Delhi Court February 1995 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.
Punjab National Bank Vs. Pushpa Builders Ltd. and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-01-1995
Reported in: 1995IAD(Delhi)812; I(1996)BC83; 58(1995)DLT191
Jaspal Singh, J. (1) The Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institution Act, 1993 which came into force on 24/06/1993 provides for establishment of Debts Recovery Tribunal to entertain and decide applications from the banks and financial institutions for recovery of debts due to such banks-and financial institutions. Every such application is to be accompanied with a fee subject to a maximum of Rs. 1,50,000.00. The Act further provides that on and from the appointed day, the jurisdiction of any Court or other authority in relations to the matters specified above shall stand ousted. Admittedly, such a Tribunal has been established in New Delhi with effect from 5/07/1994. However, despite allthis,the Punjab National Bank has filed this suit for the recovery of Rs. 1,59,34,131-61(Rupees one crore fifty nine lacs thirty four thousand one hundred thirty one and paise sixty only) with pendente-lite and future interest and for sale of mortgaged property and has paid thereon a Court ...
Hari Singh Vs. S. Seth
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-01-1995
Reported in: AIR1996Delhi21; 58(1995)DLT651; 1995(32)DRJ425; (1995)110PLR60
M.J. Rao, J. (1) No orders are necessary on C.M.No. 140/94 filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act in this case. (2) This Letters Patent Appeal is filed against the order of the learned Single Judge dated 10.8.94 refusing to review the judgment dated 8.1.87 passed in the suit by the trial Judge holding the suit to be not maintainable. Review application was rejected on the ground that the first appeal preferred by the plaintiff against the judgment dated 8.1.87 in the suit was dismissed by a Division Bench of this Court on 18.8.87 before this Review application - though filed before the first appeal was preferred - is taken up for disposal. In other words, the review of the judgment in suit was refused because the regular appeal preferred against the judgment was itself dismissed on 18.8.87 before the review application came up for disposal 1994. It was held that the fact that the review was preferred earlier than the first appeal made no difference. The learned trial Judge followe...
V.K. JaIn Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-01-1995
Reported in: 58(1995)DLT337; 2003(32)DRJ621
Devinder Gupta, J. (1) Petitioner has sought leave of the court to amend the petition by filing this application under Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure.(2) On 22.5.1992 writ petition came to be filed by petitioner wherein he challenged and sought the setting aside of an order of suspension, suspending him from the Post of Director (Finance) of the respondent Corporation and quashing of enquiry proceedings initiated against him. By way of interim relief the petitioner prayed for staying the enquiry proceedings as also the order of suspension.(3) After notice, the writ petition came up for admission on 29.10.1992 before a Division Bench of this court. While issuing rule, application for stay (CM 3838/92) was disposed of. The court declined to stay the order of suspension but directed that the enquiry may proceed but whatever might be the report of the enquiry, the same be submitted to the court and be not implemented without the orders of the court.(4) Cm 3891/93 was moved ...
Classic Motors Ltd. Vs. Maruti Udyog Ltd. and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-01-1995
Reported in: 1995IIAD(Delhi)997; 57(1995)DLT677; (1995)110PLR34
ORDERLEAVEgranted. Heard. 'Several arguments were advanced by the two sides in support of and against the impugned order made by the High Court. In view of the order we propose to make, we consider it unnecessary to refer to or decide any of them.It is sufficient to observe that all the points urged by the two sides would remain open for a fresh consideration by the High Court in the first instance while deciding the main matter on merits. The observations made on any ofthe points including Clause-21 of the agreement in the impugned order will be treated by the High Court as its tentative opinion only, which the two sides would be entitled to reagitate for obtaining a fresh decision at the final stage in the High Court.For the present appeal, it is sufficient to say that the order of injunction issued by the High Court against the appellants would not be construed as restraining the appellants from exercising the power they may have underClause-21 of the agreement and in case the appel...
Sita Ram Pandey Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-01-1995
Reported in: 1995(32)DRJ722
Mohd. Sharnim, J.(1) This is an application by the petitioner for release on bail. (2) Learned counsel for the petitioner Mr. Lekhi, Senior Advocate, has contended that the petitioner is innocent. He has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is a fundamental principle of criminal jurisprudence that a person is presumed to be innocent till his guilt is proved. Yet, the learned Magistrate by .imposing the condition that the petitioner be released on bail on his payment of a sum of Rs. 1.23 crores declared him guilty even before he was tried on the basis of the alleged offences against him. It is tantamount to compelling the petitioner to be a witness against himself. (3) The learned counsel for the petitioner in support of his arguments has led me through Gudikanti Narasimhulu and others v. Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh : 1978CriLJ502 , Babu Singh and others v. The State of Uttar Pradesh, : 1978CriLJ651 and Shalik Layak v. The State, . (4) The learned Pp, Mr. ...
