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.
Ram Swaroop Aggarwal Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-14-1993
Reported in: 50(1993)DLT584
R.L. Gupta, J.(1) By this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure the petitioner seeks issuance of a writ of Habeas Corpus or any other appropriate writ for quashing an order of detention dated 27.7.1992.F. No. 5/66/92-Home (P-II) passed under Section 3(1) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974(COFEPOSA for short) by the Administrator, Union Territory of Delhi and for the consequent release of the petitioner forthwith.(2) The brief facts leading to the detention of the petitioner are that the Was intercepted at Igi Airport by the Customs officers on 30.3.1992 on his arrival from Dubai. His personal search and that of his baggage yielded recovery of 400 gms. of gold valued at Rs. 1,72,000.00and Indian currency amounting to Rs. 4,100.00. He was produced before the learned Acmm on 31.3.1992 who remanded him judicial custody from time to time. On 8.4.1992a comp...
C.P. Aggarwal Vs. International Airport Authority of India and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-13-1993
Reported in: 1993(26)DRJ243; (1993)IILLJ1051Del
Sunanda Bhandare, J.(1) Rule D.B.(2) Since a short point is involved we proceed to decide the writ petition finally today itself. Learned counsel for the parties have no objection.(3) The petitioner who is registered with the Employment Exchange was given a call letter by the respondent on 18.6.1983 and was appointed on daily wages as Operator (E&M;) on 29.6.1983. On 1.3.1984 the services of the petitioner were terminated. The petitioner agitated against the order of termination by way of representation. However, his representation was rejected on the ground that no vacant post was available in the cadre of Operator (E&M;). However, the respondent had in the meanwhile invited applications from departmental Khalasis for the post of Operator (E&M;) vide letter dated 17.5.1984. The petitioner, thereforee, filed a claim against his wrongful termination before the Additional Labour Commissioner. The parties arrived at a settlement before the Additional Labour Commissioner on 28.4.1986. The ...
S.M. Bose Vs. All India Institute of Medical Sciences and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-13-1993
Reported in: 1993(26)DRJ544
A.B. Saharya, J.(1) By this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed for a writ of mandamus for quashing the appointment of respondent No.3 as Professor in the Department of Surgery, and for appointing the petitioner to the post, in conformity with the recommendations made by the Selection Committee, in pursuance of advertisement No.3/91 published by the Institute of Medical Sciences, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the Institute).(2) The Institute was established and incorporated under Section 3 of the All India Institute of Medical Sciences Act, 1936 (hereinafter referred to as the CWP.2663/92 Act). Section 5 of the Act declares the Institute to be. an Institution of national importance. The Institute, through its Director. Dr. S.K.Kacker is Respondent No. 1. Respondent No.2 is the Governing Body of the Institute constituted from among its Members under sub-section (1) of Section 10 of the Act. The Governing Body is the Executive C...
Amarjit Singh Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-13-1993
Reported in: II(1993)DMC567
Sat Pal, J.1. The case has been called out second time after a pass over but none is present on behalf of respondent No, 2. Even on 30th April, 1993 none appeared on behalf of respondent No. 2 despite service and the case was adjourned to 11th May, 1993. On 11th May, 1993 again none appeared on behalf of respondent No. 2 and the case was again adjourned for today.2. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has drawn my attention to the statement of respondent No. 2 recorded on 11-1-1989 before Ms. Sharda Aggarwal, Additional District Judge, Delhi and it has been stated therein that the petitioner and respondent No. 2 have agreed that they would withdraw pending litigation against each other. He has also drawn my attention to an affidavit duly signed and sworn by respondent No. 2 on 31-5-1988, which is at page 26 of the paper book and in this affidavit it has been stated that a compromise has been struck between the parties. Learned Counsel has further submitted that pursuant to the agreement...
Anil Kumar Malik Vs. Delhi Administration, Delhi
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-12-1993
Reported in: 1993(26)DRJ290
Sat Pal, J. (1) This petition for grant of bail under section 439 Criminal Procedure Code (hereinafter referred to as 'the Code') has been filed by Anil Kumar Malik.During the pendency of the bail petition an application being Cr.M.508/93 has been filed on behalf of the complainant Mrs. Kusum Malik for impleading her in the array of respondents. The aforesaid application has been strongly opposed on behalf of the petitioner. It has, thereforee, become necessary to decide the question; whether applicant has a right to intervene and be heard in opposition to the petition for bail.(2) First Information Report in the present case has been registered against the petitioner under sections 376/384/506/34 Indian Penal Code at the instance of the complainant Mrs. Kusum Malik. It has been alleged in the complaint that the complainant was married to one 0m Prakash Malik, who happens to be a cousin of the petitioner Anil Kumar Malik, in January, 1981. It is further stated in the complaint that bef...
