Delhi Court March 1993 Judgments

R.S. Rana Vs. Delhi Development Authority and anr.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 1993(2)ARBLR165(Delhi); 51(1993)DLT528

Dalveer Bhandari, J.(1) The petitioner was awarded the balance work of construction of parking and widening of existing roads phase II at Asian Games Village Complex vide agreement NO. 10/PE/AGD & DDA/81-82.(2) The disputes between the contractor/petitioner and the D.D.A./respondent were referred to Mr. Banarasi Das, for adjudication. The arbitrator gave the award on 20th June, 1991. The award and the proceedings were filed by the arbitrator. The abjections to the award were filed on behalf of the respondent and immediately thereafter issues were framed and parties in pursuance of the Court's directions filed the evidence by way ofaffidavit.(3) On 18/02/1993, when the matter was listed for finaldisposal, the petitioner appeared in person and submitted that he does not want to press his objections to the award and wants to withdraw his objections. Accordingly, the permission was granted to the petitioner to withdraw his objections.(4) Now, the Court is required to deal with the objectio...

Payaal Sabhlok Vs. R.K. Sabhlok and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 50(1993)DLT164; 1993(26)DRJ567

Sat Pal, J. (1) This is a petition under Section 439(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure for cancellation of anticipatory bail granted to respondent No. I vide order dated 30th January, 1993 passed by Addl. Sessions Judge, Shahdara, Delhi.(2) The petitioner and respondent No. 1 were married in the year 1986 and they have got a girl child. The parties had been living together in U.S.A. and Libia and in August, 1990 the petitioner returned to India. It has been alleged in the petition that the respondent No. I and other members of his family had been demanding dowry ofRs.50,000.00 and this demand was met partially by paying Rs.l5,000.00 . lt has further been alleged that on 6.11.91 respondent No. I himself gave a written Undertaking (copy of which is at page 39 of the petiton) that in future he will not misbehave or ill-treat his wife and he will not make any sort of useless allegations against her and will not stop her from visiting her parents. It has further been alleged that since t...

Pritpal Sinohal Vs. State

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 50(1993)DLT355

Mohd. Shamin, J. (1) This is an application by one Pritpal Singhal to be released on bail.(2) The case of the prosecution is that the petitioner and his son i.e.co-accused Suresh Singhal are the owners of a house situated at BehraEnclave, New Delhi. They wanted to dispose the same of. Deceased ShyamSunder and Krishan Lal and injured Hans Raj and his brother Raj Kumar alias Raju were carrying on the business of property dca.hng under the name and style of M/s. Vijay Properties at Bahadurgarh (Haryana). S/Shri Tilak Raj, Tarsem Lal and Sarvar Lal all residents of Gurdaspur (Punjab) wanted to purchase the above said property and a deal was struck for the purchase of the said property for a consideration of Rs. 35 lacs. However, the said consideration was not passed on in full to the sellers and the same was alleged to have been taken by the above saki property dealers, yet they were bringing pressure on the seller to execute the sale deed in respect of the said property in favor of the pr...

Chander Singh Vs. Delhi Development Authority and anr.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 1993(25)DRJ582; (1993)IILLJ380Del

P.N. Nag, J.(1) The petitioner in this writ petition has challenged the order of his reversion dated 10.1.1989 (AnnexureP-11) whereby on the basis of a disciplinary enquiry he has been reduced in rank to the level of Ldc from the stage he was promoted to UDC.(2) The relevant facts set out in the petition for determining the controversy are that the petitioner was appointed as Ldc with the respondent in 1965 and he was promoted to the post of Udc on 1.2.1969 and he was assigned the duties of Rent Supervisor in Jj Department of the respondent from 1974. It appears the petitioner's services were terminated original only under the provisions of Sub Rule (1) of Rule 5 of the Central Civil Services (Temporary Services), 1965 vide Annexure P-1 dated 28.2.1978, which was later revoked by the respondent and thereafter he was suspended pending disciplinary proceedings contemplated against him. Ultimately, the petitioner was charge sheeted on 5.10.1981 (Annexure P-4) on certain charges, inter ali...

Bhuvneshwari Dev Vs. Kalyan Singh

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 50(1993)DLT197

P.K. Bahri, J. (1) This civil revision is directed against order dated 24/07/1986, by which the learned Additional Rent Controller bad dismissed the eviction petition brought by the petitioner on the ground of eviction covered by Clause (e) of proviso to Sub-section (1) of Section 14 of the Delhi Rent Control Act.(2) Facts of the case, in brief, are that the petitioner had filed the aforesaid petition which was brought under Section 25-B of the Delhi Rent Control Act. She had mentioned in the application that she is the owner of the property in question and the premises had been let out to the respondent for residential purpose and she bona fide required the said accommodation for residence for herself and for her family members dependent upon her and she is not in possession of any other reasonably suitable residentialaccommodation.(3) Elaborating the facts she mentioned that premises in question were let out to the respondent on the condition that he will vacate the premises on 31/10...

