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.
Lawrance Singh Rana Vs. State (Delhi Administration)
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-10-1993
Reported in: 1993(26)DRJ249
Sat Pal, J. (1) The present petition is for grant of bail under section 439 Criminal Procedure Code.(2) Briefly stated, the case of the prosecution is that on 10th May, 1992 some police officers led by Sho police station Lajpat Nagar were on a round in the area where an informant informed the Sho that at Shiv Mandir near Jal Vihar Terminal some persons had charas in their possession. It is further alleged that Sho organized a raiding party and some passers by were informed the circumstances and requested to join the raiding party but all of them expressed their inability. Accordingly, a raid was conducted without associating any public witness. The petitioner tried to run in the direction of Jal Vihar Terminal but was apprehended by Si Shiv Narain with the help of one constable. It is further alleged that a packet containing material which looked like charas was recovered from him and its weight was found to be 0.65 gms out of which 00.5 gms was taken out for the purpose of sampling. T...
Ratan Singh Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-10-1993
Reported in: 51(1993)DLT7; 1993(26)DRJ577
D.P. Wadhwa, J.(1) These are two appeals both filed under: section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short 'the Act') against a common judgment dated 14 February 1969 of the learned Additional District Judge (A.D.J.). The A.D.J. had given his judgment on a reference made to him under sections 30 and 31 of the Act. This was done by the Award No. 1426 dated 28 November 1962 of the Land Acquisition Collector I, Delhi ('Collector' for short). The A.D.J. said that appellants in both the appeals shall be entitled to 50% of the amount of compensation awarded by the Collector in his aforesaid award, and rest of the amount of compensation, he said, would be sent back to the Collector.(2) A chunk of land in village Rajpur Chhawni, Delhi, was notified to be acquired under section 4 of the Act. After necessary declaration and notifications under the Act the Award No. 1426 was made on 28 November 1962. The Collector arrived at a particular figure of compensation which in his opinion was to ...
The Bharat Sewak Samaj Trust Vs. the Union of India and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-07-1993
Reported in: 1993(26)DRJ273
C.M. Nayar, J.(1) The present suit has been filed by the plaintiff against the defendants for declaration that the acquisition of land comprised in Khasra Nos. 301 and 493/302, measuring 12Bighas 5 Biswas, situated in village Ladha Sarai, Delhi State, along with the superstructures, standing thereon, vide notification No. F.4(98)/64/ L & R (ii) dated 6.1.1969, is without jurisdiction, illegal, null and void, as the same does not affect the rights of the plaintiff to the ownership and possession on the said land.(2) The plaintiff is a registered Trust and the present suit has been filed through Shri M.M. Wakhare. The plaintiff is the owner of the land comprised in Khasra Numbers, as mentioned above, and the same were purchased vide Sale Deed dated February 22, 1962, for a sum of Rs. 18,375.00 . The Sale Deed was executed by the Managing ' Officer, Government of India, Ministry of Rehabilitation, Jam Nagar House, New Delhi, for and on behalf of President of India, in favor of Bharat Sewa...
Jagson International Ltd. and anr. Vs. Odebrecht Perfuracoes Ltd. and ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-06-1993
Reported in: 1993(26)DRJ474
C.M. Nayar, J. (1) The petitioners approached this Court by filing the present petition under Section 20 of the Arbitration Act, 1940, against the respondents. The petition was admitted and notice was issued to the respondents. I.A.No. 3958/93 was filed as an interim application, inter alia, for restraining respondents 1 to 4 from :- '(A)entering into collaboration agreement with Respondent no.5 and all respondents together be restrained from entering into contractual relationship with the Ongc for supply to said commission the said two rigs Norbe Ii & Norbe V ( or under assumed name of Excelsior I and Excelsior II) for drilling in the offshore Bombay. (b) from in any way interfering with the possession, enjoyment use and utilisation of the aforesaid rigs by the petitioners or from removing the said two rigs from the Indian waters otherwise than in accordance with procedure established by law. (c) attach before the judgment the said drilling unit namely, Norbe Ii and Norbe V or any oth...
Bank of Baroda Vs. Consortium of Exports for Fabric Exports
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-06-1993
Reported in: 51(1993)DLT123
Arun Madan, J. (1) The facts giving arise to the filing of the appeal,briefly stated, are as under :-(2) The Appellant-Bank had filed a suit in this Court bearing SuitNo. 371/1971 for recovery of Rs. 55,944.46 plus interest thereon, on 2 2/12/1971 against the respondents.(3) Respondent No. 1 is a partnership firm and was operating and carrying on business under the name and style of M/s. Consortium of Exporters for Fabric Exports. Respondents Nos. 2 and 3 were imp leaded as partners of respondent No. 1.(4) As per the averments in the plaint, respondent No. 1 through its partner Shri Dewan Singh, respondent No. 3 approached the appellant-Bank at its said branch office at Connaught Circus, New Delhi on 9/12/1968 for making early arrangements for a forward sale of sterling pounds2,84,444 covering the export contract, hereinafter mentioned, the contract,equivalent to Rs. 51,20,000.00in Indian currency. The said branch office of the appellant made necessary arrangements for a forward sale o...
