Delhi Court April 1993 Judgments

D.T.C. Vs. Om Parkash Verma and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2(1993)ACC433

Usha Mehra, J.1. Delhi Transport Corporation (hereinafter called 'DTC') has sought for the reversal of the judgment if the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (hereinafter called the 'Tribunal') dated 22nd February, 1980.2. The admitted facts on record are that on 5th February, 1973 at about 3.25 p.m. the deceased Kartar Singh was traveling in private bus No. DLP 3677 under DTC operation. While the said bus was taking a turn towards the Red Fort and entered the crossing of Netaji Subhash Marg near Chhatla Rail Pul, at that time DTC bus No. DLP 73 came from Jamuna Bridge side and entered the crossing. In the process DTC bus No. D.L.P. 73 hit the left side of bus No. DLP 3677. On account of the collision of both the buses, the deceased who was at the rear gate of bus No. DLP 3677 received grievous injuries. He fell on the road and became unconscious. He was removed to the hospital where he succumbed to the injuries. The deceased was 18 years old, a student of 11th class and unmarried at the ...

Gian Gupta Vs. Union of India and Others

Court: Delhi

Reported in: [1994]205ITR544(Delhi)

1. Respondent No. 5, the owner of the property, 6, Alipore Road, and the petitioner and 21 others entered into an agreement to sell dated October 8, 1991, whereby the latter agreed to purchase the property for a sum of Rs. 180 lakhs from the former. A sum of Rs. 75 lakhs was received by the fifth respondent as earnest money from the intending purchasers. On October 21, 1991, a statement in Form No. 37-I was filed before the appropriate authority which was signed by respondent No. 5 as transferor and by the petitioner and others as transferees. Thereafter, on December 30, 1991, the appropriate authority ordered pre-emptive purchase of the property under sub-section (1) of section 269UD of the Income-tax Act, 1961, for an amount equal to the apparent consideration, viz., Rs. 180 lakhs. On the same day, the appropriate authority issued an order under section 269UE of the Act directing the transferor and any other person in possession of the property to surrender or deliver possession ther...

Sunil Kumar Kamra Vs. Union of India and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 1993(26)DRJ561

Sat Pal,J.(1) The petitioner in this case was detained in terms of the order dated 31st March, 1992 passed by the Joint Secretary-to the Govt. of India, Ministry of Finance, Deptt. of Revenue, New Delhi in exercise of powers conferred by Section 3(1) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange & Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 (hereinafter referred to as 'COFEPOSA').(2) Without , for the grounds of detention being served upon him, the petitioner filed the present petition challenging the order of detention. Along with the writ petition, the petitioner has annexed a copy of the grounds of detention of the same date in respect of the other co-accused, namely, Sushil Kumar Kaura. It has been alleged in the writ petition that the grounds of detention in respect of the petitioner are exactly the same as those of Sushil Kumar Kaura.(3) Briefly stated the facts of the case are that on 25.2.91 a Polish National, namely Tryba Marek traveling from Singapore to Amsterdam in transit at In...

Shakoor Ahmed Vs. Administrator, Union Territory of Delhi and anr.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 1993(3)Crimes925; 50(1993)DLT687

R.L. Gupta, J.(1) By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the petitioner seeks quashing of detention Order No. 5/67/92-Home (P-ll) dated6.8.1992 and his continued detention under COFEPOSA. The order of detention was passed by the first respondent i.e. the Administrator, National Capital Territory of Delhi.(2) The brief facts necessary for the disposal of this petition are that the petitioner was apprehended at the Indira Gandhi International Airport on24.4.1992 with 203 grams of gold in the form of toffees, valued atRs. 58261.00. His statement was recorded under Section 108 of the CustomsAct. He was produced for remand on 25.4.1992 before the learned ACMM. when he retracted his statement. A complaint under the Customs Act was filed against him on 30.4.92. The impugned order of detention was passed against him on 6.8.1992 and served on 30.9.92, while the grounds of detention were served upon him on 2.10.199...

S.V.R. Rao Vs. M/S. Byford Leasing Ltd.

Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi

R.N. Mittal, President: 1. Briefly the facts are that the respondent gave an advertisement in the Hindustan Times dated 7.7.91 about the scheme for sale of the reconditioned cars with a six months warranty which reads as follows : We give six months warranty on cars reconditioned by us. The complainant, on 14.7.91, purchased a 1986 Premier Padmini car in view of the said advertisement for a consideration of Rs. 80,916/-. After purchase it started giving trouble and had to be taken to the workshop of the respondent for necessary repairs. He visited the respondents workshop on various dates. Lastly he delivered the car to the respondent on 15.1.92 for repair. After the repair had been done by the respondent they did not allow him to take delivery of the car unless he paid a sum of Rs. 2,765/-. He, without any prejudice to his legal right, it is alleged, paid the amount of Rs. 2,765/-; but inspite of that the defects continued. Consequently, he filed the present complaint praying that th...

M.L. Dhawan Vs. National Insurance Co. Ltd.

Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi

R.N. Mittal, President: 1. Briefly the facts are that the complainant obtained money in transit insurance from the opposite party for the period from 6.4.1989 to 5.4.1990. The cover note covered the risk of money in transit from various offices/dealers in U.P. and Delhi to their office at Delhi/Sahibabad and/or residence of the manager/ proprietor and the bank. 2. Mr. Shree Ram Gupta was working as a sales representative of the complainant and was under his supervision and control. The Complainant used to give to him a list of customers and the amount due from each of them and instructed him to visit the customers, collect the amount due from them and also book orders. He used to deliver the amounts so collected to the complainant. 3. On 5th November, 1989 Mr. Gupta-was returning from Barut and Shamli to Delhi via Muzaffarpur with an amount of Rs. 2,57,000/-. In the way he was attacked by the dacoits, who killed him and took away the money. The complainant lodged a claim with the respo...

Rameshwar Das Vs. Union of India

Court: Delhi

Reported in: [1994(68)FLR144]; 1993RLR319

P.K. Bahri, J.(1) This second appeal involves a very short point. It appears that the appellant, who was working with the Railways, was given pro- motions from one grade to another at different times and his salary came to be fixed at Rs. 290.00 p.m. in a particular scale of pay in Grade-V vide letter dated 10.12.69 w.e.f. 26.1.70. The authorities found that salary ought to have been fixed at Rs. 280.00 the order was passed for recovering the excess amount paid on the basis of the wrong fixation of salary. (2) The grievance of the appellant, in brief, is that his salary should not have been re-fixed at Rs. 280.00 p.m. without giving him a show- cause notice and opportunity of hearing as it adversely affected his right. It is admitted case that no such show-cause notice was given. However, the learned Additional D.J. while deciding the appeal had held that for correcting clerical mistakes in fixation of salary there is no need to give any show-cause notice. I think that this expression ...

Krishan Kumar Vs. the General Manager, M.T.N.L.

Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi

Dr. A.N. Saxena, Member: 1. This appeal is against the order of District Forum No. 1 dated 22.1.92. In the grounds of appeal the appellant has referred to the excessive billing of Rs. 2,100/- in respect of his Telephone No. 7116921 for the period 16.6.89 to 15.8.89 installed at his residence BM-155, Shalimar Bagh, Delhi. His contention is that the billing is in excess of the calls made by him. He has further alleged that despite intimating to the M.T.N.L. that he did not want the S.T.D. facility, the M.T.N.L. for reasons best known to them did not disconnect the S.T.D facility for a sufficiently longtime. He has therefore, stated that the excess bill is primarily due to the misuse on the part of the M.T.N.L. According to him the bill of Rs. 2,100/- for the billing period 16.11.90 to 15.2.91 is exorbitant and unjustified. 2. The District Forum had examined the bills/ calls annexed with the complaint and it was found that during the first 14th months there were no call charges at this te...

Amar Pal Singh Vs. Election Commission of India

Court: Delhi

Reported in: AIR1993Delhi316; 50(1993)DLT643; 1993(26)DRJ393

ORDER1. The petitioner filed this petition, seeking a writ for quashing the order dated 21 -5-1991, passed by the Chief Election Commissioner, countermanding the election in 80 Meerut Parliamentary Constituency and also for quashing the order dated 10-6-1991, passed by the respondent refusing to review its earlier order dated 21-5-1991. A direction was also sought, directing the respondent and authorities concerned with the elections, to hold an adjourned poll or a re-poll in the affected polling stations of 80 Meerut Parliamentary Constituency as per the procedure, prescribed under the Representation of the People Act, 1951.2. This writ petition, along with other numbers of writ petitions, involving same question of law were heard by a Division Bench of this Court, composing of Mahinder Narain and P. N.Nag.JJ. During the hearing of the writ petition, the learned Attorney General raised a preliminary objection on behalf of the Chief Election Commissioner, the respondent that the writ p...

Kaira District Co-operative Milk Producers Union Ltd. Vs. Bharat Confe ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 1993(2)ARBLR354(Delhi); ILR1993Delhi285

D.K. Jain, J. (1) In this suit for perpetual injunction, for restraining the defendants from using and thereby passing off their goods as that of the plaintiff under plaintiff's trade mark 'AMUL' or deceptively similar mark or stylised logo script in which the said mark is depicted in relation to biscuits or any other goods covered by plaintiff's registration, the present application under Or.39R.1 and 2 Civil Procedure Code was filed for interim injunction in the same terms. An ex-parte ad-interim injunction against the defendants, as prayed, was granted on 21-12-1988 it still continues. (2) The plaintiff is engaged in the manufacture and sale of a large variety of food products from milk such as butter, processed mill', cheese, ghee, chocolates, etc. apart from distribution and processing of milk. The plaintiff claims that it is registered proprietor of the trade mark 'AMUL' in respect of some products since 1958. The said trade mark, it is claimed, was coined and invented from the f...