Delhi Court July 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.
Ravi Kumar Sukhija Vs. G.V. Jannah, Custodian and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-28-1993
Reported in: 53(1994)DLT402
P.K. Bahri, J. (1) This petition is brought seeking writ of certiorari or any other writ for quashing order dated March 28, 1973, passed by rest pondent No. 2 by which the services of the petitioner were terminated. (2) The facts of the case are that the petitioner was employed as an Inspector at Sirsa by the Divisional Manager of the then.M/s. Indian Mercantile Insurance Company Ltd., New Delhi, with effect from December 1, 1970, at a total salary of Rs. 200.00 r month vide letter dated December 4, 1970. Services of the petitioner were terminated by the respondent vide letter dated March 28, 1973, with effect from April 30,1973. (3) On May 13, 1971, the Management of one hundred and six General Insurance Companies including that of M/s. Indian Mercantile Insurance Company Ltd. was taken over by the Government of India in pursuance of the provisions of an Ordinance, namely, General Insurance (Emergency Provisions) Ordinance 1971, which was later on substituted by an Act of Parliament k...
S.P. Murgai Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-28-1993
Reported in: 1993IIIAD(Delhi)355; 1993(27)DRJ193
D.P. Wadhwa, J. (1) Rule D.B. We have heard the matter in detail and proceed to decide the matter. (2) By this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution the petitioner, a service officer, seeks a declaration that he was entitled to promotion to the rank of Brigadier w.e.f. 13 November 1992 and that the order dated 29 October 1992 promoting the third respondent who was junior to the petitioner to the rank of Brigadier overlooking the right of the petitioner, was illegal and of no effect. (3) There are three respondents. First respondent is Union of India through the Secretary in the Department of defense Production & Supplies in the Ministry of defense, second respondent is the DirectorGeneral,QualityAssurance;andthe third Colonel S.B. Despande (now promoted as Brigadier). (4) The petitioner was commissioned in the Indian Army in 1962 and then permanently seconded to the Directorate General, Quality Assurance Organisation in the Department of defense Production & Supplies in ...
Mohd. Shafi Bakshi Vs. Krishna Bansal
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-28-1993
Reported in: 1993(27)DRJ124
D.K. Jain, J. (1) This revision petition under section 25B(8) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 read with sections 115 and 151 CPC is directed against the judgment,dated 05 July 1989, of the Addl. Rent Controller, Delhi, who had passed a decree for eviction of the petitioner/ tenant (hereinafter referred to as the tenant) from the ground floor of house No. S-77, Greater Kailash, Part I, New Delhi on respondent's/Iandlady's (hereinafter referred to as the landlady) application under section 14(1)(e) of the said Act. (2) The landlady, a widow of an Air Force Officer, let out to the petitioner the entire ground floor of the said property comprising of three bed rooms with attached baths, one drawing-cum-dining room, one kitchen-cum-pantry, back verandah and courtyard, one servant's quarter and lawn in front, on 27 December 1979, vide a registered lease agreement dated 27December 1976,(Ex.A-l),for a fixed period of two years commencing from 01 January 1977, initially at Rs.1,800.00 p.m. ...
Harjinder Singh Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-28-1993
Reported in: 1993IIIAD(Delhi)677; 1994CriLJ235; ILR1994Delhi81
Anil Dev Singh, J.(1) This is a writ petition' under Article 226 of the Constitution of India with the prayer that the detention order dated December 8, 1992 under Section 3(1) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 (for short 'COFEPOSA') passed against the petitioner by detaining authority, respondent No. 2 be quashed.(2) The allegations on the basis of which the petitioner was detailed, briefly stated are as under : The petitioner was intercepted at Igi Airport by the! custom authorities, when he arrived from Hong Kong on September 1, 1992 and was subjected to personal search. As a result of the personal search of the petitioner 1708.400 grams of gold valued at Rs. 6,83,360.00 was recovered from his possession. Pursuant to notice under Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962, the petitioner admitted that he brought the said gold from Hong Kong clandestinely and also admitted its recovery and seizure on his search by the custom authoritie...
Roma Sanyal Vs. S.K. Bagari
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-28-1993
Reported in: 1993IIIAD(Delhi)451; 51(1993)DLT664; 1999(27)DRJ15
-Sat Pal, J.(1) In this case the plaintiff has filed a suit for grant of a decree for specific performance of agreement for the transfer of the first floor, barsati and the staircases up to the top floor and the portion below the staircase on the ground floor of the building situated on E-885, Chittranjan Park, New Delhi along with all consequential and incidental rights. The issues were framed on22nd March, 1983. The case was fixed for trial twice. The dates of trial had to be cancelled on the first occasion at the instance of the plaintiff. On the second occasion the learned counsel for the defendant submitted on 13th November, 1992 that the valuation of the suit for the purposes of jurisdiction being fixed at Rs. 1.62 lakhs, the suit was likely to be transferred to the lower court and as such its dates of trial which were fixed from 13thNovember, 1992 to 26th November, 1992were cancelled. Now the dates of trial are yet to be fixed. (2) The present application has been filed on behal...
