Delhi Court February 1993 Judgments

Karamtullah and ors. Vs. Delhi Development Authority

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 1993(25)DRJ556; 1993RLR268

C.M. Nayar, J.(1) Plaintiffs have filed the suit for permanent injunction against the defendant from enforcing any order of re-entry and especially the one passed in June, 1983 and also from interfering with the peaceful use and enjoyment of the suit property.(2) The brief facts of the case are that the plaintiffs are owners of the property bearing No. 54, Motia Khan Dumb Scheme New Delhi, hereinafter referred to as 'the suit premises'. Shri Niyamatullah, plaintiff no.2 is the constituted General Attorney of the plaintiff and is authorised and competent to file the present suit and to sign and verify the plaint.(3) It is alleged in the plaint that by an agreement for lease dated November 22, 1962, the defendant, as the Lesser had agreed to demise the land of the suit premises to one Shri Krishan Chand Ohri and by an agreement of hypothecation dated November 23, 1965, Shri Kishan Chand Ohri had entered into an agreement with one Sardar Joginder Singh for the construction of a multi-stor...

Canara Bank Vs. Ashok Kumar Pruth and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 1993(25)DRJ379

Dalveer Bhandari, J. (1) The plaintiff has filed a Suit for recovery of Rs. 1,18,896-95P. Defendant no.I applied for certain credit facilities. After considering his proposal, the plaintiff bank sanctioned him the credit facilities in the nature of Open Cash Credit and Cheque Discounting. In February, 1984, defendant no.1 requested for the credit facilities to the extent of Rs.75,000.00 . The plaintiff bank considered his proposal and sanctioned credit facilities to the' extent of Rs.25,000.00 . (2) Defendant No.1 acknowledged his debt and security in writing on 10th January, 1986 to the extent of Rs.69,565.45P. The defendant also executed the following fresh set of loan and security documents Along with Shri Vijay Kumar and promised to pay the amount due to the plaintiff:- 1. Letter of Proprietorship dated 4.1.1986 was executed by defendant no.1 2. Request letter dated 4.1.86 for grant of Overdraft facility was executed by defendant No.1 for a sum of Rs.25,000.00 . 3. Letter of undert...

Yogesh Kumar Vs. Silverline Holdings Pvt. Ltd.

Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi

R.N. Mittal, President: 1. Briefly the case of the complainant is that he was employed as an Architect by the respondent and he worked for about 11 months with them. During that period he supplied various designs to them and worked at their project to their satisfaction. However, he has not been paid the amounts which are due to him on account of salary, perquisites and price of designs supplied. 2. The learned Counsel for the respondent has raised a preliminary objection that the complainant is not a 'consumer' as defined in the Consumer Protection Act and consequently the complaint is not maintainable. 3. We have heard the complainant and the learned Counsel for the respondent. The amount claimed by the complainant from the respondent is stated to be due on account of salary, perquisites and price of designs. In such a situation he does not fall within the definition of the word 'consumer' as defined in the Consumer Protection Act. The complaint is maintainable by a purchaser, in cas...

Odebrecht Perfuracoes Ltd. and anr. Vs. State and anr.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 50(1993)DLT353

Sat Pal, J. (1) In the present case a complaint was filed by Shri Sardar Singh, respondent No. 2 herein, under Section 500 read with Section34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) against M/s. Odebrecht Perfuracoes Ltd.,(hereinafter referred to as 'the company') and Mr. J.A. Bernardi, Director of Operations in India of the said company, the allegations made in the complaint are based on a news item published in the Financial Express dated 20/11/1992. In this news item it has been, inter alia, stated 'thatM/s. Jagson International Limited,(JIL), an oil drilling company, has already been dragged to the Court by Opl over what they claim to be unethical business practices by the Indian company. According to Opl, of these conditions were fulfillled. Jagson undertook contracts for the two rigs under the name of Jil instead. Terming this as unethical OPL decided to withdraw from the agreement.'(2) The said complaint was listed for hearing before Shri R.S. Mahla,Metropolitan Magistrate, Delhi on 19/...

Ajab Singh Vs. State

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 1994CriLJ125; 1993(26)DRJ41

Sat Pal, J. (1) This is a petition for bail on behalf of the petitioner Ajab Singh under section 439 of Code of Criminal Procedure. It has been stated in the petition that the petitioner is innocent and has nothing to do with the case and further he is not required for any purpose as the charge sheet has already been filed in the Court concerned. The lower court records were summoned and I have perused the same. (2) Mr. Mathur. learned Senior counsel for the petitioner submitted that deceased Satyabir Singh is alleged to have been killed at about 6.00 Pm on 1st June, 1992 and formal Fir was registered on the same day at 7.40 Pm at P.S.Nand Nagri. As per Fir the murder was stated to have been committed by unknown persons. Mr. Mathur drew my attention to a memo dated 1st June, 1992 addressed to the in charge Mortury G.D.P. Hospital, Sahdara, Delhi written by the then Sho, Nand Nagri wherein it was stated that the deceased has been killed by someone. He further drew my attention to anothe...

