Delhi Court May 1993 Judgments

Om Prakash Vs. Karan Singh and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 51(1993)DLT52; 1993(26)DRJ459

Sat Pal, J.(1) This petition has been filed on behalf of Om Prakash, the father of the deceased Bimla, under section 439(2) read with section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code (hereinafter referred to as 'the Code') for cancellation of bail granted to respondent No.1 Karan Singh by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Shahdara vide order dated 16th September, 1992. (2) The case of the prosecution is that respondent No.1 Karan Singh, who is employed as Head Constable in Delhi Police, had been teasing and harassing deceased Bimla, who was residing in his neighborhood at the relevant time. It is further alleged that on the night intervening 31st July and 1st August, 1992, respondent No.1 committed criminal trespass into the house of the petitioner when the petitioner was not at home and was on duty and committed rape on his deceased daughter Bimla, who was aged about 16 years and was a student of Xth class. It is further alleged that hearing the cries of the deceased, her mother, who w...

Mohd. Lias Vs. State

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 1994CriLJ1436; 51(1993)DLT89

Sat Pal, J. (1) This is petition for grant of Bail under Section 439 of Code of Criminal Procedure.(2) Mr. Bhardwaj, the learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is a juvenile as defined in the Juvenile Justice Act (in shortAct) and as such he was entitled to be released on bail, as his case does not fall under any of the exceptions mentioned in Section ) 8 of the Act. In support of his contention learned Counsel placed reliance on two judgments of this Court reported in the case of Arjun v. The State, : 24(1983)DLT65 and Ram Inder v. State. 1 (1992) Ccr 918. Learned Counsel for the petitioner also submitted that the petitioner was not a previous convict.(3) Mr. H.P. Sharma, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the State could not point out any fact to show that the present case falls under any of the exceptions mentioned in Section 18 of the Act.(4) Keeping in view the aforesaid circumstances, I am of the opinion that it is a fit case for grant of bail to the...

Rupinder Handa Vs. Union of India

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 51(1993)DLT5

Sunanda Bhandare, J. (1) This appeal is directed against the judgment and order of the Additional District Judge dated 18/02/1972.The land in dispute comprised in khasra Nos. 132(2-1) and 285/133(7-19),situated in village Kaloo Sarai, Delhi was acquired by Delhi Administration for planned development of Delhi in pursuance of notification issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act on 25/08/1962. Declaration under Section 6 was issued on 5/10/1962 and consequently an award was given by the Land Acquisition Collector, Delhi on 31/12/1962.The Land Acquisition Collector fixed the market value of the land atRs. 4200.00 per bigha. (2) Aggrieved by the award of the Land Acquisition Collector the appellant filed a reference petition under Section 18 of the Act and the Additional District Judge by the impugned judgment fixed the market value of the land at Rs. 10,000.00 per bigha. According to the appellant, the market value of the land was much higher on the date of the acquisition of t...

Archana Aggarwal Vs. State

Court: Delhi

Reported in: II(1993)DMC23

Sat Pal, J.1. This is a petition under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code (for short called 'the Code') for quashing of proceedings pending against the petitioner, who is the unmarried sister of the husband of the complainant in respect of FIR No. 44/90, registered at Police Station Keshav Puram against the petitioner. In addition to the petitioner, the proceedings are also pending against the mother-in-law, father-in law and brother-in-law of the complainant.2. Mr. Andley, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, has submitted that a reading of the FIR and the allegations contained in the complaint filed by the complainant, even if are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety, no offence is made out, prima facie, against the petitioner. In this connection he drew my attention to English translation of the complaint filed by the complainant Smt. Raj Rani on 27th November, 1990 before the in charge, Crime Against Women Cell which ultimately became t...

Vishnu Pandit Vs. State

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 1993CriLJ3223; 1993(26)DRJ199; ILR1994Delhi143

ORDER1. Petitioner is being prosecuted under sections 366/376/342/506 read with S. 34, IPC in FIR No. 427/92 registered in PS Shahdara. He has filed the present petition for grant of bail. 2. The story of the prosecution is that on 12-11-1992 ASI Rami Chand of PS Shahdara on receipt of information through DD No. 33-A at about 6-55 a.m. that a serious quarrel/altercation was going on in the Anjana Photostat Street, proceeded towards the side along with constable Dharam Pal. He reached Jaina Building near the office of MCD. There he found a PCR van, the prosecutrix Smt. Kamlesh Arya and her husband. Kamlesh Arya gave her statement to him to the following effect. 'I reside along with my family at A-24, Dilshad Garden, Delhi. My husband is an employee of DDA. My mother-in-law Rupa Devi is admitted in Gupta Nursing Home, Naveen Shahdara for treatment since 30-9-92. I and my husband keep on going to the Nursing Home to look after her. On 5-11-92 I and my husband had taken food to the Nursing...