Suhag Traders Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Apparel Export Promotion Council and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-27-1993
Reported in: 1993IIIAD(Delhi)317; 1993(27)DRJ418
P.K. Bahri, J. (1) This writ petition has been brought seeking quashment of order of suspension dated May 10,1993, and also the show-cause notice issued on even date by respondent No. I -Apparel Export Promotion Council thereinafter referred to as the Council. Petitioner No.1 is a company incorporated under the Companies Act and petitioner No.2 is its Managing Director. The petitioner No. I is engaged, inter alia, in the business of fabrication for export of various kinds of garments and is registered as an exporter with respondent No.1-the Council.(2) The export of ready made garments to various countries of the world is on the basis of bilateral agreements entered into between the Government of India and other Governments of the importing countries. On the basis of such bilateral agreements a particular quantity of garments is permitted to be imported in particular importing countries. The countries like Usa restrict import of cotton garments and issue quotas to various countries inc...
Randhir Singh and anr. Vs. State of Delhi
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-27-1993
Reported in: 1993IIIAD(Delhi)241; 51(1993)DLT494; 1993(26)DRJ565
S.C. Jain, J.(1) The allegation against these petitioners is that they had used a forged rent receipt allegedly bearing the thumb impression of Mrs. Harbans Kaur, land lady as a genuine document before the officials of. the Municipal Corporation of Delhi for issuance of a factory license for a factory to be run in the premises in their tenancy. The complainant, Mrs. Harbans Kaur had disputed that the thumb impression was not hers. On the basis of these allegations, these petitioners were prosecuted under Sections 420/467/471 IPC. To prove its case the prosecution took the specimen thumb impressions of the complainant and had sent the same for comparison vis-a-vis the thumb impression on the alleged rent receipt to the finger prints division of the Cfsl, which submitted the report that the specimen thumb impression and the questioned thumb impression on the rent receipt did not belong to the same person. In defense the petitioners got the questioned and the specimen thumb impressions ex...
General Marketing and Mfg Co. Ltd. Vs. Union of India
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-26-1993
Reported in: 1993IIIAD(Delhi)233; 1993(2)ARBLR432(Delhi); 1993(26)DRJ617
Sat Pal, J. (1) This is a petition filed by the petitioner under Section 8 and 12 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). In this petition the petitioner has prayed for appointment of an independent Arbitrator of the status of a retired judge of this Court or the Supreme Court of India. The petition has been opposed by the Union of India. respondent herein. (2) Briefly stated the facts of the case are that on 4.3.71 petitioner company entered into a rate contract with the respondent for the supply of spare parts for the 'TEREX' make of earthmoving and construction equipment of USA/Canada/UK origin for the period from 17.2.71 to 16.2.74. Certain disputes arose between the parties which were referred to Arbitration in terms of the clause 24 of the Agreement. By his award dated, 29th July, 1977, the Arbitrator dismissed the petitioner's claim forRs.5,30,852.48 with 18% interest. (3) The petitioner company challenged the abovementioned award which was set aside b...
Govind NaraIn and Brothers Vs. Union of India
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-26-1993
Reported in: 1993(27)DRJ134
Sat Pal, J. (1) This is a suit for declaration, damages and permanent injunction. In this suit the plaintiff has prayed to this Court to grant a declaration to -the effect that A/T No. TP-3/101/801/8.3.80/Z3/PAOD/247 dated 11-11-1980 did not create a valid, binding and concluded contract. In the alternative it has been prayed for a declaration that the letter of cancellation dated 9.4.83 and the letter of demand dated 20.8.1981 making the demand of Rs.7,80,933.76 are arbitrary, unilateral, ineffective, inoperative and void. The plaintiff has further prayed for passing a decree for Rs. 1.00 lac as damages against the defendant. (2) Briefly stated the facts of the case are that pursuant to a tender inquiry NO.TP/ 101/801/8.3.80/Z-3/TEC-1407 issued by the defendant, the plaintiff submitted a tender offering to supply 23,292 Pole Line Construction Wood @ Rs.66.00 per number. The offer was open till 23.7.1980 which was later extended up to 23.10.1980. (3) It has been averred in the plaint t...
Umika Agencies Vs. Suresh Tanwar
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-26-1993
Reported in: 1993RLR623
Jaspal Singh, J.(1) Does the land with respect to which a decree for possession has been passed fall within the meaning of 'premises' as defined in S. 2(i) of Delhi Rent Control Act (the Act). This question assumes importance since it is not disputed that if what had been let out was actually 'premises', S. 50 of the Act was a bar to the respondents obtaining the decree for possession. (2) On 24.9.1970 the predecessor-in-interest of the respondents entered into a lease agreement with the petitioner with regard to a piece of land. The lease was to commence 'on the handing over the possession of the said land with the planned boundary wall around'. Clause 3 of the agreement was : 'THAT the said Lessees will provide shed, office as we 1 as Chowkidar hut at their own expenses and costs and will remove all materials at their own cost at the time of termination of the lease, mutually arranged and agreed.'(3) Admittedly the petitioner, after having entered into possession of the land, raised ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »