Delhi Court March 1993 Judgments

Uma Khanna Vs. M/S. Aggrellious and Co.

Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi

Dr. A.N. Saxena, Member: 1. This is an appeal against the order of the District Forum No. 1 dated 15.6.92, filed by the appellant. 2. Briefly the facts of the case are that the appellant had purchased a Videocon Colour T.V. Set from the respondent on 18.7.90. After a short period, defects developed in the said T.V. Set and black spots were noticed on the surface of the picture tube. Not satisfied with the repairs carried out by the respondent, the appellant filed his complaint before District Forum No. 1. 3. The. District Forum while hearing the case, directed the representative of the Videocon (Manufacturers) to send a Senior Service Engineer to get the T.V. Set examined at the residence of the Appellant. The Service Engineer deputed by the Company while diagnosing the defect did confirm the entry of dust on the picture tube and suggested that this could be prevented by fixing a tape at the corner of the picture tube. Despite doing (his the problem of unsatisfactory functioning of the...

Shri Krishan Lal Through L.Rs. and Others Vs. Shri Mohd. DIn and Other ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: AIR1994Delhi10

ORDERUsha Mehra, J.1. These three ap-peals filed under Section 110-D of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, (hereinafter called the 'Act') have arisen in the following circumstances.2. On 27th May, 1979, at about 11.45 p.m. S/Shri Sanjeev Kumar, Shiv Singh and Satpal were traveling in Car No. HRH-24 from New Delhi to Ghaziabad and a truck No. DLL 5052 was being driven by Mohd. Din from the opposite direction in a rash and negligent manner and hit the car, as result of which the car was badly damaged and all the three occupants received serious injuries but ultimately succumbed to the same, the legal heirs of all the deceased filed petitions for the grant of compensation before the Motor Accident Claim Tribunal thereinafter called (the Tribunal). These were listed under the names of Neena Vashist v. Mohd. Din, Om Wati v. Mohd. Din and Krishan Lal v. Mohd. Din. Neena Vashist, widow of Sanjeev Kumar, alleged in her petition that the deceased was 35 years old. He was a flourishing businessman an...

Krishan Lal Vs. Mohd. DIn and Others

Court: Delhi

Reported in: I(1994)ACC179; 1993ACJ907; [1995]82CompCas371(Delhi)

Usha Mehra, J.1. These three appeals filed under section 110D of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (hereinafter called 'the Act'), have arisen in the following circumstances. 2. On May 27, 1979, at about 11.45 p.m. Shri Sanjeev Kumar, Shiv Singh and Satpal were traveling in car No. HRH-24 from New Delhi to Ghaziabad and a truck No. DLL 5052 was being driven by Mohd. Din from the opposite direction in a rash and negligent manner and hit the car, as a result of which the car was badly damaged and all the three occupants received serious injuries but ultimately succumbed to the same. The legal heirs of all the deceased filed petitions for the grant of compensation before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (hereinafter called 'the Tribunal'). These were listed under the names of Neena Vashist v. Mohd. Din, Om Wati v. Mohd. Din and Krishan Lal v. Mohd. Din Neena. Vashist, widow of Sanjeev Kumar, alleged in her petition that the deceased was 35 years old. He was a flourishing businessman and had...

Prem Nath Wadhawan Vs. Inder Raj Wadhawan

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 52(1993)DLT556; 1993(25)DRJ453

S.C. Jain, J. (1) Shri Prem Nath Wadhawan, plaintiff herein, filed the Suit praying for a decree for declaration to be passed in favor of the plaintiff and against the defendant to the effect that the plaintiff is the absolute and sole owner of property No. B-5/204 Safdarjung Residential Scheme, New Delhi (also known as Safdarjung Enclave) by way of adverse possession,being in open, hostile and continuous possession and occupation of the same for more than 12 years. (2) In brief the facts of the case as are apparent on the record are that plaintiff and defendant both are real brothers. A plot of land bearing No. B-5/204, Safdarjung Residential Schemc,New Delhi measuring 213 square metres was purchased in public auction on 27.6.1971 from the Delhi Development Authority and a residential house was constructed thereon. Since the very inception, the plaintiff Along with his family has been exclusively living in the said house for the last more than 12 years i.e. since November, 1975 in his...

Oriental Bank of Commerce Vs. Saiek Chand Balak Ram and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 1993(25)DRJ465

S.C. Jain, J. (1) M/S Oriental Bank of Commerce, the plaintiff bank (hereinafter called plaintiff) filed a suit for the recovery of Rs. 1,28,603.35 under Order 37 of the Code of Civil Procedure in the year 1984 being Suit No. 1047 of 1984. Summons in the form prescribed which were issued to the defendants could not be served in the ordinary way and they were served by means of publication in Delhi 'STATESMAN' on 18.2.1986. There are four defendants. Defendant No.1 is a partnership firm of which Defendant Nos. 2 and 3 are the partners. Defendant No.4 is the guarantor. During the pendency of the suit Defendant No.3 died and his legal representatives were brought on record. Defendants did not enter their appearance and, thereforee, vide Order of this Court dated 20.3.1986 a decree for Rs.l,28,603.35 with interest at the rate of 19% per annum from the date of institution of the suit till payment was passed. Liability of the legal representatives of deceased defendant No.3 was limited to th...

