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.
Diwan Singh Vs. Om Parkash and Others
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-04-1993
Reported in: AIR1993Delhi341
ORDER1. Diwan Singh, the present revisionist has challenged the order of eviction passed against him under Section 14, read with Section 25B of the Delhi Rent Control Act (hereinafter called the Act.) The order of eviction has been assailed inter alias on the ground that respondents/ petitioners before the Addl. Rent Controller had no locus standi to file eviction petition because they were neither owner of the property in question nor their need bona fide. In the absence of bona fide need the eviction order could not have been passed.2. Facts in brief are that the present petitioner was inducted as a tenant with regard to one room in property No. 2/49 Harijan Basti, Sarai Rohilla, Rohtak Road, Delhi, by one Smt. Naraini Devi, on a monthly rent of Rs. 30/- inclusive of electricity and water charges. Om Parkash, respondent No. 1 alleged himself to be the husband and respondents 2 and 3 daughters of the said Naraini Devi. They, thereforee claimed themselves as landlord/ owner of the prop...
Hawa Singh Vs. State (Delhi Administration)
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-04-1993
Reported in: 50(1993)DLT605; 1993(26)DRJ245
Sat Pal, J. (1) This is a petition for grant of bail under section 439 of the Criminal Procedure Code. (2) Mr. Naseem, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that there was no person in the raiding party having initial 'MS' of which the seal has been used in alleged sealing the sample and the case property. He further submitted that there is no Explanationn as to why the seal of any member of the raiding party was not taken and used. He, thereforee, contended that in these circumstances, prima facie, the genuineness of the search and seizure is doubtful. In support of his contention he relied on two judgments of this Court reported in Mohd. Anis @ Anis Ahmad vs. State 1992 Jcc 446 and Ram Saran @ Kale vs State 1992 Jcc 447. (3) Mr. Sawhney, learned counsel appearing for the State, admitted the fact that the seal of 'MS' belongs to Si Mohinder Singh who was not a member of the raiding party. He, however, submitted that the aforesaid officer was posted at Special Staff Dhaula K...
Milk Food Ltd. Vs. Kiran Khanna
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-04-1993
Reported in: 51(1993)DLT141
P.N. Nag, J.(1) This revision petition has been tiled against the order dated 16.7.1988 passed by Shri V.K. Jain, Additional Rent Controller,Delhi whereby he has allowed the eviction petition of the respondent-landlady for bonfire requirement under Section 14(l)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act').(2) The relevant facts set out in the pleadings of the parties necessary for determining the point in controversy are that the respondent who has stated herself to be the owner of Flat No. 6-B, Raj Hans, 33-Prithvi Raj Road,New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the premises), let out these premises to Milk Food Ltd i.e., the petitioner-tenant for the residence of its Managing Director Shri K.S. Jaiswal at a monthly rent of Rs. 2.000.00 plus Rs. 600.00 for fixtures (in all Rs. 2.600.00 per month). The respondent's husband, viz., Major Satish Khanna who had been in military services was getting subsidiary from the Government under the rules of Military servic...
Sudershan Thukral Vs. Khem Col. B. Mankani
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-04-1993
Reported in: 50(1993)DLT607
Usha Mehra, J.(1) Since a common point of law is involved in both the petitions being No. Cr 17/93 and Cr 88/93. I thereforee propose to these by a common order.(2) The petitioners have assailed the impugned order of the Addl.Rent Controller on the ground that their leave to defend application has been Wrongly rejected. The landlord/owner had failed to prove his bona fiderequirement. Landlord's son acquired in 1990 a Dda flat at Vasant Kunj,consisting of three bedrooms which he has let out on rent. This fact has not been taken cognizance of by the Court below, hence in the absence of anyone fide requirement the petition ought to have been dismissed. Moreover,the intention of the landlord/owner was to sell the property and not to occupy himself.(3) Brief facts of the case are that Khem Chand B. Mankani,respondent is the owner of the premises bearing No. B-54, New RajinderNagar. He is about 81 years old and his wife about 78 years old. Both are suffering from various ailments. Beside his...
