Delhi Court December 1994 Judgments

BhasIn Construction Co. (P) Ltd. Vs. National thermal Power Corporatio ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 1994IVAD(Delhi)1135; 1995(32)DRJ438

C.M. Nayar, J. (1) The present judgment will dispose of suit Nos. 1496-A/86 arising from arbitration proceedings between the parties. The arbitrator, Shri R.S.Gupta has moved this Court under Section 14(2) of the Indian Arbitration Act and filed the award dated 7th May, 1986 and the proceedings. The respondent. National Thermal Power Corporation, New Delhi, (hereinafter called the 'Corporation') has impugned the award dated 7th May, 1986 by filing objections under Sections 30 and 33 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') . The other connected suit (Suit No. 1510-A/86) arises out of the award dated 15th May, 1986, rendered by the same arbitrator, in which the claim of the Corporation for refund of alleged excess payment of Rs-4,72,372.74 for labour escalation was rejected with costs. This matter is being disposed of by a separate judgment but the facts are common as they arise out of the same contract. (2) The brief facts of the cases are that the respondent...

Samgeeta Sharma Vs. University of Delhi and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 1995IAD(Delhi)137; 57(1995)DLT80

Cyriac Joseph, J. (1) The dispute involved in these writ petitions relates to admission to LL.B. course 1994-95 in the Faculty of Law, University of Delhi.The petitioners sought admission but could not secure admission. Notice to show cause as to why rule nisi be not issued, was issued in these writ petitions and affidavit in reply to the show cause notice was filed on behalf of the respondents in Cwp No. 3967/94. According to the petitioners the refusal to admit them wasillegal, arbitrary and unjust. But the respondents contend that admission wasdenied to the petitioners for valid and justifiable reasons. Since the issues involved in these writ petitions are common and the contentions raised are identical, we propose to dispose of these cases by a common order.(2) As per the printed Bulletin of Information issued by the Faculty of Law,University of Delhi, (produced as Annexure R-1 along with the reply to the show cause notice) admissions to LL.B. course for all the three Law Centres d...

Essex Farms (Pvt.) Ltd. Vs. Union of India

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 1995IAD(Delhi)152; 57(1995)DLT8; 1995(32)DRJ171

Devinder Gupta, J. (1) Circular dated 2.8.1991 issued by respondent No.2 spelling out the policy of respondent No. 1 restricting registration of suppliers for the supply of 'Meat Tinned' only to public sector undertakings (for short 'PSUs') and State Level Federations (for short 'Federations') owning manufacturing units is under challenge in this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. At the time of filing of this writ petition, the petitioner had also sought relief restraining respondents 1 & 2 from accepting the tender of respondent No.3 and seeking directions to consider the petitioner's tender dated 23.9.1991 for supply of 800 metric tonnes Meat Canned Curried for the consumption of Indian defense Forces. These prayers have now become infructuous due to the contract being awarded in favor of respondent No.3 and period of supply having come to an end. Petitioners now seek prayer (a) and (c) namely to quash the circular dated 2.8.1991 and to direct respondents...

Sanjeev Puri Vs. State

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 57(1995)DLT18

S.D. Pandit, J. (1) Sanjiv Puri, s/o Krishan Rai Puri resident of C-50, Panchsheel Enclave, New Delhi stands convicted by the Additional Sessions Judge of Delhi in Session's case No. 105/89 on 8th August, 1990 of the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and is sentenced to suffer '' imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000 and in default to undergo R. I. for six months. (2) The case of the prosecution could be stated as under: Deceased Narender Kumar Garg was a businessman dealing in Chemicals and was having shop bearing name Rajanish Chemical Company in Tilak Bazar of New Delhi. The present appellant Sanjiv Puri is also a dealer in Chemicals and is having his shop at house No. 93, Sector 15-A, Faridabad. It is the claim of the prosecution that the appellant and deceased Narender Kumar Garg were having business dealing. The appellant was a distributor for the Chemicals of Deepak Nitrite Company and thereforee, deceased Narender Kumar had transaction...

Ajay Singh Vs. State

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 56(1994)DLT716; 1994(31)DRJ564

Jaspal Singh, J. (1) The petitioner seeks bail in a case which charges him with having violated the body of a nineteen summers old girl. (2) What does the prosecution show? There was a boy named Parveen who lived in the same locality. She. fell for him. And, he promised to marry her. An usual paper-back stuff? Perhaps. But surely it is more sor did. In this age when women can do the old, cool-guy stuff - fly an aircraft, beat a man at poker, run a tractor and light a cigarette in a high wind, they seem to still remain most vulnerable in the matter of heart and this girl, probably being no exception, and little Realizing that she was being led to deserted islands of pain and agony, went Unquestioningly Along with him to a flat. It was the first day of the first month of 1994. There she was raped not by Parveen alone but by one Mukesh @ Bitto as well. As if all this was not enough, she was even photographed in the act. That photograph became a ready tool in the subsequent games of the fl...