Jaidev Singh Vs. Sujan Singh and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-06-1993
Reported in: 50(1993)DLT663; 1993RLR462
D.P. Wadhwa, J. (1) This is plaintill's appeal. His suit for declaration and injunction against his two brothers and mother was dismissed by judgment dated 12/11/1969 by the Sub-Judge 1st Class, Delhi,Plaintiff sought a decree that it be declared that property bearing No. 36/15,Tihar Ii, Ashok Nagar, New Delhi, comprising 2-1/2 storeyed and built ona plot of land measuring 100 sq. yards was a joint property of the plaintiff and his two brothers, defendants 1 and 2. The plaintiff also sought permanent injunction restraining the first defendant from disposing of the suit property without the express concurrence in writing of the plaintiff and the otherbrother, defendant No. 2.(2) The principal contesting defendant was defendant No. 1 Sujan Singh in whose name the property was standing. During the pendency of the suit Sujan Singh died and so also the mother of the parties Parmeshwari Devi but not before they had appeared as witnesses during the trial. Defendants2 and 3 were ex pane. They ...
Hukum Chand Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-05-1993
Reported in: 1993CriLJ3863; 1993(3)Crimes479; 50(1993)DLT628; 1993(26)DRJ524
Sat Pal, J. 1. This is a petition under section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for grant of anticipatory bail. 2. Briefly stated the case of the prosecution is that the complainant by Dr. Ramesh Gupta who is the Secretary-cum-Chief Administrator of Doctors Enclave Society, Ludhiana had given a total sum of Rs. 71,25,000/- during the period 16-4-91 to 13-5-92 to the petitioner on his own behalf and on behalf of other members of the Society in connection with the purchase of 10.5 acres of land. This amount was given to the petitioner pursuant to an agreement to sell dated 13-5-91 and supplementary agreements dated 28-6-91 and 30-6-91. It has been alleged in the complaint that the petitioner had induced the complainant and other members of the Society by showing certain documents including agreements to sell dated 25-8-89 between him and 27 farmers and its addendum dated 11-4-91 regarding an alleged purchase of a big piece of land from these farmers. It is further alleged that purs...
Ravi Singhal Vs. Union of India and Another
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-05-1993
Reported in: [1995]83CompCas663(Delhi); 1994CriLJ1699; 51(1993)DLT133; 1993(26)DRJ379; 1995(50)ECC131
R.L. Gupta, J.1. After remaining unsuccessful before the learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (ACMM) and the learned Additional Sessions Judge, (ASJ), New Delhi, the petitioner has approached his court for grant of bail. 2. The brief facts appearing for the prosecution of the petitioner by the Enforcement Directorate under the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 ('FERA' for short) are that during the course of enquiries under the FERA, the Department came to know that the petitioner was collecting payments in India on behalf of one Keith Fair Brother (Keith for short) of Eastern Suburbs Ltd. of the United Kingdom and had been receiving communications in this regard from him. He introduced him to U. K. Paints Industries, New Delhi, and received payments in the form of drafts on behalf of Eastern Suburbs from U.K. Paints and handed the same over to Keith. It is further alleged that there are four drafts dated october 12, 1991, of the Punjab and Sind Bank, New Delhi, favorin...
Ashok Kumar and anr. Vs. State (Delhi Administration)
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-05-1993
Reported in: 1993CriLJ3629; 1993(3)Crimes510; 50(1993)DLT631
Sat Pal, J. (1) The present revision petition has been filed against the order dated 18/09/1992 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Delhi in Sessions Case No. 24/1991. By the aforesaid order the learned Additional Sessions Judge held that, prima fade, a case against all the accused including the petitioners is made oat for charging them under Sections 302/102-B of the Indian Penal Code. The aforesaid order has been challenged by two of the accused, namely, Ashok Kumar and Kuldip Kumar. (2) Briefly stated the facts of the case are that deceased Raj Kumar and one Ravi were in the employment of petitioner Ashok Kumar, who was running a chit fund company. The petitioner Ashok Kumar lodged a report with the police against the aforesaid two persons on 8/03/1990 in respect of the alleged mis-appropriation of Rs. 60,000.00. After the aforesaid amount was returned to the petitioner Ashok Kumar, he gave a statement to the police on 22/03/1990 that he did not want to press the case a...
imamuddIn Vs. State and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-05-1993
Reported in: 1993(3)Crimes462; 51(1993)DLT473; 2003(26)DRJ520
Sat Pal, J. (1) This is a petition filed by the petitioner for his release on bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.(2) Briefly stated the facts of the case are that Shan Mohd. who is the son of the sister of the petitioner was married to Firdosh on 7th May, 1989. The case of the prosecution is that said Firdosh was tortured by her in-laws for not bringing one motor cycle/scooter in dowry and was given a severe beating by Mrs. Zeboo Nishan (mother-in-law). Imamuddin (petitioner), his wife Shabnam, Shan Mohd. (deceased husband) and Faimuddin. Firdosh was got treated by a private doctor, namely, Dr. Parveen on 1.2.92. Since she did not improve, she was taken to Chikitsa Nursing Home, from where she was referred to Safdarjang Hospital on 2nd February, 1992 finding it a suspected case of brain hammer- age. On 10th February, 1992 at 4.55 Pm Firdosh died in Safdarjang Hospital.(3) In this case Fir was registered on 19.12.92 at Malviya. Nagar P.S. under Section 498A/304B/34...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 9
- Next ›
- Last »