Virender Kumar @ Bittoo Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-01-1995
Reported in: 1995(2)Crimes466; 59(1995)DLT341; 1995(33)DRJ352
P.K. Bahri, J.(1) Appellant, Virender Kumar @ Bittoo S/o Sh.Hari Shanker r/o Village Maujpur has been convicted of an offence punishable under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code vide judgment dated April 20, 1989 of an Additional Sessions Judge, Shahdara and has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and pay a fine of Rs.1,000.00 and in default to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years. (2) He has filed this appeal challenging his conviction and the sentence. As a matter of fact, along with the appellant, Joginder Singh, Jaswant Singh and Ramesh Singh were also tried for the offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 Indian Penal Code While Joginder Singh has been acquitted, Jaswant Singh and Ramesh Singh have been convicted for offence punishable under Section 324 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and have been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years each. Jaswant Singh and Ramesh Singh have not, it appears, file...
Wiley Eastern Ltd. and anr. Vs. Indian Institute of Management
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-01-1995
Reported in: 1995IAD(Delhi)1021; 58(1995)DLT449; 1995(32)DRJ553; (1995)110PLR63
R.C. Lahoti, J. (1) I.A. No. 6521/94 has been filed by the defendant under Order 7 Rule 10A and 11 of the Civil Procedure Code seeking rejection of the plaint or its being returned for presentation to proper court for want of territorial jurisdiction in this court to try the suit.(2) The plaintiff No.1 is a printing and publishing house, also marketing books and situated at Delhi. Plaintiff No.2 Prof. U.K. Shrivastava is an employee of the defendant Indian Institute of Management at Ahmedabad ( Gujrat). Plaintiff No.2 has been in the employment of defendant for about twenty years. Plaintiff No.2 is co-author of a book titled 'Quantitative Techniques for Managerial Decisions' ( hereinafter called 'the book', fon short).(3) The facts leading to the filing of the suit may briefly be stated. According to the plaintiffs, some one claiming to be a student studying in the Institute ( the defendant) sent an anonymous letter dated 29.6.92 wherein he alleged the book, co-authored by plaintiff No...
Mahanand Kaushik and ors. Vs. Municipal Corporation of Delhi and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-01-1995
Reported in: 1995IAD(Delhi)1057; 58(1995)DLT196; 1995(32)DRJ634
Devinder Gupta, J. (1) In this petition filed under Article 226 read with Article 227 of the Constitution of India petitioners have prayed for issuance of appropriate directions for declaring the provisions of Delhi. Municipal Corporation Act (hereinafter called the Act) in regard to building and the bye laws as also the Delhi Municipal Corporation (Sealing of unauthorised Construction) Rules, 1986 (hereinafter called the Rules) as not applicable to the house in question, alleged to be situated in Village abadi (Lal Dora) in Khasra No.78 of village Khirki. As a consequence a direction has been sought restraining the respondents from sealing or demolishing the building or any part thereof, alleged to be forming a part of house No-181.(2) It is alleged that the petitioners are joint owners of their ancestral house NO. 181 situated in village Khirki, Delhi which is located in old abadi of village Khirki and forms part of Khasra No.78 of village abadi. The area is located in Lal Dora. Peti...
Bakshi Ram Vs. Delhi Development Authority
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-01-1995
Reported in: 59(1994)DLT396; 1995(32)DRJ597
Dalveer Bhandari, J. (1) The petitioner has filed revision petition under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure against the order dated 18th May, 1994, passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Delhi in M.C.A.46/92. The petitioner filed the civil suit for permanent injunction against the respondent-DDA, on the ground that the plaintiff is in possession of the disputed premises. It is also mentioned that prior to occupying the present premises, they were carrying on their business of Pvc waste at Tank Road, Karol Bagh, New Delhi.(2) In the year 1982, the Dda through their Director (Lands) approached the plaintiff and made a request for shifting their business from Tank Road to Pvc market, Jwalapuri, New Delhi. It is also mentioned in the petition that the respondent promised them to give 84 sq. mtrs. of land, along with other shopkeepers of the market. The petitioner acting on the promise extended by the Dda, shifted to Pvc market and was allotted the disputed premises /plot...
Sushma Suri Vs. Jamia Millie Islamia and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-01-1995
Reported in: 1995(32)DRJ538
P.K. Bahri, J. (1) This writ petition raised a challenge to the appointments of Respondents 5 to 7 on the posts of Lecturer in the Department of Psychology, Jamia Millia Islamia, on the basis of recommendations made by the Selection Committee and for direction to continue the petitioner in the said post of Lecturer in that college.(2) It is urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner that Shri H.C.Ganguli and Prof.A.K.Sen were not competent to be members of the Selection Committee in view of Section 25 of the Jarmia Millia Islamia Act, 1988. We have perused the provisions of the said Section and find that the Selection Committee for making appointments to the post of Reader /Lecturer is to comprise of : (i) Head of the Department concerned; (ii) One Professor to be nominated by the Shaikh-ul-Jamia (Vice-Chancellor); (iii) Two persons not in the service of the University, nominated by the Majlis-i-Muntazimah ( Executive Council) out of a panel of names recommended by the Majlis-i-Ta...
- ‹ Prev
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 16
- Next ›
- Last »