Naresh Kumar Vs. Union of India and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 1994IVAD(Delhi)1084; 56(1994)DLT746; 1994(31)DRJ621

M. Jagannadha Rao, C.J. (1) The writ petition raises the question, of levy of property tax under the provisions of the Delhi Municipal Corporation.Act,1957 (hereafter called Dmc Act,1957), upon buildings constructed in agricultural lands,inthe context of Section 115(4)(c) of the said Act exempting 'agricultural lands and buildings (other than dwelling houses.' . (2) We shall-refer briefly to the facts of the case. The petitioner claims to 623 have purchased agricultural land admeasuring 13 bighas 10 bids was bearing Khasra No. 6, Killa No. 16 (3.01), 6/15 (3-11), 6/17(4-16), 6/24 (1-14), 6(0.18), situate in the revenue estate of village Bijwasan, Tehsil Mehrauli, New Delhi, as per Annexures P2 and P3. Petitioner says that on 5.8.93, the property was mutated in the name of the petitioner, that in 1986-87, a tube-well was bored for irrigation purposes, that a boundary wall was constructed in 1986- 87 and as the land was situated in the rural area of Union Territory of Delhi, no permissio...

Kochar Oil Mills Ltd. Vs. Chhatar Extractions Ltd. and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 1994IVAD(Delhi)1081; 1995(1)ARBLR120(Delhi); 56(1994)DLT713; 1994(31)DRJ705

R.C. Lahoti, J. (1) Plaintiff has sought for an ad-interim injunction restraining passing off by the defendants of its goods those as of the plaintiffs, in a suit seeking permanent injunction of a similar nature. (2) According to. the plaintiff it has been carrying on the business of manufacturing refined oil under the name and style of Pakwan from the year 1984. The trade mark having been invented, adopted and used ever since 1984 by the plaintiff, it has acquired a proprietory interest therein. The plaintiff has incurred substantial expenditure on popularising the trade mark. It is having substantial sales running into lacs per year. Shortly before the filing of this suit on 17.5.94 the plaintiff learnt that the defendant had started manufacturing and -marketing its own oil in the trade name of Pakwan which is likely to deceive unwary customers leading them into believing the defendant's oil to be of the plaintiffs'. (3) The plaintiff's prayer for the grant of ad- interim injunction ...

Court on Own Motion Vs. S.K. Ahluwalia

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 1995RLR82

Mahinder Narain, J. (1) Notice of contempt was issued to a number of advocates who are practicing members of Shahdara Bar Association on the basis of reference which was made by Mr. S N. Dhingra, Add). S J. (2) In view of the fact that a number of advocates were issued notices and we find it difficult to hear regular matters, in view of the large daily admissions we think it proper that we will deal with notices to each of the advocates separately. (3) We have heard Mr. R L. Tandon so far as contempt notice to Mr. R.K. Kochhar, Advocate is concerned. The allegations which go to make up the case against him in the reference are in following terms : 'THE fresh elections of the Bar Association has taken place on 9.9.94. The results of these elections were declared and the new Executive has been elected. The members of Bar started appearing in the Courts since morning of 129.94. But few Ex-leaders of the Bar and a few other Advocates finding that the witnesses have come in their cases soug...

Amarjit Singh and anr. Vs. State (Delhi Administration)

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 1994IVAD(Delhi)1171; 1995CriLJ1623; 1995(1)Crimes777; 1995(32)DRJ110

P.K. Bahri, J. (1) The appellants - Amarjit Singh and Prem Prakash have been convicted of offences punishable under Section 20 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act vide judgment dated May 25, 1992, by an Additional Sessions Judge, Delhi, and Amarjit Singh has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of twenty years and to pay a fine of Rs. 2,00,000.00 and in default to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of two years more. The appellant- Prem Prakash, however, has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of ten years and to pay a fine of Rs.l,00,000.00 and in default to undergo simple imprisonment for one year more. They have filed the present appeal challenging their convictions and sentences. (2) Facts leading to the prosecution of the appellants, in breif, are that a secret informer on May 8, 1987, had given the information to the Special Staff of Morris Nagar area that a Sikh gentleman would be bringing contraband in a J...

Vijay Kumar Jain, Advocate Vs. M/S. Bajaj Auto Ltd. and Another

Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi

R.N. Mittal, President: 1. Briefly, the facts are that the complainant purchased a scooter for a consideration of Rs. 22,000/- from opposite party No. 2(OP2), which is a dealer of M/s. Bajaj Auto Ltd., OP-1, on 7th October, 92. He found within a short period some defects in the scooter including wobbling therein, which were brought to the notice of the OPs. It is alleged that the wobbling of the back wheel could not be rectified by them, though, the scooter was taken to the workshop various times. 2. The complaint has been contested by the OPs, who controverted the allegations of the complainant, and pleaded that after the wobbling was pointed out by the complainant, he did not bring the scooter for repair, though, he was requested to do so. They further stated that the complainant was not entitled to any damages. 3. We heard the learned Counsel for the parties earlier on 8.4.94. When we were hearing the case on that date, we found, that it would not be possible to decide the matter, u...