Delhi Court May 1994 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.
Yudhvir Singh and ors. Vs. State (Delhi Administration)
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-01-1994
Reported in: 1994IIIAD(Delhi)617; 1994(30)DRJ98
Y.K. Sabharwal, J. (1) The appellant Yudhvir Singh has been convicted by Court of Session for offence of murder under Section 302 Indian Penal Code and sentenced to life imprisonment, his brothers Dharamvir and Jasbir Singh have been convicted for offence under Section 323 and also Section 323 read with Section 34 IPC and another brother Ranbir Singh for offence under Section 323 read with Section 34 Indian Penal Code and they have been sentenced for different periods. Their father Hari Singh was acquitted of all the charges. All the four brothers have filed this appeal. Briefly, the prosecution case is as follows:- There was theft in the house of daughter of Hari Singh. The sons of Hari Singh suspected deceased Narender for the said theft. On 5th February 1986 there was a quarrel between sons of Hari Singh on one hand and Narender on the other. According to Bhisham Tanwar, the brother of Narender, at about 6.30 p.m. February 1986 he was in his house when he heard loud abusing voices a...
Varsha Poly Products (P) Limited Vs. C.C. Kandla and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-01-1994
Reported in: 1994IIAD(Delhi)767; 1994(29)DRJ422
K. Shivashankar Bhat, J.(1) The petitioner is aggrieved by the order of the 2nd respondent (popularly referred as CEGAT), whereby, the petitioner was directed to deposit Rs.10 lakhs within 3 months of the order as a condition to consider the appeal filed before it by the petitioner; recovery of the balance amount was stayed pending disposal of the appeal. (2) Petitioner imported 385 Mts of Polystyrene vide spec General Purpose and 122.5 Mts of Polystyrene vide spec High Impact Grade from Korea. Bills of Entries were filed to enable the -:2:- customs clearance. The Customs Authorities released 80% of the imported goods provisionally, on petitioner executing a bond for differential duty pending enquiry and on payment of a duty of Rs.69,15,251.00 . According to the petitioner 20% of the imported goods valued at Rs.l5,81,49l.00 is still with the authorities. Thereafter a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner on 23.2.1993, (3) Show cause notice alleges that there has been misdeclar...
Mohan Exports (i) Pvt. Limited and anr. Vs. Delhi Electric Supply Unde ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-01-1994
Reported in: 1994IIIAD(Delhi)3; 1994(29)DRJ442
K. Shivashankar Bhat, J.(1) The petitioner questions the electricity bills issued in respect of two meters - (i) K.120027 and (ii) 120029, in the month of September, 1986. (2) According to the petitioner, in the month of July 1986, petitioner had received a bill in respect of the meter No.120027, for a sum of Rs.76,257.11 (Annexure I). This bill gave the consumption charges as Rs. 10,617.70. However, under the head, 'Miscellaneous charges', a sum of Rs.62,508.19 was claimed. A few more such sums under different heads were also claimed. But the bill nowhere claimed any sum towards any arrears; in fact, the column under the head 'arrears' was left blank. Petitioner states that on a representation made, the concerned officer ordered to amend thebill,because, there was no occasion to collect any miscellaneous charges from the petitioner. Thereafter a bill was issued(AnnexureA)in September, 1986. The entire sum of Rs.76,257.11 claimed in the earlier bill was shown as arrears. An amount of R...
Lekh Raj Grover and anr. Vs. Delhi Development Authority and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-01-1994
Reported in: 1994IIIAD(Delhi)336; 55(1994)DLT23
K. Shivshankar Bhat, J.(1) The petitioner challenges the order rejecting this application for an industrial plot in Mangolpuri Industrial Area, Phase I & Ii, Delhi and further seeks a direction to the respondents to allot him a plot measuring 200 Sq. mts. at Rs. 200.00 per sq. mt' in the said Industrial Area.(2) Petitioner has been carrying on industrial activity under the name of M/s.Apsara Industries (earlier, the name was M/s. Cheap Stationery Supply Company)at premises No. K-30, Kirti Nagar, New Delhi. The industry was started in the year1973. The place where the petitioner has been running his industry is in a 'Non-Conforming Area' CNCA' for short). Locating the industries in Nca and their continued presence in those areas are opposed to the master plan and thereforee those industries had to be shifted, failing which the industrialists faced prosecution. The Delhi Development Authority ('DDA') came forward with a scheme to allot industrial plot to those industrialists elsewhere. I...