Amarjit Singh and Prem Parkash Vs. State (Delhi Administration)

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 1993(25)DRJ466

D.P. Wadhwa, J.(1) In these two applications filed separately by the two appellants we have been called upon to decide as a preliminary issue if the High Court has jurisdiction to admit the appellants to bail on their conviction for offences under the Narcotic Drugs & Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short 'the Act').(2) For the purpose of decision of this preliminary objection raised by the State it is not necessary for us to go into the facts of the case except to note that both the appellants were convicted of an offence under section 20 of the Act, one appellant being sentenced to under go rigorous imprisonment for a period of 20 years and to pay -fine of Rs.2 lakhs and in default thereof to undergf) simple imprisonment for a period of 2 years, the second appellant sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 10 years and to pay fine of Rs.l,00,000.00 and in default thereof to undergo one year simple imprisonment. The State has contended that in view of section ...

N.K. Gupta and Another Vs. M/S. Anand Constructions (Delhi) Pvt. Ltd. ...

Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi

R.N. Mittal, President: 1. Briefly the facts are that respondent No. 1 is carrying on the business as developers and builders as a residuary of M/s. Shippara Construction Pvt. Ltd. Respondent No. 2 is an agent of respondent No. 1. The complainants purchase a flat consisting of area of 335 sq. feet in a commercial building to be constructed by respondent No. 1 in Laxmi Nagar Center, as the instance of the respondents @ 398/- per sq.ft. They paid Rs. 85,000/-to respondent No. 1 in installments including the initial installment of Rs. 25,000/-. It is alleged that respondent No. 1 has not even taken possession of the plot from D.D.A. nor paid the installments due to the D.D.A. 2. It is further pleaded that respondent No. 1 had been receiving the installments from the complainants on false representation. Consequently the complainant has prayed for recovery of Rs. 85,000/- with interest @ 24% p.a. and Rs. 1,00,000/-as damages. 3. Respondent No. 1 in the written statement contested the compl...

Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. L. Bansidhar and Sons

Court: Delhi

Reported in: [1994]209ITR465(Delhi)

B.N. Kirpal J. 1. In respect of the assessment years 1973-74 and 1974-75, at the instance of the assessed as well as the Department, the following three questions of law have been referred : '(i) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was legally correct in holding that 524 shares of Messrs. Madan Mohan Lal Shri Ram (Pvt.) belonged to L. Bansi Dhar in his individual capacity and not the joint family of the assessed and that the dividend on these shares be excluded from the assessment of the assessed joint family (ii) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was legally correct in holding that the dividend on shares of various companies acquired in the name of the Lala Bansi Dhar's wife, Mrs. Urmila Bansi Dhar, and child, Master Tilak Kumar, and also the income from interest on deposit made in his name with Messrs. Bharat Ram Charat Ram Pvt. Ltd. could not be included in the income of the assessed joint family (iii) Whe...

Patodia and Company Vs. Bombay Woollen Mills Ltd.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 1993(26)DRJ69

S.C. Jain, J. (1) In brief the facts of the case are that a suit for recovery of Rs 2,32,249.00 was filed by Patodia & Co. against Bombay Woollen Mills Ltd on account of expenses, commission, brokerage, etc. M/S Patodia & Co, herein described itself as a partnership concern duly registered under the Indian Partnership Act. An objection was taken by the defendant that no cause of action had arisen in favor of the partnership concern.To avoid that objection, this application for amendment of the plaint has been filed mentioning therein that the plaintiff was a sole proprietory concern of which Moti Lal Patodia was the sole proprietor and subsequently the said concern became partnership concern by inducting Durga Parshad Patodia as one. Suit NO. 1116/78 of the partners and it was registered with the Registrar of Firms on 30.4.77. Cause of action had arisen in favor of Moti Lal Patodia the sole proprietor of Patodia & Company. It was on account, of bonafide mistake and inadvertence that th...

Ved Prakash @ Pappu Vs. State

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 50(1993)DLT171; 1993(26)DRJ575

Sat Pal, J. (1) This is a petition under Section 439 Code of Criminal Procedure for grant of bail. As per allegations made in the Fir, 20-25 persons including deceased Lakhvinder had assembled in the factory of the petitioner to celebrate the engagement of the petitioner.(2) It has further been stated in the Fir that an altercation took place between Ashok and Gulshan and deceased Lakhvinder intervened, and brought about reconciliation between the two and after sometime Rajinder, petitioner and one big eyed healthy boy stood up and started making noise and the petitioner turned out from his Factory 3 persons, namely, Shokeen, Gulshan and Nandu. At that time Ashok took out one knife from his dab which was snatched by deceased Lakhvinder. This was not liked by Ashok, Rajinder, the big eyed boy, petitioner and one other bay. it is farther alleged that Lakhvinder handed over the knife to the big eyed boy. All Stood up and Lakhvinder became angry and came out upon which Rajinder gave a call...