Delhi Court May 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.
Smt. Ram Jawai and Others Vs. Smt. Shakuntala Devi and Others
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-20-1993
Reported in: AIR1993Delhi330a
ORDER1. This is an application under O.21, R. 95, CPC filed by the auction purchaser, M/s. Delhi Packaging Pvt. Ltd. praying for an order for delivery of possession.2. The facts giving rise to this application are that Shri Bhag Mal Jain, deceased, who is now represented by his legal representatives as judgment debtors, was the owner/lessee of plots Nos. 226 and 227, Block 'L', Gali Nos. 2 and 3, Beadonpura, Karol Bagh, New Delhi which was mortgaged by him for Rs. 94,000 with Shri Balkishan Dass, deceased, who is now .represented by his legal representatives as decree-holders by means of a mortgage deed dated 19-9-1958 registered on 24-9-1958. In the suit filed by Balkishan Dass, on the basis of this mortgage deed, a preliminary decree was passed under O. 34, CPC by the Subordinate Judge, Delhi, but all the reliefs claimed by the plaintiff were not granted. He, thereforee, filed a first appeal in this Court (RFA No. 172-D/ 63) which was accepted and a preliminary decree under O. 34, R....
Sunil Sharma and Others Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-20-1993
Reported in: 1993CriLJ3628; I(1993)DMC570
ORDER1. This is a petition for grant of anticipatory bail under section 438 of Code of Criminal Procedure read with Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure. 2. In this case at the instance of the wife Smt. Sunita Sharma, a case was registered under sections 406/498A, I.P.C. at P.S. Anand Parvat against the petitioners. The petitioners approached the Sessions Court for grant of anticipatory bail and a learned Additional Sessions Judge, by his order dated 20th March, 1993 directed the petitioners to deposit Rs. 10,000/- each in a nationalised bank in the name of the trial Court within one week and directed that on such deposit, in the event of arrest, petitioners will be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 5,000/- with a surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the IO/SHO. 3. Mr. Shambhu Nath, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners submitted that the condition for deposit of Rs. 10,000/- each in the shape of FDR imposed by the learne...
State Bank of Mysore Vs. Surjeet Kaur and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-20-1993
Reported in: II(1993)BC177; 51(1993)DLT150
Y.K. Sabharwal, J.(1) This appeal is directed against the orderdated 20/04/1992 made by Additional District Judge dismissing the application of the appellant, State Bank of Mysore filed under Order 21 Rule46-A, Civil Procedure Code and directing the bank to deposit the amount of F.D.R. with interest in the said Court as soon as possible but not later than seven days from the date of the order. Briefly, the facts are these :-(2) Respondent No. 1 Surjit Kaur obtained a decree on the basis of award against J.S. Butalia, Proprietor of Jayes International on 31/09/1991. Reference to arbitration was make on 18/07/1991. On 2 8/08/1991 an award was made in favor of respondent No. 1 and against respondent No. 2 and the award was made rule of the Court and decree passed in terms thereof on 3/09/1991, Respondent No.2-judgment-debtor stated before the arbitrator that the amount of the F.D.R. be recovered from the bank to satisfy the award and it was so recorded in the award. Immediately thereafter...
Arosan Enterprises Ltd. Vs. Union of India and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-20-1993
Reported in: 1993(2)ARBLR328(Delhi); 51(1993)DLT280; 1993(26)DRJ328; 1993RLR489
Arun Kumar, J. (1) The subject matter of these proceedings is an award dated 18th August 1991 made by the arbitrators who were appointed by the respective parties. Under the award the respondents have been directed to pay to M/s Arosan Enterprises Limited (hereinafter referred to as the claimant) a sum of U.S. Dollars 29,28,000. The arbitrators have further directed that the payment in Us dollars will be subject to the permission being granted by the competent authorities under the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act 1973. In the event of the authorities not granting the permission, or even if such permission is granted but the respondents not paying the amount hereby awarded or not wanting to discharge their obligation by paying in foreign currency, the aforesaid amount be paid in equivalent Indian rupees calculated at the conversion rate prevailing on the date of decree by the court on the basis of the award. (2) The award has been challenged by the Union of India as well as by the Food ...
Sanjiwan Sahni Vs. Citi Bank
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-20-1993
Reported in: II(1993)BC173; 51(1993)DLT129
Y.K. Sabharwal, J. (1) In R.F.A. (OS) 20/82, on 8/04/1983, a consent decree was passed in favor of Citi Bank, N.A. respondent herein and against Sanjiwan Sahni and others. Sanjiwan Sahni agreed to become surety under Section 145, Code of Civil Procedure and the consent order provides that he will be jointly and severally liable Along with the other judgment debtors for the amount of the decree. Para 3 of the application containing terms of the consent decree reads as under : 'SH.Sanjiwan Sahni son of late Shri Sita Ram Sahni, residentofA-2,Maharani Bagh, New Delhi, hereby stands surety to this Court under Section 145 Civil Procedure Code for payment of the amount of the decree with the condition that execution against him will be filed atleast nine months after the execution has been filed against M/s.Forgings Pvt. Ltd. except with respect to this nine months time lag provided under this clause. Shri Sanjiwan Sahni will be jointly and severally liable Along with other judgment debtors ...
Ram Jawai and ors. Vs. Shakuntala Devi and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-20-1993
Reported in: 1993(26)DRJ297
S.C. Jain, J. (1) This is an application under Order 21, Rule 95 Civil Procedure Code filed by the auction purchaser, M/s Delhi Packaging Pvt Ltd. praying for an order for delivery of possession.(2) The facts giving rise to this application are that Shri Bhag Mal Jain, deceased, who is now represented by his legal representatives as judgment debtors, was the owner/lessee of plots Nos. 226 and 227, Block 'L', Gali Nos. 2 and 3, Beadonpura, Karol Bagh, New Delhi which was mortgaged by him for Rs. 94,000 with Shri Balkishan Dass, deceased, who is now represented by his legal representatives as decree holders by means of a mortgage deed dated 19.9.1958 registered on 24.9.1958. In the suit Filed by Balkishan Dass, on the basis of this mortgage deed, a preliminary decree was passed under Order 34 Civil Procedure Code by the Subordinate Judge, Delhi, but all the reliefs claimed by the plaintiff were not granted. He,therefore, filed a first appeal in this Court (RFA No. 172-D/63) which was acc...
Bharat Bhushan Gupta Vs. Raj Kumar Gupta
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-19-1993
Reported in: 1993IIIAD(Delhi)1; AIR1994Delhi207; 51(1993)DLT39
Usha Mehra, J. (1) A very short and interesting point has been raised in this Revision Petition, namely once the suit has been withdrawn by the plaintiff, can he revoke that withdrawal (2) This was the only point raised in 'this Revision Petition. There are no much facts involved in this case. The short and brief facts are that respondent herein filed a suit against the petitioner who happens to be his son. Summons of the suit were served on the petitioner on 8-1-1993 and he was required So appear in Court on 11-1-1993. On 10-1-1993, respondent herein met the petitioner according to the allegation and agreed to withdraw the suit against the petitioner. He made the following endorsement on 10-1-1993 on the summon issued by the Cour: to the defendant: 'I am withdrawing my above case against my son Bharat Bhushan Gupta which is pending in the Court of Shri Shiv Charan, Magistrate. Other legal formalities would be done by my Advocate,'(3) Sub rule (1) of Rule I of Order 23, Code of Civil P...
Geeta Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-19-1993
Reported in: 51(1993)DLT6
Sat Pal, J.(1) In the present case the petitioner has been apprehended under N.D.P.S. Act for the alleged recovery of two grams of smack. Mr. Sethi, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that according to the case of the prosecution, two purias containing smack were recovered from the petitioner and both the purias were mixed up and thereafter a sample was drawn. .He, thereforee, contended that there may be smack only in one puria and the other puria may not be having smack at all and further quantity of smack may be less than 250 grms. The learned Counsel further submitted that admittedly the public witness, who has been associated in this case was a resident of more than six kilometers from the place of occurrence and there is no satisfactory Explanationn for the same. In support of bids contention, he has placed reliance on a Division Bench Judgment of Punjab and Haryana High Court reported in Amrit Singh v. State of Haryana, 1990 (1) Cc 588 and a Judgment ...
Bimla Devi @ Veena Vs. State (Delhi Administration)
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-19-1993
Reported in: 1993(26)DRJ378
Sat Pal, J. (1) This is a petition for grant of bail under section 439 of the Criminal Procedure Code. (2) Mr. Chawla, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, contended that in the present case there is violation of section 55 of the NDPS Act, 1985 inasmuch as the CFSL form was not deposited by the Sho with the Malkhana and the same was also not sent to CFSL laboratory along with the sample. In this connection be drew my attention to the statement of Public Witness 2 Constable Shyam Singh wherein he has stated that, 'there is no mention for form CFSL in the list of articles entered in the malkhana register.' Learned counsel further submitted that the petitioner has been in custody since 9th June, 1990. He, thereforee, submitted that the petitioner should be released on bail. In support of his contention, the learned counsel placed reliance in the cases of Gurbax Bhiryani VS. N.C.B., 1992(3) Crimes 786 and Mool Chand VS. State, Criminal A.. 82/91 decided on 8.2:1993. (3) ...
Phool Singh and ors. Vs. Union of India
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-19-1993
Reported in: 51(1993)DLT447; 1993(26)DRJ538
Sunanda Bhandare, J. (1) This appeal is directed against the judgment of the Additional District Judge, Delhi dated 29th January 1971 in Lac No.47 of 1968. The land in question which was acquired by Union of India is situated in Village Khampur Ray a. Notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act was issued on 13th November 1959 and a declaration under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act was issued on 29th July 1963. (2) It is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellants that in respect of the laid in the same Village acquired under the same notification, another Additional District Judge had fixed the market value of the land at Rs. 22,080.00 per bigha in Lac No.453 of 1965. An appeal being Rfa 19/68 was filed by the Union of india against the said judgment and this Court had dismissed the appeal by order dated 14th April 1980. It is submitted that the appellants are also entitled to get compensation at the same rate. (3) We have perused the file of Rfa No. 19 of 1...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- Next ›
- Last »