Delhi Court April 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.
Shankar Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-22-1993
Reported in: 1993(26)DRJ151
Sat Pal, J. (1) This is a petition under section 439 of the Criminal Procedure Code for release of the petitioner on bail.(2) Briefly stated the facts of the case are that one Ram Piari was found murdered on the night of 26/27.1.1989 but there was no eyewitness to the said murder. The mother of the deceased, who lives in Darbanga, sent a letter dated 12th April, 1989 to the police wherein it was alleged that Smt. Ram Piari had been murdered by her husband Ram Lalla. Pursuant to the said complaint Ram Lalla was arrested on 16th April, 1989. A disclosure statement of Ram Lalla was recorded on 16th April, 1989 wherein he stated that he and one Umesh had inflicted knife injuries on Ram Piari and accused Shankar (petitioner herein) kept standing at a distance along with the son of the deceased. Thereafter, the petitioner was arrested on 19th April, 1989 and his discloser statement was recorded on the same date. In his discloser statement the petitioner stated that accused Ram Lalla bad take...
R.K. Kaira Vs. Videsh Sanchar Nigam Ltd. and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-22-1993
Reported in: 1993(27)DRJ51
D.P. Wadhwa, J.(1) This petition is directed against the order of the respondents transferring the petitioner to Madras from New Delhi on promotion as Deputy General Manager. The petitioner seeks quashing of the order of his transfer and requiring him to relinquish charge in Delhi where he had been working as Engineer-in-Charge. Admittedly the petitioner is working in a service where he is liable to transfer all over the country. (2) The petitioner was appointed Assistant Engineer on 1 June 1976 and his initial appointment was at Dehradun where he worked up to 7 October 1979. He was transferred to New Delhi on the same post on 8 October 1979 where he worked up to 23 June 1985. He was promoted as Deputy Engineer-in-Charge and remained posted in New Delhi up to 8 July 1989. Thereafter as Engineer-in-Charge he was transferred to Bombay where he took charge on 10 July 1989 and remained there up to 4 November 1990. During the period of his posting at Bombay the petitioner was sent abroad fo...
ishwar Singh Vs. State (Delhi Administration) and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-22-1993
Reported in: 1993(3)Crimes952; 50(1993)DLT428; 1993(27)DRJ289; 1993RLR416
Jaspal Singh, J. (1) In the sprawling locality of Gandhi Nagar there is a conclave known as Raghubarpura No.2'. On August 5,1980 its Gali No.6-Bwas a witness to the murder of one Sukh Dayal. Two persons namely, Ishwar Singh and Mangat Ram were accused of having committed the crime and were consequently charged with and tried together, for an offence under Sec.302 read with Sec.34 of the Indian Penal Code. The trial court acquitted Mangat Ram. However, Ishwar Singh proved to be not that lucky and was convicted and sentenced to imprisonment for life under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. Even his appeal to the High Court failed. Aggrieved, he filed a Special Leave Petition (Criminal). Leave was not granted. The year was 1984. (2) On June 9, 1992, after having already served the sentence for nearly 12 years, Ishwar Singh filed this writ petition under Articles 226 and 227of the Constitution all egging that since at the time of commission of the offence he was a 'child' within the mea...
Tara Chand Saini Vs. Sundar Singh
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-22-1993
Reported in: 51(1993)DLT24; 1993(26)DRJ452
P.N. Nag, J. 1. This revision petition is directed against the order dated 10th October 1989 passedby Shri R.K. Sharma, Additional Rent Controller Delhi whereby he has dismissed the petitioner landlord's petition for bonafide requirement filed under Section 14(1)(e) read withSection 25-B of the Delhi Rent Control Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act).2. The facts as set out in the petition are that the petitioner is the owner of bearing No.B-64, C.C. Colony, Delhi-110007 and his family consists of himself, his wife and the daughterand they are living on first floor which accommodation is insufficient for them. thereforee,the petitioner wants additional accommodation of ground floor which is under the tenancyof the respondent at a monthly rent of Rs. 215/- and the tenancy is for residential purposeonly. The tenanted portion of the ground floor consists of two rooms, kitchen-cum-store,bath-cum-W.C. and common courtyard. It has further been stated in the petition that thepetitioner is ...
Vivekanand Pratishthan Parishad Vs. Rehmat Ali and Others
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-21-1993
Reported in: AIR1993Delhi359
ORDER1. Respondents 1 to 8 herein filed a suit for permanent injunction against the present petitioners and respondent No. 9. Along with the said suit the said plaintiffs I filed an application seeking interim injunction against the present petitioners as well as DDA under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2. The case of the plaintiffs before the trial court was that they were tenants in respect of their respective portion for the last more than 9 years under the present petitioner i.e. defendant No. 2 before the trial court. It was further alleged that at the time of letting out the premises, the defendant No. 2 assured them that he was owner and landlord of the property. However, during the course of the trial, the defendant No. 2 took the plea that he was neither the owner of the suit premises nor let out the same to the plaintiffs. DDA was imp leaded as defendant No. 1. In its written statement DDA took the plea that Khasra No. 37/3, 4, 7, 8 and 14 of Village Khureji Khas had been acquired vide...