Delhi Cloth Mills Ltd. Vs. Delhi Development Authority
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-01-1994
Reported in: 55(1994)DLT417; 1994(30)DRJ429
Anil Dev Singh, J. (1) This appeal is preferred against the order of the learned Single Judge dated March' 9, 1994 passed in I.A.796/94 in suit No.1085/91. The facts guying rise to this appeal are as under:(2) The appellant claims that it was the owner of land comprised in Khasra Nos.486,487 and 488 situate in village Pati Jahanuma Tehsil Delhi, District Delhi, and that in lieu of this land it was allotted land comprised in Khasra Nos-1613/153, 1654/153 and 1615/153 situate in Baghraoji Estate, Delhi. According to the appellant it is in possession of this land admeasuring 5071 sq. yds. since 1942 and has also made construction over it.(3) On September 1, 1955 the Delhi Improvement Trust issued a notice under section 4 of the Government Premises (Eviction) Act, 1950 claiming damages from the appellant for its unauthorised occupation of the said premises. Thereafter on March 19, 1963 proceedings were initiated by the Estate Officer under the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occu...
Hardai Vs. Union of India and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-01-1994
Reported in: 55(1994)DLT295
K. Shivashankar Bhat, J. (1) Petitioner, Hardai was the wife of Dafedar Har Chand. She filed the present writ petition seeking family pension. In the writpetition, there is no prayer for the grant of family pension from any particular date.According to the petitioner her husband joined the Army on 1.5.1911 and retired on 16.11.1921; he was a Dafedar in Unit 7th Hariana Lancers. It is stated in the Writ Petition that she was married to Harchand in the year 1920, prior to his discharge from the Army. On his retirement from the Army Harchand was getting a pension of Rs. 9.00 per month (a considerable sum having regard to the then purchasing power of the rupee). Harchand died on 14.11.1972. In the year 1977, a scheme was introduced for the payment of family pension for those who retired prior to the year1964. According to the petitioner, the minimum family pension was Rs. 196.00 in the year 1977 which was increased to Rs. 375.00 per month w.e.f. 1.1.1986. Petitioner submitted the necessary...
Mahinder Singh Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-01-1994
Reported in: 1994IIIAD(Delhi)653; 1994(29)DRJ435
V.B. Bansal, J. (1) Mahinder Singh has filed this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, with the following prayers: I)Issue a Writ of Certiorari to ask the respondents to place on record the order of detention and grounds of detention passed in respect of the petitioner; ii) Issue a Writ of Certiorari to quash the order of detention passed in respect of the petitioner; iii) Issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to revoke the order of detention passed in respect of the petitioner; iv) Issue any other appropriate writ, order or direction as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the interest of justice.(2) According to the petitioner an order dated 12.7.1990 has been passed by the respondent No.2, Joint Secretary to the Government of India, Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue, North Block, New Delhi, under Section 3(1) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling A...
Pawan Kumar Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-01-1994
Reported in: 54(1994)DLT674; 1994(29)DRJ438
V.B. Bansal, J.(1) Pawan Kumar, petitioner has challenged the order of detention dated 10.5.1993 passed under Section 3(1) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange & Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') in pursuance of which, he was detained on 20.9.1993. The order, aforesaid, was pasted by Shri Mahinder Prasad, Joint Secretary to the Government of India, Department of Revenue, Ministry of Finance for the detention of Pawan Kumar and to be detained with a view to preventing him in future from acting in any marine prejudicial to the augmentation of foreign exchange. The grounds of detention were served upon the petitioner simultaneously when he was detained. (2) Briefly stated the facts leading to the passing of the detention order against the petitioner are that the Delhi Zonal Office of Enforcement Directorate had information about one Atam Prakash indulging in illegal sale/purchase of foreign exchange and sending the same to one Nirmal Dhanuka ...
- ‹ Prev
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 15
- Next ›