S.S. Sikka Sons Hotels Pvt. Ltd. and anr. Vs. Municipal Corporation of ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 50(1993)DLT682; 1993(25)DRJ539

D.P. Wadhwa, J. (1) The petitioner claiming himself to be the owner of a Guest House at 13/33, Wea, Karol Bagh, New Delhi has filed this petition praying, inter alia, that a writ, order or direction be issued to the first respondent Municipal Corporation of Delhi thereinafter to be referred as 'MCD') quashing order dated 30th April, 1992 rejecting the application of the petitioner for grant of trade license under the provisions of Delhi Municipal Corporation of Delhi Act (for short the Act) 2 Cwp 2213/92 and at the same time directing issue of such a trade license under Sections 417/421 of the Act and (2) a writ, order or direction in favor of the petitioner against respondents 4 and 5 being respectively Commissioner of Police and Deputy Commissioner of Police (Licensing) directing them to renew the license issued to the petitioner under the provisions of Regulations for Keeping Places of Public Entertainment in Delhi, 1980 (for short the Regulations) for the years 1992-93 without insi...

Rajinder Singh Vs. Commissioner of Police and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 1993(25)DRJ462

Sat Pal, J. (1) The petitioner was detained in terms of order dated 6-3-92 passed by the Commissioner of Police in exercise of powers conferred by sub-section (2) of Section 3 of the National Security Act, 1980 (for short called 'NSA') as delegated to him vide Delhi Administration OrderNo.F.2/l/88-H.P.II dated 16.1.92 (copy of which is at page 22 of the paper book) read with order dated 17-3-92. Pursuant to the said order the petitioner was detained on 7-3-92.(2) The petitioner submitted his representation dated 1-4-92 before the Advisory Board constituted under Nsa wherein it was prayed that the order of detention being vocative of constitutional right of the petitioner be quashed. On the recommendation of the Advisory Board another order dated 5-5-92 was issued whereby the petitioner was directed to be detained for a period of twelve months from the date of his detention i.e. 7-3-92.(3) Though the order of detention has been challenged on various grounds mentioned in the writ petitio...

M, Block Welfare Society Greater Kailash, New Delhi and anr. Vs. Munic ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 1993(25)DRJ471

D.P. Wadhwa, J. (1) This writ petition was filed by a society styled as 'M' Block Welfare Society, Greater Kailash I, New Delhi. The principal allegation was that unauthorised construction was going on at plot bearing No. M-33, Greater Kailash I, New Delhi, not only in contravention of sanctioned plans but for a purpose which was not residential. The petitioners sought a writ or other appropriate order or direction to the respondents numbering eight to perform their statutory duties and other statutory obligations under the provisions of the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, the Delhi Development Act and the Unified Building Bye-laws, 1983, as applicable to Delhi.(2) We issued notice to show cause as to why rule nisi be not issued and at the same time directed that no construction in violation of the sanctioned building plans shall be carried on by respondents 6 and 7. At that time, it appears, the petitioners were not aware as to who were the persons carrying on the construction. Durin...

New United Motors Vs. Assistant Commissioner of

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi

Reported in: (1993)45ITD302(Delhi)

1. This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order dated 23-7-1992 passed by the CIT (Appeals) XI, New Delhi.2. Brief facts of the case are as follows. The assessee filed its return of income for assessment year 1990-91 on 31-10-1990 declaring income of Rs. 3,89,388. The Assessing Officer processed the case under Section 143(1)(a) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 on 20-1-1991 and made the following prima facie additions : The above additions were made because there was no proof of payments of the aforementioned amounts before the due date for submission of return under Section 139(1) of the Act.3. The assessee vide application under Section 154 dated 20-3-1991 requested the Assessing Officer to rectify the intimation under Section 143(1)(a) primarily for the reason that the aforesaid amounts had been paid within the due dates specified by law. The Assessing Officer, however, following the Board's circular No. 581 dated 28-9-1990, rejected the application for rectification. The le...

Jai Bhagwan Vs. State

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 50(1993)DLT505

R.L. Gupta, J. (1) This petition has been filed for grant of bail by the petitioner. He is being prosecuted in Fir No. 254 dated 7-10-91registered in Ps Timer Pur under Sections 302/307/120B/34 Indian Penal Code and Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act.(2) I have heard arguments advanced by learned Counsel for theparties. The case of the prosecution is that on 7-10-91 at about 4.45 p.m.accused Pramod, Umesh, Rampal, Rajinder, Satish and another person whowas not known to the complainant but whom he could identify on beingshown, came in two Maruti cars bearing Nos.DAC 1314 and DA-4417.The first car belongs to Rampal accused and it was he who had driven the car at the relevant time. The other car is alleged to have been driven by Pramod accused. These two cars are alleged to have stopped in front of the office of the Ganesh Property Dealers. All the accused except the unknown one to the complainant alighted from the cars. Three of them were armed with Pistols while another was armed with a...