Delhi Court January 1995 Judgments
Home Cases Delhi 1995 Page 16 of about 158 results (0.010 seconds)Mustaq Ahmed Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: ILR1995Delhi655
M.J. Rao, J.(1) Terms of Reference to Jain Commission : The Jain Commission of fuquary was appointed by the Government of India on 23-8-1991 in connection with the assassination of Shri Rajiv Gandhi, former Prime Minister of India Justice J. S. Verma Commission submitted its Report-on 23-3-1992 while the Special Investigation Team (SIT) of the Cbi submitted a charge sheet on 20-5-1992 before the Designated Court at Madras against 41 accused persons out of whom three were found absconding and twelve were dead. The case has starred before the Designated Court and the trial is on. (2) The reference to the Jain Commission concerned two issues (and the first issue consists of two parts). The inquiry is to be into : (A)(i) the sequence of events leading to the assassination of Shri Rajiv Gandhi. (ii) all the facts and circumstances relating to the assassination of Shri Rbjiv Gandhi. (other than the- matters covered by the Justice J. S. Verma Commission); and (B) whether any person or agencie...
Tag this Judgment!Common Cause and anr. Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 62(1996)DLT28
Mahinder Narain, J.(1) By this order I propose to dispose of the writ petition C.W. No. 2453 of 1995, which is filed as public interest litigation by (1) Common Cause (a registered Society under the Societies Registration Act) and (2) Forum for justice and Peace (a registered Society under the Societies Registration Act). (2) The petitioners have invoked the writ jurisdiction of this Court in public interest in view of 'the serious situation created due to various acts of commission and omission of respondent No. 3 in relation to the respondent No. 2 Institute which is the most prestigious medical and research facility in the country.' The respondents in the petition are Union of India, respondent No. 1, Ail India institute of Medical Sciences, respondent No. 2, and B. Shankaranand, respondent No. 3. (3) The writ petition was amended by the petitioners, and the amended petition was taken on record by order dated 12.7.1995. In the amended petition the following reliefs were claimed by t...
Tag this Judgment!Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. Vs. Shriram Gas Service
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 57(1995)DLT279
R.C. Lahoti, J.(1) This order shall govern the disposal of suits Nog.421-A/88 and 440A/88 both arising between the same parties out of the same transaction/cause of action.(2) Indian Oil Corporation Ltd., the petitioner/objector is an Oil Company engaged inmanufacturing, sale and distribution of liquified petrol gas and otherproducts. By an agreement dated 6.4.77 entered into between it and the respondent M/s.Shriram Gas Service, the latter was appointed as the distributor for certain areas.(3) Here itself, it maybe relevant to extract and reproduce Clauses 27 and 28 of the contract between the parties. They are as under: '27.Notwithstanding anything to the contrary herein contained, the Corporation shall also be at liberty at its entire discretion to terminate this Agreement for with upon or at any time after the happening of any of the following eventsnamely:-(n) If the Distributor shall either by himself or by his servants or agents commit or suffer to be committed any act which, in...
Tag this Judgment!Hem Raj Arya and ors. Vs. Election Commission, Delhi
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1995(32)DRJ231
D.K. Jain, J.(1) Rule D.B. (2) Since in this matter a very short question is involved and we have heard counsel for the parties at length, we propose to dispose of the writ petition at this stage itself. (3) Challenge in this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is to the two Notifications dated 23 March 1994 and 31 December 1993, both issued by the first respondent viz., the Election Commissioner of the National Capital Territory of Delhi, notifying the reservation for allotment of seats for women, members of the Scheduled Castes and women belonging to Scheduled Castes and the manner of reservation and rotation of reserved seats in different wards and calling upon the electorates of all the 134 wards to elect Councillors for the purpose of constitution of the Municipal Corporation of Delhi (for short the MCD) under Section 3 of the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957, as amended by the Delhi Municipal Corporation (Amendment) Act, 1993 (for short the Act) resp...