Raj Kumar Vs. State (Delhi Admn.)
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-21-1993
Reported in: 1994CriLJ1124; 1993(26)DRJ140
ORDER1. This is a petition under S. 439 of the Criminal Procedure Code for release of the petitioner on bail. 2. As per the allegations made in the FIR, lodged at the instance of the brother of the deceased, the petitioner was married to Sadhana in the year 1986. It has been alleged that the petitioner used to have quarrel with the deceased over dowry. On 14th July, 1991 the petitioner had a quarrel with his wife in the presence of the complainant and during the quarrel the deceased is alleged to have stated that on the earlier day also the petitioner had a quarrel with the deceased and had even picked up the knife to hit her. When the deceased informed her brother about the said incident, the petitioner is alleged to have retorted that if she would trouble him, he would do the same. It has further been alleged that thereafter the deceased Sadhana went upstairs and set herself on fire. In this effort to save his sister, the complainant also got some burns in his hands but he could not ...
Subhash Chander Oberoi Vs. Shiv Ram
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-21-1993
Reported in: 51(1993)DLT41; 1993RLR413
Usha Mehra, J.(1) The short point involved in this appeal iswhether the earlier petition under Section 14(l)(k) of the Delhi Rent Control Act (hereinafter called the D.R.C. Act) which was dismissed would operate as rest Judicata to a second petition under Section 14(l)(k) of the D.R.C. Act,between the same parties.(2) Admitted facts are that the appellant filed a petition for eviction under Section 14(l)(k) of the D.R.C. Act against the respondent alleging that the lease of the respondent on which the premises is situated had been granted by the Delhi Development Authority (in short D.D.A.) for the purposes of constructing a residential house. The respondent notwithstanding the previous notice, has been using the premises in question for commercial purposes and is running cloth business in the garage room. Since the premises is being used by the respondent contrary to the conditions imposed on the appellant by the D.D.A. thereforee, the eviction petition. Respondent raised the plea tha...
V.K. JaIn Vs. Richa Laboratories (P) Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-20-1993
Reported in: [1993]78CompCas283(Delhi); 50(1993)DLT378
J.K. Mehra, J.(1) This is a petition filed by the petitioner against the respondent company alleging that the respondent company is indebted to the petitioner to the tune of Rs. 3,15,165.00which the respondent company failed to pay despite a notice of demand dated 25/03/1988 under Section 434 of the Companies Act having been served on the company. It is further pointed out that the company kept on shifting its Registered Office without filing any return with the Registrar of Companies and that a notice was ultimately served on 21/05/1988. Despite such service the respondent company did not pay the dues of the petitioner nor took any steps to compound the dues.(2) The petition was resisted on various ground which have been refuted by the petitioner in the rejoinder. The respondent has alleged that there exists a bonafide dispute about the claim of the petitioner. The respondent while disputing the liability and delivery of goods the price whereof is claimed by the petitioner has taken t...
Stalion Shox Co. (P.) Ltd. and Others Vs. Auto Tensions (P.) Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-19-1993
Reported in: [1994]79CompCas808(Delhi); 51(1993)DLT161; 1993(26)DRJ130
Sat Pal, J.1. This petition has been filed by the petitioners under section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code for quashing the proceedings pending in the court of Shri J. P. S. Malik, Metropolitan Magistrate, New Delhi, pursuant to a complaint filed by the respondent wherein it is alleged that the petitioners have committed an offence punishable under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (hereinafter referred to 'the Act'). 2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the petitioners in discharge of their debt/liability drew 11 cheques for a total amount of Rs. 6,20,046.69 in favor of the respondent. All these cheques when presented by the respondent during the period of validity of the cheques through its bankers, State Bank of India, Noida, were dishonoured by the bankers of the petitioners. Six of these cheques were returned with the remark 'exceeds arrangement' and the remaining five cheques were returned with the remarks 'insufficient funds' along with a memo dated J...
A.J. Machine Tools Vs. Rathi Alloys and Steel Limited
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-19-1993
Reported in: 1993(26)DRJ132
Dalveer Bhandari, J. (1) The plaintiff has filed a petition under Section 20 of the Arbitration Act which was registered by this court as Suit on 14.9.1992. Along with this petition, an application under section 41, read with Schedule Ii of the Arbitration Act and Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure. This court, after hearing the counsel directed the defendants not to encash the bank guarantees until further orders.(2) Mr. B.Mohan, learned counsel for the defendant had filed written statement, and reply to the interim application. Brief facts which are necessary to dispose of this petition are recapitulated as under:-(3) The parties entered into a contraction 22.12.1989 whereby the plaintiff agreed to manufacture and supply Water Cooled Duct for the Otb Converter Unit Project of the defendants at Alwar (Rajasthan).(4) The Ducts were to be manufactured according to the specifications and drawings provided by the defendants. Some of the other terms and conditions of the...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »