Delhi Court July 1994 Judgments

Sanjeev Dikshit Vs. University of Delhi and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 55(1994)DLT431

Devinder Gupta, J. (1) We propose to dispose of these three writ petitions by a common order since the questions arising therein are almost same and similar. (2) Dr. Sanjay Dikshit preferred Civil Writ No. 2578/94 praying for appropriate directions that the option of the courses given by respondents 2 to 7 for various post-graduate degree/Diploma courses in various institutions be declared as illegal and to further declare that the courses which have fallen vacant the candidates in the waiting list according to merit may be considered. respondent No. 1 is the Delhi University and respondents 2 to 7 are the candidates who had taken the screening test conducted by the Faculty of Medical Sciences, University of Delhi for admission to post-graduate degree/diploma courses 1994-95 for which screening test was held on 26/ 27/02/1994. (3) Dr. Rajesh Kumar Bawari mentioned as A. Bawari, shown as respondent No. 3 and Dr. Anil Kr. Aggarwal shown as respondent No. 7 in Cw 2578/94, have also prefer...

Diplomatic Enclave Extension Co-operative House Building Society Ltd. ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 1994IIIAD(Delhi)1207; 55(1994)DLT410; 1994(30)DRJ285

J.K. Mehra, J.(1) This is an appeal purported to have been filed under Section 19 of the Contempt of Courts Act against the order passed by Single Judge. The Operative part of the order reads as under: Having regard to the over all circumstances in view, it would be expedient in the interest of justice to issue the following directions:- 1. The Society is directed to carve out an additional plot measuring 400 sq. yards out of the total area of 400 sq. yards ear-marked for the construction of Community Hall and Club house in consultation with any Town Planner for allotment to the petitioner, and submit the revised lay out plan to the Municipal Corporation of Delhi within 15 days. 2. The Registrar Cooperative Societies, will see to it that this direction is complied with by the Society. 3, The Municipal Corporation of Delhi will examine and consider the matter afresh immediately. If any, further information or clarification is required from the Society/respondent No.2, that will be obtai...

Lawyers Forum for Civil Liberties and anr. Vs. K.P.S. Gill and 5 ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 1994IIIAD(Delhi)791; 1994(30)DRJ299

A.B. Saharya, J. (1) This is a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, professed to have been filed in public interest, seeking a writ for directing respondents 2 to 6 to register against respondent No.1 and other officers of the Punjab Police a case under sections 307, 340, 362, 363, 120B and 365 1.P.C. for alleged kidnapping, wrongful confinement and murderous attack on two Journalists Sh.Rahul Banerjee and Sh. Abhijeet Dass of daily newspaper Statesman on 1st of July 1994 at Delhi, for directing arrest of respondent Crl.W-511/94 No. 1 and other accused persons, and for transferring investigation of the case to the C.B.I.(2) Petitioner No.1,the Lawyers' Forum for Civil Liberties (LFCL), is stated to be a voluntary organisation of lawyers, law teachers and law students, dedicated to the ideals of protecting civil liberties and providing free legal aid to the poor and needy. Petitioner No. 2 Mr. O.P. Saxena is stated to be the President of petit(3) It is stated th...

Narinder Lal Seth Vs. State and anr.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 1994IIIAD(Delhi)701; 55(1994)DLT252; 1994(30)DRJ534

Arun Kumar, J.(1) The petitioner has filed the present application under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for grant of bail. He is undergoing trial for offences under Sections 3, 5 and 9 of the Official Secrets Act of 1923 read with Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code.(2) The petitioner was arrested on 23rd August 1989 on the basis of a complaint lodged against him by the Deputy Commissioner of Police (Special Branch), New Delhi. Thus, the petitioner is in custody for nearly five years. The charge was framed on 4th April 1990 and since then the case is proceeding in prosecution evidence which has not been completed so far.(3) The present application was moved about two years ago and has been pending since then. The learned counsel for the petitioner has sought bail on the following ground- (a) the petitioner has been in custody for nearly five years and the trial is yet to take long time before it can be concluded : (b) various tragedies have befallen the family of the p...

Sharif Khan Vs. Arun Kumar Saxena and anr.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 55(1994)DLT404; 1994(30)DRJ432

Anil Dev Singh, J.(1) This is a petition under section 482 Criminal Procedure Code . arising out of a criminal complaint filed by the respondent No.1 against the petitioner under sections 420/464/468/471/474 Indian Penal Code It appears that the complaint has its origin in the dispute between the petitioner and respondent No.1 relating to property No.C-21, Duggal Farm Khanpur Extension, New Delhi. The petitioner asserts that he is a tenant of the said property while respondent No.1 owner thereof disputes this position and claims that the petitioner was merely a licensee of a small portion of the property in question about which civil litigation is pending between the parties.(2) The first respondent on July 4, 1988 filed a complaint against the petitioner under sections 420/464/468/471/474 Indian Penal Code in the Court of Acmm, New Delhi. The complainant appears to have set up the following case before the trial Court :(3) 'THE petitioner with a view to creating false and fabricated e...