Tag this Judgment!Balbir Singh Vs. A.D.M. (Revenue) and ors.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 57(1995)DLT547
Devinder Gupta, J. (1) Since common question of law is involved in these six petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the same are being disposed of by a common judgment. (2) The petitioners have questioned the legality and validity of notification dated 30th November, 1989, known as the Delhi Land Revenue Rules (1st Amendment) 1989, hereinafter referred to as 'the Amended Rules' by virtue of which amendments have been carried out to the existing Rules 49,63,65 and 67 as also in Form-P of the Delhi Land Revenue Rules, 1962. (3) The petitioners main grievance has been that throughout they are in actual possession of the land in question, in each case, as Bhumidars, yet in the relevant Revenue Records correct position as existing on the spot is not being reflected due to the impugned notification. The impugned amended Rules/purported to have been framed by the Rule making authority, by virtue of powers vested in him under Section 84 of the Delhi Land Revenue Act, 1...
Tag this Judgment!P.P. Kalra Vs. M.V. Bhatnagar
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1995(32)DRJ182
Devinder Gupta, J. (1) Order of Ms. Sharda Aggarwal, Rent Control Tribunal, Delhi passed on 18.8.1994, partly accepting the appeal of landlord respondent and thereby modifying the order passed by Shri Babu Lal, Additional Rent. Controller, Delhi on 2.7.1994 is under challenge in this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution. (2) The petitioner claiming himself to be a tenant under the respondent filed a petition under Section 45 of the Delhi Rent Control Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) claiming restoration of essential amenities, namely, electricity, to the premises in question being a shop. It was alleged that,the landlord respondent had cut off the electric connection without just and sufficient cause. Thus, there was withholding of essential supply to the premises let out to the tenant. This withholding of essential supplies was alleged to be with a view to compel the tenant either to enhance the rent or to vacate the premises. Petitioner also prayed for ex parte inte...
Tag this Judgment!Bhai Ram Vs. Madan Lal Gupta
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1995IAD(Delhi)833; 57(1995)DLT527
Devinder Gupta, J.(1) The tenant has come up in revision against the order passed on 15/10/1993 by Shri D.S.Bawa, Additional Rent Controller,Delhi dismissing his application seeking leave to contest and simultaneously passing an order of his eviction from the ground floor of House No.7233 to 7236 in1/38 Roop Nagar, Delhi.(2) The tenant's eviction was sought by the landlord/respondent under Section 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act')for his bona fide use and occupation by the landlord for himself and for other members of his family dependent upon him. It was alleged that premises are residential and were let out for residence and are also located in residential colony.Neither the landlord nor any member of his family owned any other residential accommodation in Delhi, New Delhi or at any other place and claimed that his family consists of himself, his wife, two daughters, his son and parents. In addition,there was a servant. The landlord in the ...
Tag this Judgment!Rajinder Kumar Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1995IAD(Delhi)697; 57(1995)DLT271
Arun Kumar, J. (1) This is an application seeking review of the judgment dated 17.12.1991 disposing of the writ petition.(2) The Delhi Administration had framed a Scheme called 'Large Scale Acquisition', Development & Disposal of Land in Delhi 1961. Under this Scheme the persons whose lands were compulsorily acquired, were made entitled to allotment of an alternative plot. One Kanwar Singh, grandfather of the petitioner was owner of 57 bighas and 13 bids was of land in village Badli, Delhi. The land was notified for acquisition in the year 1961 when a notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act was issued. Kanwar Singh died in the year 1975. The Award with respect to the said land was made in the year 1981. Kanwar Singh had left behind twosons, namely, Ganga Ram and Prahlad Singh. Ganga Ram received compensation for his share in the land belonging to Kanwar Singh. Thereafter Ganga Ram also died on 14.9.1983. But before his death Ganga Ram had applied for allotment of a res...
Tag this Judgment!