Delhi Court January 1994 Judgments
Home Cases Delhi 1994 Page 4 of about 100 results (0.023 seconds)Punjab and Sind Bank Vs. Manjit Singh and anr.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 53(1994)DLT367; 1994(28)DRJ478
Sat Pal, J.(1) This is an application filed on behalf of the plaintiff bank under Order Xxxiv Rule 5 read with Section 151 of Civil Procedure Code (in short the 'Code') and in this application it has been prayed that a final decree of sale be passed in favor of the plaintiff and against the defendant No. 1 and the immoveable property commonly known as M-47, Greater Kailash-l, New Delhi be directed to be sold and the sale proceeds be directed to be paid to the plaintiff for appropriation towards the decretal amount/satisfaction of the decree. Reply to this application has been filed on behalf of the defendant No. 1 and it has been stated therein that no final decree can be passed in favor of the plaintiff and against the defendant No. J with regard to property mentioned above and as such the question of selling the immovable property does not arise. It has further been stated in the reply that the present application is not maintainable as the defendants have taken steps to get the ex- ...
Tag this Judgment!India Timber and Plywood Co. and ors. Vs. Akhil Chit and Finance (P) L ...
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 53(1994)DLT426
Usha Mehra, J. (1) By this application the petitioner has sought condensation of delay in filing the certified copy of the impugned judgment dated 13.11.92, against which the present Revision has been filed. While exempting the petitioner from filing certified copy it was made clear vide order dated 10.2.93 that it was subject to just exception. Petitioner was aware that certified copy had to be filed within time. The limitation for filing the certified copy expired. (2) The facts of the case are that the present petitioners (Defendants before the Trial Court) filed leave to defend application to the suit filed by the respondent under Order 37 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The said application was dismissed vide order dated 13.11.92. Counsel for the petitioners applied for the certified copy on 29.1.93. As per petitioner's own showing the certified copy was ready on 5.3.93, but the same was obtained from the copying agency on 24.3.93 and was filed in this Court on 31.3.93. By this ti...
Tag this Judgment!C.P. Arora Vs. Union of India
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1994(28)DRJ692
P.K. Bahri and Vijender Jain, JJ. (1) Rule D.B. (2) Only a short question is involved in this writ petition. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, we proceed to dispose of this writ petition.. (3) The petitioner has prayed for issuance of direction to the respondents to release all the pensionary benefits including gratuity, commuted value of pension and leave encashment etc. The petitioner had been allowed to voluntarily retire w.e.f. 31st March. 1-993. In the order granting the voluntary retirement to the petitioner, it was mentioned that the same was being allowed subject to the enquiry pending in which petitioner was a witness. The petitioner, although retired, has not been released pensionary benefits and thus he came for seeking the aforesaid reliefs. (4) The respondents have come up with the plea that the pensionary benefits could not be released to the petitioner as he was to be proceeded against for some departmental inquiry. It is asserted by the respondents that...
Tag this Judgment!Prem Kankhedia and ors. Vs. Rajinder Kumar Kankhedia
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1994IAD(Delhi)550; 53(1994)DLT587
J.K. Mehra, J.(1) This is a suit filed by the wife and two minor children of the defendant for maintenance under Sections 18 and 20 of Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1950. Summons of the suit were served on the defendant, but he has not entered any appearance despite service and was proceeded against ex-parte on 25.8.1993. Ex-parte evidence was led on affidavits. (2) From the evidence, I find that plaintiff No. 1 was married to the defendant at Delhi on 5th March, 1981 according to Hindu rites and customs and that plaintiffs No. 2 and 3 were born out of the wedlock between plaintiff No. I and the defendant on 3rd March, 1982 and 17th October, 1984 respectively. Plaintiffs No. 2 and 3 are study ing in Rose and Rose School in Jaipur. At the institution of the suit, they were studying in classes Vi and Iii respectively. The defendant is employed with the State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur at Shashtri Nagar Branch, Jaipur in Rajasthan. As per the statement of salary and allowances for J...
Tag this Judgment!Dr. Anil Kohli Vs. Union of India and Others
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1994IAD(Delhi)450; AIR1994Delhi279; 53(1994)DLT702; 1994(28)DRJ373
ORDERD. P. Wadhwa, J.1. The petitioner, a dental Surgeon holding a Master degree in Dentistry from Lucknow University, has filed this petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution challenging the Notification No. V.120B/5/88-PMS date 9 January, 1990 issued by the Government of India, Ministry of Health and Family Welfare (Department of Health), by which the petitioner stood removed from the membership of the Dental Council of India constituted under the Dentists Act, 1948 (the Act for short). The petitioner had earlier been nominated to the Council by Notification No. V.12013/5/88-PMS dated October, 1989. The petitioner also seeks a declaration that he continues to be the member of the Council till expiry of his term in pursuance of Notification dated 24 October, 1989 which expires on 15 October, 1994. To understand the implications it would be appropriate to reproduce both the notifications:--No. V. 12013/5/88-PMSGovernment of IndiaMinistry of Health and Family Welfare(Deptt. of Health)...