Jai Kumar @ Bichha Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-12-1993
Reported in: 51(1993)DLT526; 1993(26)DRJ473
Sat Pal, J. (1) This is a petition for release of the petitioner on bail under Section 439 of Code of Criminal Procedure. (2) Before dealing with the contentions urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner, it may be pointed out here that the petitioner had earlier also filed a petition for release on bail bearing No.Crl.M(M)2543/92 and the said petition was rejected by my order dated 4th February, 1993. The learned counsel for the petitioner, however, submitted that as stated in the aforesaid order dated 4th February, 1993, even according to the prosecution it was on the instigation of co-accused Bishambar that the petitioner and certain other persons committed murder of Qutub Pyari and Chhuttan. The learned counsel farther drew if my attention to the order dated 28th October, 1992 passed by this court granting bail to co-accused Bishambar. The learned counsel, thereforee, contended that when the earlier petition was decided on 4th February, 1993, the petitioner was not aware of t...
Jumma Singh Vs. Chairman, Food Corporation of India and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-12-1993
Reported in: 1993(26)DRJ613; (1995)ILLJ625Del
D.P. Wadhwa, J.(1) The petitioner, a handling labour working in the Food Corporation of India ('FCI' for short) has filed this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution praying for a writ restraining the respondents from terminating his services or forcing him to retire voluntarily. A writ of prohibition in the negative form is also prayed restraining the respondents from not allowing to perform light duty as the petitioner was presently doing, and yet another prayer is that petitioner be allowed to change his cadre from handling labour to ancillary worker. There are four respondents. Am are officers of the Fci, a statutory corporation established under the Food Corporation Act, 1964. On 4 September 1992 when this petition was taken up for the first time for hearing for admission notice was issued to show cause as to why the same be not admitted and at the same time by interim order it was directed that services of the petitioner be not terminated and he be given light duty. The r...
K.K. Kapoor Vs. Satinder Parkash Anand
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-11-1993
Reported in: 50(1993)DLT586; 1993(26)DRJ487
Sat Pal, J. (1) This petition has been filed against the order dated 2/12/1991 passed by Shri O.P. Gupta, Metropolitan Magistrate,Delhi. By this order the learned M.M. dismissed the complaint filed by the petitioner.(2) Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the respondent No. 1had issued a cheque dated 24/07/1991 for Rs. 7,000.00 and the afore said cheque when presented on two occasions was dishonoured. Despite notice dated 30/09/1991 the amount of the cheque was not paid by the respondent to the petitioner. Accordingly, the petitioner filed a complaint under Section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act against the respondent. The learned M.M. dismissed the complaint on the ground that the cheque at the first instance was dishonoured vide memo dated 12.8.91 and the limitation will start from the dishonouring of the cheque at the first instance. Since the notice was not issued within limitation from the dishonouring the cheque at the first instance, the complaint was liable to be di...
Neev Investment and Trading Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Sasia Express Couriers Pvt. ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-11-1993
Reported in: 51(1993)DLT443; 1993(26)DRJ500
S.C. Jain, J. (1) The facts giving rise to this application are that M/s Neev Investment & Trading Pvt. Ltd (hereinafter referred to as the plaintiff/applicant) is a company incorporated under the Companies Act,1956 and among other businesses, it carries on the business of , couriers through I (2) A Suit for permanent injunction for restraining the defendants from making the use of the name 'SASIA EXPRESS' has been filed and in this Suit this application for ad interim injunction has been filed. (3) The defendant/respondent No. I made appearance. It has contested this application and filed a written reply. Defendant/Respondent No.2, Mr. L.R. Sridhar also made appearance through counsel and filed a separate reply in which it has been admitted that the plaintiff/applicant is carrying on the business of couriers under the name and style of 'SASIA EXPRESS',but however, the principal company is M/s Neev Investment and Trading Pvt Ltd. He has also admitted that he was working with the plaint...
United India Periodicals Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Bank of Baroda and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-10-1993
Reported in: 1993(26)DRJ324
S.C. Jain, J.(1) Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Ltd, (hereinafter referred to as to MTNL), invited tenders for publication of directories in the metropolis of Delhi and Bombay. Tender of United India Periodicals Pvt Ltd, in short Uip, being-tie highest was accepted and an agreement dated 14.3.87 ( original agreement) duly entered into. Under the agreement Uip was to publish directories every .year from 1987 to 1991 for Delhi and Bombay separately and was to pay a total amount of Rs 20.16 crores as royalty to Mtnl and to supply to the Mtnl certain number of directories free of cost which depended upon the number of subscribers. Under the original agreement Uip furnished a performance guarantee in the sum of rupees one crore. Apart from the number of free directories to be supplied by Uip to the Mtnl, Uip was also to supply same number of supplementary directories to Mtnl as well. Supplementary directory was to be brought out between two issues of the directory i.e. six months. after the publ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 8
- 9
- Next ›
- Last »