Vijay Kumar Bhati Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax and Another

Court: Delhi

Reported in: (1994)118CTR(Del)65; [1994]205ITR110(Delhi)

D.P. Wadhwa, J. 1. The petitioner, a non-resident Indian and a much harassed man, filed this petition under article 226 of the Constitution, seeking a writ in the nature of mandamus or other such writ, direction or order directing the two respondents to forthwith grant the refund or tax aggregating to Rs. 16,17,109.32 along with interest thereon by re depositing the same in his Foreign Currency Non-Resident Account in the Indian Overseas Bank, Tolstoy Marg, New Delhi. The two respondents, respectively, are the Commissioner of Income-tax, Delhi-V, and the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax (Assessment), Range-XI. The petition was filed on August 3, 1987. Then, on October 5, 1987, rule D.B. was issued and it was ordered to be listed as high up on December 7, 1987. Somehow the matter has been pending all this period, though, the petitioner has been moving successive applications for early hearing of the petitioner has been moving successive applications for early hearing of t...

Harinder Pal Singh Chawla Vs. Nirmal Daniere and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 1993IIIAD(Delhi)145; 51(1993)DLT191; 1993(26)DRJ309

Arun Kumar, J. (1) One Smt. Raj Chawla Sahni made a Will dated 13th May, 1984.She died on 5th June,1984. The Will is with respect to various assets of Smt.Sahni. One of the assets subject matter of the Will is property No.N-258, Greater Kailash, Part-1, New Delhi. The property is constructed on a freehold plot of land measuring 880 sq. yards. (2) The building consists of a two and half storey . structure. The present suit concerns only the ground floor of the said property. The plaintiff and defendant No.2 in the suit are the brothers of Mrs. Sahni while defendant No.1 is her sister. Under the Will the ground floor has been completely and exclusively bequeathed in favor of defendant No.1. The upper half of the house has been bequeathed in favor of a brother of the deceased. Probate proceedings with respect to the said Will are pending in this Court. There is controversy between the plaintiff and defendant No.2 regarding the bequest of the upper portion of the property under the said Wi...

Purshottam Lal Anand Vs. Mariano D'Souza

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 1993IIIAD(Delhi)37; 54(1994)DLT46; 1993(27)DRJ45; 1993RLR442

Usha Mehra, J. (1) Marina D'Souza, the respondent was inducted as a tenant on the first floor of house No.34/l 1, East Patel Nagar, New Delhi by late Sh. Sat Dev Sawhney who was the owner/landlord of the premises in question. The first floor of this house was let out to the respondent on 1st march, 1972. The owner/landlord Sat Dev Sawhney died at Delhi on December 12,1987bequeathingthispropertybyvirtueofawilldatedJune21,1974,the ground floor to his adopted daughter and first floor namely the premises in question as well as the second floor to the petitioner. Thus the petitioner Purshottam Lal Anand, became the owner in respect of the premises in question after the death of Sat Dev Sawhney's wife, Smt. Shakuntala Sawhney. The will was executed on April 9, 1990. The respondent/ tenant after the death of Sat Dev Sawhney attorney the petitioner/landlord with effect from 1st May, 1990. (2) The petitioner on account of his personal bonafide need and requirement, as his family consisted of hi...

Dr. (Mrs.) C.M. Sethi Vs. Ahluwalia Construction (India) Limited

Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi

R.N. Mittal President: 1. Briefly the facts are that the complainant applied for registration for the allotment of an apartment in the residential complex proposed to be developed and constructed by the respondent company in Vaishali Township Scheme. It is alleged that she deposited an amount of Rs. 65,259/- as Booking charges on 21.8.89. Later she had been depositing the installments. In al she deposited an amount of Rs. 2,61,000/- including the amount of Rs. 65,250/- as detailed in Annexure A. However, the respondent has not given the flat to the complainant till date. Consequently it is prayed that the respondent be directed to refund the said amount along with interest @ 24% p.a. 2. The complaint has been contested by the respondent. They have inter-alia pleaded that the complainant is not a consumer as defined in the Consumer Protection Act. It is further pleaded that the case contained intricate questions of law and fact and consequently the complaint is liable to be dismissed. 3...

S.L. Bhargava Vs. Zonal Managaer, Uco Bank and Another

Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi

R.N. Mittal, President: 1. This appeal has been filed against the order of the District Forum-I dated 25.6.92 by which the complaint of the complainant was dismissed. Briefly the facts are that the complainant had hired a locker from the respondent. He received a notice on 29.1.92 for payment of advance locker rent for a period of five years and also for depositing a sum of Rs. 1,500/- in the shape of fixed deposit for a like period. He informed the bank that in terms of the agreement executed between him and the bank the latter was not entitled to demand the aforesaid a mounts. It is alleged that he was treated with discourtesy by the Manager of the Bank, when he refused to accede to his request and threatened that he would not be allowed to operate the locker without payment of the a mounts as claimed by the Bank. The complainant therefore, prayed that the respondent be directed to allow the complainant to operate his locker and pay an amount of Rs. 5,000/- as damages. 2. The complai...