes542; 49(1993)DLT689; 1993(25)DRJ377

Sat Pal, J. (1) In this case the petitioner was arrested under section 452/302 Indian Penal Code on 19th November, 1990 in connection with the murder of one Suit. Zamila Begum. After he was committed to the Court of Session turn trial, the petitioner moved an application before the learned Additional Sessions Judge for his release on bail on the ground that he was below 16 years of age' on the date of commission of offence. While dealing with this application the learned Additional Sessions Judge was of the view that it would be in the interests of Justice to firstly determine the age of the petitioner and, thereforee, he held an enquiry under section 32 of the Juvenile Justice Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). In the aforesaid enquiry evidence was recorded and after hearing the learned counsel for the parlies, the learned Additional Sessions Judge by his order dated 26th June, 1992 held that the petitioner was juvenile at the lime of commission of offence under section...

N.K. Rastogi Vs. Karori Lal

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 50(1993)DLT401; 1993RLR358

P.K. Bahri, J.(1) This appeal is directed against order of Rent Control Tribunal dated September 26, 1987 by which he confirmed the order of eviction passed by an Additional Rent Controller on. August 20, 1987 on the ground of eviction covered by clause (h) of proviso to Sub Section I of Section 14 of Delhi Rent Control Act by giving a finding that tenant has acquired a residential flat bearing No. 12, Vasant Vihar in the name of his wife, Asha Rastogi.(2) The learned counsel for the appellant, in assailing the impugned order, has contended that onus was on the respondent/ landlord to prove that in fact the flat acquired by appellant's wife is a benami transaction and the real owner is the appellant and in the present case, no such evidence has come on the record and even the two tribunals have not upheld the case of the landlord that the tenant had acquired the said flat benami in name of his wife and thus, the impugned order is vitiated on that score. He has also contended that mere ...

S.R. Bose Vs. S. Gurbax Singh ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 50(1993)DLT17; 1993RLR351

P.K. Babri, J.(1) This petition is directed against order of the Rent Controller dated 6/11/1992, by which he, while refusing to grant leave to defend to the petitioner, has passed an eviction order on the ground of eviction covered by Section 14C of the Delhi Rent Control (Amendment)Act, 1988.(2) S. Gurbax Singh, Gurnam Singh (two sons of deceased ArjanSingh) and Smt. Ranjit Kaur, Smt. Gursharan Kaur and Smt. Ranbir Kaur three married daughters of Arjan Singh) had filed the petition seeking eviction of the petitioner tenant from the rooms, kitchen, latrine, bath. two.stores, as shown in red colour in plan filed Along with the petition, located inEA-32, Inderpuri. New Delhi. The eviction was sought on the ground that Gurbax Singh, the co-landlord/co-owner of -the property, who had retired from Government service as Head Clerk in the year 1979 and had vacated the Govt. accommodation and was presently residing with his son in a tenanted 'house at D-5, Naraina Vihar, bonafide requires the...

Gurcharan Singh @ Channi and anr. Vs. State

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 1993CriLJ1622; 1993(2)Crimes229; 49(1993)DLT659

Mohd. Shamim, J.(1) This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 26/05/1992 passed by Shri R.L. Chugh, Additional Sessions Judge, Delhi, whereby he found the accused Gurcharan Singh alias Channi (hereinafter referred to as the appellant No. 1 for the sake of convenience). guilty under Section 21 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short the Act), and under Section 353/34 of the Indian Penal Code. He sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten years and to pay a fine of Rs. one lac under Section 21 of the Act. Incase of his failure to clear the fine he was further directed to undergo simple imprisonment for one year. He was further sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years and to a fine of Rs. one thousand under Section 353/34 of the Indian Penal Code. In default of payment of fine he was further directed to undergo simple imprisonment for ore month. Accused Avtar Singh (hereinafter referred to as the appellant No. 2...

H.P. Gupta and Another Vs. Municipal Corporation of Delhi and Others

Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi

R.N. Mittal, President: 1. Briefly the facts of the case are that the complainant and his wife Shanti Gupta are the joint owners of property bearing H. No. C-32, Panchsheel Enclave, New Delhi. In 1990 a bill of Rs. 2,960/- regarding property tax for 1990-91 was raised by respondent No. 2 against them which was paid on 13th November, 1990. In 1991 similarly, a bill was raised for 1991-92 of Rs. 2,500/-which was paid by them on 25th November, 1991. 2. Notice was received in August, 1992 by complainant No. 1 from respondent No. 2 that an amount of Rs. l,72,771/- on account of House Tax upto 31st March, 1992 was in arrears against him. He wrote a letter dated 20.9.92 to Asstt. Assessor and Collector of respondent No. 1 in reply to the notice making an enquiry as to how the amount was due to him. No letter was received in reply from him. Thereafter complainant No. 1 received a bill dated 30th September, 1992 for the year 1992-93, wherein an amount of Rs. 1,72,771/- was shown as arrears upto...

Delhi Printing and Publishing Co. (P.) Ltd. Vs. Municipal Corporation ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: AIR1993Delhi320; 49(1993)DLT722

ORDER1. This revision petition is directed against the order dated 23-3-1990 passed by Shr. A. S. Dateer, Sub Judge, Delhi whereby he has framed the following issue:'1. Whether any bona fide dispute exists between the parties? If so, to what effect?'Against the framing of such an issue, the revision petition has been filed.2. Mr. Thadani, learned Counsel for thepetitioner vehemently submits that this issue does not arise out of the pleadings of the parties and particularly the learned trial Court frame the issue in such a way.3. I am afraid I am not able to appreciate the contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner. Nothing has been shown by Mr. Thadani and in fact no pleadings have been shown to me to enable the Court to appreciate that this issue does not arise out of the pleadings of the parties.4. From the impugned order I find that there is an arbitration Clause No. 26 in the Agreement entered into between the petitioner and the DESU and the present dispute is covered und...

Prem Singh Vs. the Administrator of the National Capital Territory of ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 1993(3)Crimes180; 50(1993)DLT173; 2003(25)DRJ451

D.P. Wadhwa, J. (1) The petitioner challenges the order of detention dated 28th August, 1992 made against him by the Administrator of the National Capital Territory of Delhi, in exercise of powers conferred upon him under Section 3(1) read with Section 2(f) of COFEPOSA Act, 1974 (for short the Act) with a view to preventing the petitioner from abetting the smuggling of goods engaging in keeping smuggled goods and also detailing in smuggled goods otherwise than by engaging in transporting, concealing smuggled goods. The petitioner has not so far been detained in persuance of this order.(2) On filing of this Writ Petition we issued notice to show cause as to why rule nisi be not issued and at the same time stayed the detention of the petitioner. in pursuance of the aforesaid detention order. (3) Answer to show cause notice has since been filed and to that rejoinder as well. Detention Orders were passed against other persons as well in pursuance of which some were even detained, grounds o...