Tag this Judgment!S.C. Bajpai Vs. University of Delhi and ors.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1994IAD(Delhi)473; 53(1994)DLT349; 1994(28)DRJ338
Anil Dev Singh, J. (1) This writ petition filed on behalf of the petitioner challenges the decision of the second respondent the Governing Body of Bhagat Singh College dated August 30,1982, whereby the decision of the Selection Committee dated July 9, 1982 was not accepted and consequently the petitioner was not appointed to the post of Vice Principal In-Charge, Evening Classes. (2) The facts giving rise to this petition are as under;- Sometime in the year 1981 the post of the Vice Principal, Bhagat Singh College (Evening classes) was advertised. The petitioner who was the senior most lecturer in the college applied for the post. On May 15,1982 the petitioner was interviewed by the Selection Committee Along with other candidates. The Selection Committee selected the petitioner for the post of Vice Principal and accordingly recommended his case for appointment to the Governing Body. However, according to the letter of the Principal dated June 28,1982 it appears that the Selection Commit...
Tag this Judgment!Braham Parkash Vs. State and anr.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1994IAD(Delhi)489; 53(1994)DLT454; 1994(28)DRJ353
Y.K. Sabharwal, J. (1) The challenge in this writ petition is to the legality of the order dated 26th February 1993 passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Police-Licensing (hereinafter referred as 'the Licensing Authority') under section 17(3) 0, the Arms Act, 1959 directing the cancellation of the Arms license to the petitioner.(2) The petitioner was issued an all India Arms license by S.D.M., Hansi(Haryana) sometime in the year 1989. The petitioner applied on 22nd December, 1989 for the registration of the said license with the Licensing Authority,Delhi, claiming that he has shifted his residence from Hansi to Delhi. The license was registered in Delhi and by letter dated 4th January, 1990 post verification reports were called from Superintendent Police and District Magistrate, Hissar and also from the Deputy Commissioner of Police, South District, Delhi. The Superintendent of Police, Hissar, reported on 13th February 1990 that the petitioner was not living at Hissar. No reply seems to...
Tag this Judgment!Oriental Carbon and Chemicals Vs. Collr. of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1994)(71)ELT813TriDel
1. M/s. Oriental Carbon & Chemicals Limited have filed the present appeal, against the order-in-appeal No. 649/92-BCH, dated 26-11-1992, passed by the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), Bombay.2. The appellants had entered into a technical collaboration agreement on 1-8-1989, with M/s. Sanshin Chemical Industry Co. Japan, to set up a plant for manufacture of insoluble sulphur in India. They filed an application for allowing import of machinery and equipment for manufacture of the said product, under the project import. On scrutiny of the documents it was noticed that the importers were required to pay lump-sum amounts in foreign exchange towards know-how fee and for basic engineering, to their collaborators in Japan, besides they were also required to pay royalty on the price of the product, sold in India and abroad. Under show cause notice dt. 12-9-1991 it was alleged that all payments made to the collaborators towards the engineering information supplied for the design and m...
Tag this Judgment!Mrs. Rajni JaIn Vs. Lt. Governor of Delhi and Others
Court: Delhi
Reported in: AIR1994Delhi269
ORDERD. P. Wadhwa, J.1. The petitioner, a candidate for appointment as notary has filed this petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution for quashing the notification No. F.17/5/91-Judl., dated 30 April 1992, whereby 32 advocates were appointed as Notaries under the provisions of the Notaries Act, 1952. These advocates are respondents 4 to 35. Respondents 1, 2 and 3 are respectively the Lt. Governor of Delhi, the Delhi Administration through the Secretary (Law and Judicial), and again the Administrator of Union Territory of Delhi through its Chief Secretary. The petitioner also seeks a writ of mandamus directing respondents 1, 2 and 3 to appoint her as a Notary as it is stated that there are still eight vacancies existing as she says she fulfillls all the qualifications for appointment as a Notary. Further direction is sought that appointment of Notaries be made following the procedure prescribed under the Notaries Act, 1952, and the Notaries Rules, 1956 (for short 'the Act' and 'the R...
Tag this Judgment!Shanti Behal Vs. State (Delhi Admn.)
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1994IAD(Delhi)333; 1994CriLJ2043; 1994(28)DRJ299
Y.K. Sabharwal, J. 1. Renu, the deceased and Jagdish Behal were married on 28th November, 1985. Shanti Behal is the mother-in-law of Renu being mother of Jagdish Behal. 2. Briefly, the case set up by the prosecution is that four or five days after the marriage Jagdish made a demand of Rs. 20,000/- from the father of Renu to purchase Colour Television and a Scooter. When the father, Mangal Singh expressed his inability to pay the amount, Jagdish told him that if he did not pay that amount, his mother Shanti would not allow him to keep Renu in the house. Mangal Singh did not tell the fact of demand made by Jagdish to his daughter, Renu. On her visit to the parents house at Ghaziabad Renu told them that on several occasions accused persons were giving beating to her and their behavior towards her was cruel. On 2nd June, 1986 Jagdish left Renu at the house of her parents where she stayed for about three months. Renu was reluctant to go with Jagdish on account of ill treatment. The parents ...
Tag this Judgment!