Mrs. Margaret Kathleen Gandhi Vs. Union of India and Others
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-03-1993
Reported in: 1993(26)DRJ455; [1994]205ITR610(Delhi)
C.L. Chaudhry, J. 1. Property bearing No. 197, Block 'A' defense Colony, New Delhi, belonged to Mrs. Raj Laxmi Narain and Mrs. Bhuvanam Ramaswamy, respondents Nos. 7 and 8. The petitioner herein entered into an agreement for the purchase of the property from the owners. Pursuant to the said agreement to sell, the petitioner and the owners submitted Form No. 37-I to the appropriate authority under section 269UC of the Income-tax Act, 1961. By order dated March 14, 1988, the appropriate authority, exercising power under sub-section (1) of section 269UD of the Income-tax Act, ordered the purchase of the property by the Central Government for an amount equal to the apparent consideration for the transfer of the property. The challenge in this writ petition is to the order dated March 14, 1988, passed by the appropriate authority. The order of the appropriate authority is challenged on the ground that it does not state the reasons purported to have been recorded not does it disclose the gro...
B.B. Patel Vs. Nexim Exports Pvt. Ltd. and anr
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-03-1993
Reported in: 1993(26)DRJ204
C.M. Nayar, J. (1) The present suit has been filed by the plaintiff for recovery of Rs.24,20,000.00 against the defendants under the provisions of Order 37 of the Code of Civil Procedure. (2) The brief facts of the case are that the plaintiff is the proprietor of the Firm in the name and style of M/s Nicolian Brothers. Defendant no. 1 is a Private Limited Company and defendant no.2 is the Managing Director of defendant no. 1. The plaint further avers that the plaintiff and defendants 1 and 2 were having good business relations and. as such, were dealing with each other. In the month of September, 1988, defendant no.2 approached the plaintiff and expressed that he was in financial crisis and he asked for a Short Term Temporary loan of Rs.20,00,000.00, carrying an interest at the rate of 21 per cent per annum. The plaintiff has also reiterated that defendant no.2 assured that the said loan would be returned on or before December 31, 1988, because the payment from the foreign party was ex...
Shri I.M.i. Vs. Union of India and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-03-1993
Reported in: 1993(26)DRJ251
C.M. Nayar, J. (1) The petitioner has filed the present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, for grant of appropriate writ, directions to the Union of India for transfer of two-third of the premises known as4. Flagstaff Road,CivilLines, Delhi, to the petitioner, who is a displaced person from West Pakistan by sale, under the provisions of Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1954 and the Rules made there under. The petitioner has also prayed for cancellation of the restoration orders in favor of Shri A.A.Rushdie on the ground that he is not a citizen of India and he has played a fraud on the Central Government by representing that he is an Indian National. (2) The petitioner has averred in the petition that he is a displaced person from West Pakistan,whose father migrated to India along with other family members in the year 1947 in the wake of the partition of India. The father of the petitioner, occupied the premises, 4, Flagstaff Road,Civi...
Hargo Rubber Industries (P) Ltd. Vs. Mukesh Sharma and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-03-1993
Reported in: 1(1994)ACC617
Usha Mehra, J.1. M/s. Hargo Rubber Industries (P) Ltd. by this appeal under Section 110D of the Motor Vehicles Act (hereinafter called 'the Act') has assailed the award dated 31st August, 1981 passed by Shri H.P. Bagchi, Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Delhi (hereinafter called 'the Tribunal'). The award has been challenged inter alias on the ground that the observation of the Tribunal, regarding the jeep being roadworthy and Mohan Bahadur, the driver drove the same with the consent or permission of the appellant are contrary to the evidence placed on record. Further that Mohan Bahadur was not in the employment of the appellant. He had in fact stolen the jeep from the Chaupal, hence the appellant could not have been held vicariously liable. The Tribunal erroneously awarded the compensation for permanent disability as well as for future loss whereas both the terms are synonymous to each other and two separate amounts against each head could not have been awarded for the same disa...