Prem Kumar Vs. Ved Parkash and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 49(1993)DLT695

P.N. Nag, J. (1) This regular second appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 4.2.1976 passed by Shri Jaspal Singh, Additional District Judge, Delhi (as he then was) whereby he has allowed the appeal and set aside the judgment and decree dated 30.4.1974 passed by Shri GopalKrishan, Sub-Judge 1st Class, Delhi and dismissed the suit.(2) The appellant-plaintiff filed a suit for declaration to the effect that the property No. WZ-61, Mahabir Nagar. New Delhi vested in the entire body of legal heirs of deceased, Shri Malik Chand. He claimed that the plaintiff and defendants 1, 3 to 5 are the children of Shri Malik Chand and defendant No. 2 is his widow. The plaintiff's father Shri Malik Chand had purchased one plot of land No. 47, 'measuring 200 sq. yards in MahabirNagar, New Delhi in the benami name of defendant No. 1, i.e., Shri VedParkash, out of his own earnings and thereafter constructed a house thereon bearing the aforementioned house No. WZ-61 and also enjoyed the prof...

Bal Kishan @ Babu Alam Vs. State

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 49(1993)DLT673

R.L. Gupta, J.(1) This appeal has been filed by the appellant against his conviction and sentence under Section 21 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substance Act (hereinafter referred to as the NDPS Act)for being found in possession of 20 grams of heroin. He was sentenced to undergo Ri for 10 years and fine of Rs. one lac or in default of payment of fine to suffer Si for one year.(2) The brief facts leading to the prosecution of the appellant are that on 10.6.1987. S.I. Mahavir Singh along with Constable Rishi Pal of Police Station Paharganj were patrolling the area in their police station. When they reached Manji Chock via Vasant Road, two more constables, namely, Jagbir and Ram Pal joined them. While they were near Train Tickets Examiners rest house at 4.15. p.m a secret information was received by the S.I that a known bad character of the area, namely, Babu Alam would come there between 4.30 and 5 p.m. and deliver some smack to Prem Chadha Compounder of Railway Hospital. This ...

Bhaskar Khulbe Vs. Satwant Singh and Others

Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi

R.N. Mittal, President: 1. Briefly the facts are that the complainant was posted as District Magistrate, Jalpaiguri. He was transferred from Jalpaiguri to Delhi. After getting relieved from the post, he entrusted 62 packets of household goods at District Magistrate's residence, Jalpaiguri on 10th May, 1992 to Shri Kripa Shankar Singh, Driver of Truck No. MKW 7853 sent by M/s. Vishwa Karma Road Carriers (hereinafter referred to as the Carriers) vide certificate issued by the District Magistrate, Jalpaiguri dated 10th May, 1992 for transportation to Delhi. It is alleged that no receipt in respect of that consignment was issued by the Carriers at that time and that it was prepared by them on llth May, 1992 and handed over to the complainant on 17th May, 1992. 2. It is further pleaded, that at the representation of the carriers that there was risk of theft and dacoity on way, two armed constables C/154 Sonam Sonar and C/374 Manoj Kumar Sinha were detailed to accompany the truck from Jalpai...

Assistant Commissioner of Vs. Indian Vanaspati Producers

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi

Reported in: (1993)45ITD227(Delhi)

1. These are two appeals filed by the Revenue against two orders of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) relating to the respective assessment years 1984-85 and 1985-86. Since both the appeals raise common questions of law and facts, both are being disposed of by this common order, for the sake of convenience.2. In appeal No. 5499 (Del) of 1988 relating to assessment year 1984-85, grounds No. 1, 2 and 3 raise common question of law and in appeal No. 2152 (Del) of 1989 grounds No. i & 2 similarly raise the same question of law as in the earlier appeal, therefore, these grounds will be taken up jointly. The revenue has argued that the assessee is engaged in business activity and it does not, therefore, qualify as a trust engaged in a charitable activity under Section 2(15) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The learned Departmental Representative has argued vehemently that the assessee association is an organisation primarily created for the promotion and protection of trade and manuf...

Narender Kumar Vs. Vishnu Kr. Nayyar

Court: Delhi

Reported in: AIR1994Delhi209; 1993(26)DRJ422

ORDER1. By this petition, Mr. Narinder Kumar has assailed the order dated 19th October, 1992 of the Additional Rent Controller dismissing his application for leave to defend and passing an order for eviction under Section 14(i)(e) of Delhi Rent Control Act (hereinafter called as 'the Act') against him.2. The brief facts of the case are that Shri Vishun Kumar Nayyar, the landlord instituted eviction petition on 4th February, 1992 against Narinder Kumar, the tenant on the ground bf bona fide requirement. The landlord was working as Dy. Manager (Maintenance) Foundry in H.M.T. Ltd. Pinjore, Ambala, Haryana. The landlord let out the premises in question to the tenant consisting of two: rooms, kitchen with common use latrine, bathroom and courtyard on a monthly rent of Rs. 800/- vide agreement dated 15th July, 1986. The premises were let out for residential purposes.3. The landlord retired from service with effect from 30th November, 1991. After retirement he wants to shift to Delhi and occu...