Vishnu Dutt Sharma and ors. Vs. State

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 1994IIIAD(Delhi)894; 1994(31)DRJ160

Arun Kumar, J.(1) This is a petition under Section 482 of the Code of criminal Procedure for quashing the proceedings pending in the court of the Metropoltian Magistrate, Delhi against the petitioners. (2) At the back of the proceedings is matrimonial discord. A few facts necessary for purposes of disposal of the present petition are that the complainant and petitioner No.2 were married on 28th Nov. 1986. The husband was employed at Tripole (Libya) while the wife was working in the Northern Railway. On 26th May 1989, the wife filed a complaint at New Delhi making various allegations against the petitioners and her mother-in-law (since deceased). The wife complained that she had been promised that she will be going to Tripoli with her husband after the marriage. However, for a long time after the marriage she had to stay back in Delhi on the pretext that her husband was not able to make arrangements for her at Tripoli, Libya. The wife was also told that the husband will ultimately retur...

Sada Nand Vs. Union of India

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 1994IIIAD(Delhi)828; 55(1994)DLT402

Devinder Gupta, J. (1) This appeal has arisen out of an award dated 7/11/1978 made by Shri B.B. Gupta, Additional District Judge, Delhi by answering a reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act and determining the market value of the land at the rate of Rs. 1,450.00 per bigha for theappellant's land situate in village Chilla Sirodha Banger acquired for the purpose of planned development of Delhi through Notification issued under Section 4 of the Act on 13.11.1959.(2) The Collector, Land Acquisition through his award dated 29.5.1974 had fixed the market value of the acquired land at Rs. 1,140.00 per bigha which was enhanced by the Additional District Judge to Rs. 1,450.00 per bigha. In the instantappeal, the appellant has claimed further enhancement at the rate of Rs. 6,000.00 perbigha. Separate application has been made by the appellant praying that in case higher market value is determined by this Court, the same be awarded subject to payment of deficient Court fee by the ...

Shanti Rani JaIn Vs. State and anr.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 55(1994)DLT175

J.K. Mehra, J.(1) This is a petition for the grant of probate of the Will dated 15/01/1985 of Shri Mahinder Kumar Jain in favor of the petitioner in respect of the properties of said Shri Mahinder Kumar Jain since deceased who,according to the death certificate placed on Court record, had died at his permanent address, C-41 Green Park, New Delhi on 20.11.1985.(2) Notices of this petition were duly served on all near relations. There is no opposition to the grant. The notice of the petition was also advertised in theStatesman'. There has been no opposition from any of the respondents.(3) A notice was also served on the Chief Revenue Controlling Authority.Deputy Commissioner, Delhi vide letter No.F.II(7)/Stamps/1991-92/7688dated 12.3.1993 through Collector of Stamps has submitted valuation report in respect of the properties of the deceased as mentioned in Annexure C to THE petition.(4) Respondent No.2 was appointed the Executor under the Will, but he did not act as Executor. thereforee,...

P.H. Abdul Kareem Vs. Union of India and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 1994IIIAD(Delhi)949; 1994(3)Crimes395; 58(1995)DLT432; 1994(30)DRJ306

Dalveer Bhandari, J.(1) This petition under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed against the order of detention dated 28.7.93 passed against the petitioner by the Joint Secretary to the Govt. of India, Ministry of Finance, Deptt. of Revenue, New Delhi under Section 3(1) of the COFEPOSA.(2) On the basis .of information that the petitioner was likely to sell foreign currency illegally, the residential premises and office of the petitioner were searched. Though nothing was seized from residential premises but 12,500 U.S. dollar and five loose sheets were seized from the office of the petitioner. On the basis of the said recovery the respondent came to the conclusion that the petitioner was engaged in clandestine business of sale and purchase of foreign currencies in clear violation of provisions of COFEPOSA.(3) The petitioner was arrested on 18th March, 1993 under Section 35 of Foreign Exchange Regulation Act 1973 and was produced before the Chief Judicial Magis...

Rakesh Vaid Vs. Air India Himalaya House and Another

Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi

R.N. Mittal, President: 1. Briefly the facts are that the complainant entrusted to the O.P. a consignment of 47 bags containing readymade garments for shipment to Porlamar (Venezuela) on 15-11-91. He paid the freight and other charges amounting to Rs. 98,060/- in advance. The value of the garments, it is alleged, was 21,462 US Dollars equivalent to Rs. 5,52,647/-. 2. It is further pleaded that the goods did not reach the destination within a period of three months, which was due to negligence and deficiency in service of the O.P. Consequently, he suffered a loss of Rs.9,28,077/- as detailed below:i)For value of goods US $ 21462Rs. 5,52,647.00ii)Freight paid by thecomplainant to theopposite partyRs. 98,060.00iii)7% loss of DBK (to be refunded)Rs. 38,685.00iv)Loss of premium on entitlement @ 7%Rs. 38,685.00v)Damages claimed by the foreign buyer due to non-delivery of the garmentsRs. 2,00,000.00Rs. 9,28,077.00He has filed a complaint for recovery of the said amount against the O.P. 3. The...