Delhi Court December 1994 Judgments
Home Cases Delhi 1994 Page 15 of about 144 results (0.018 seconds)Harbans Kaur and ors. Vs. Bhola Nath and anr.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1995IAD(Delhi)272; 57(1995)DLT101; 1995(32)DRJ262
Mohd. Sharnim, J. (1) The appellants/defendants (hereinafter referred to as the appellants for the sake of convenience) have preferred this appeal against the judgment and order passed by the first appellate court dated September 1,1973 whereby the judgment and decree passed by the learned lower court were set aside and a decree for possession over the plot shown by red colour in the plan Ex.P8 was passed in favor of the respondents plaintiffs ( hereinafter referred to as the respondents for the sake of brevity). (2) Brief facts that gave rise to the present appeal are as under: 'THAT one Shri Amar Nath who was the father of the respondent No.1 and the husband of the respondent No.2 purchased plot No. 4790, Roshan Ara Road, Aryapura, Delhi, in a court auction held on January 15,1965. The said auction was subsequently confirmed in favor of the deceased Shri Amar Nath Seth on February 24,1965 by Shri Dalip Singh, Sub Judge 1st Class, Delhi, in a case entitled as Hira Lal Seth v. Shri Ama...
Tag this Judgment!V.N. Sharma and ors. Vs. Lt. Governor and ors.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1995IAD(Delhi)293; 1995(33)DRJ680
Anil Dev Singh, J.(1) It frequently happens that an employee is required to do more than one type of work. What is to be seen is primary and substantial nature of the work performed by him. It is the predominant nature of his work which determines whether he would be a workman or otherwise. In the instant case, the primary and predominant nature of duties of the petitioners are not of manual nature. Duties are rather supervisory and administrative in nature. The petitioners in the process of supervising the work of Safai Karamcharis and other employees may be utilising their technical knowledge but this would be for the purposes of supervision only. Again while supervising they may be giving instructions/ directions and guidance to the latter category of employees. The main feature and pith and substance of the employment of the petitioners is not performance of manual work and, thereforee, they do not fall in the category of `workmen' as defined by F.R.56(b). (2) In the present case, ...
Tag this Judgment!Mazahir Abbas Vs. Union of India and anr.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1994IVAD(Delhi)1125; 1995(1)Crimes166; 1994(31)DRJ530
Arun Kumar, J. (1) This writ petition challenges the detention of the petitioner Mazahir , Abbas. The detenu was detained on 7th June 1994 in pursuance of a detention order made under Section 3(1) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange & Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act bearing F.No.673/4/94- Cus.VIII dated 2nd February 1994. In fact according to the petitioner he had surrendered on 7th June 1994 in the Court of Addl.Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, New Delhi. On 10th June 1994, the detenu was served with the grounds of detention Along with the relied upon documents as per list. Besides the detenu was served with English translation of 13 documents running into 42 pages which were in Hindi, a language not known to the detenu. (2) The allegations against the petitioner are:- (i) That on 12.12.1993, one Shri Pritam Singh, while leaving for Singapore was intercepted at the I.C.I. Airport, New Delhi, on search of whose brief case, U.S.$ 1,27,500 equivalent to Rs-39.33 lacs were found ...
Tag this Judgment!Flora Bose Vs. Suprotik Bose
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 58(1995)DLT224; 1995(32)DRJ290
M. Jagannadha Rao, C.J.(1) A suit was filed for declaration that the respondent/plaintiff is joint owner of the property with the appellant/wife. Pending suit an application under Order 39,Rules 1 & 2 Civil Procedure Code was filed for restraining the appellant/ wife from alienating the property or from inducting any third party into possession. The injunction which was already granted earlier on 19.8.1991 was made absolute under the impugned order dated 28.4.1994. Aggrieved by the said order, this appeal has been preferred by the wife. Learned Single Judge while granting the injunction also came to the conclusion that having regard to the facts and the circumstances of the case, and the sources of the wife for purchasing the property, it could not be said that she could have purchased the property with her own monies. (2) Learned counsel has raised a contention relying upon the decision of the Supreme Court in Ram Saran and Another vs . Smt. Ganga Devi : AIR1972SC2685 to the effect th...
Tag this Judgment!