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.
Tejbir Kaur Vs. Davender Singh
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-01-1995
Reported in: 1995IAD(Delhi)1043; 57(1995)DLT796; 1995(33)DRJ105; 1996RLR106
Devinder Gupta, J. (1) Tenant has felt aggrieved against an order passed on 27.1.1992 by Shri L.D. Malik, Additional Rent Controller, Delhi allowing the petition preferred by respondent under Section 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') and ordering petitioner's eviction from the premises in question. (2) Respondent Devinder Singh sought the petitioner's eviction from the suit premises known as 26-A, Ring Road, Lajpat Nagar Iv, New Delhi comprising ground floor, first floor and second floor, as shown in the plan attached to the petition for eviction. (3) Petition was filed on 24.7.1994 in which it was averred that an application under Section 21 of the Act was moved by the respondent seeking permission to create limited tenancy in favor of the petitioner. Both he and the petitioner appeared before the additional Rent Controller along with a property dealer. After statements were recorded an impression was gathered by him that the learned court h...
Curewell (India) Ltd. Vs. Inderjit Singh and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-01-1995
Reported in: 1995(32)DRJ663
Anil Dev Singh, J.(1) This is a second appeal against the judgment and order of the Rent Control Tribunal, dated October 28,1989 thereby the appellant-tenant's appeal against the judgment and order of the Rent Controller, Delhi dated January 8,1986 was dismissed. The facts leading to this appeal are as under: (2) Property No.72, Ring Road, Lajpat Nagar Iii, New Delhi was owned by late Sahib Singh, predecessor in interest of respondent. On November 21, 1969, he let out the same to the appellant at a monthly rental of Rs.2300.00 . On March 23,1983 respondents filed an eviction petition under Section 14(1)(b) of the Delhi Rent Control Act,1958 against the appellant on the ground of subletting of the premises by the latter without specific permission of the landlord in writing. It was alleged in the petition filed before the Rent Controller, that the appellant had sublet, assigned or parted with possession of the demised premises to S.K.Ajwani/ D.Kumar Consulting Engineers (P) Ltd. without...
Munna Lal Khandelwal Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-01-1995
Reported in: 1995IAD(Delhi)808; 1995CriLJ2870; 1995(2)Crimes82; 59(1995)DLT298
Vijender Jain, J.(1) The detention order under Section 3(1) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 (hereinafter referred to as Cofeposa Act) was passed on 6th May, 1994. The said detention order was served upon the petitioner on 12th June, 1994 along with grounds of detention. (2) The learned Counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Trilok Kumar urged various grounds in the writ petition such as inordinate delay in passing and in execution of the detention order, relevant material neither placed nor considered by the Detaining Authority thereby vitiating the subjective satisfaction of the Detaining Authority, non-supply of all relied upon documents parri-pasu grounds of detention amounting to infraction of Section 3(3) of the Cofeposa Act and Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India, all relied upon documents not supplied in the language known to the petitioner, supply of unintelligible relied upon documents and placing of reliance on irreleva...
NaIn Singh Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-01-1995
Reported in: 1995(32)DRJ599
M.S.A. Siddirqui, J. (1) The appellant, an inmate of Central Jail No.1, Tihar Jail, Delhi was convicted for an offence under Section 21 of the Narcotic Drugs & Psychotropic Substances Act (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 10 years and a fine of Rs.1 lac by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Delhi.(2) According to the prosecution case, on 27.8.1990, the appellant was found in possession of 450 milligrams of heroin in the Central Jail No. 1, Tihar Jail, Delhi. The appellant was searched by the jail warden Kishan Lal (P.W.7)at'the behest of Shri B.B. Kaul, Assistant Superintendent Central Jail No. 1. The seizure was effected in the presence of Shri B.B. Kaul and the jail warden Chand Ram (P.W.9)and nine small packets containing heroin were recovered from the appellant's possession. The contraband was produced before Shri Darshan Lal Sharma (P.W.2), Deputy Superintendent Central Jail No. 1. The police was called. Sub-Inspector Om ...
Rameshwar Dass Vs. Union of India and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-01-1995
Reported in: 57(1995)DLT711; 1995(32)DRJ399
Vijender Jain, J. (1) The petitioner was detained in pursuance to detention order dated 2.5.1994 made under Section 3(1) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 (hereinafter referred to 'COFEPOSA'). It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that detenu was placed under arrest on 17.8.1993 and produced in the Court of Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate on 18.9.1993. Thereafter he was remanded to judicial custody. It was extended from time to time and ultimately the detenu was released on bail on 26.10.1993. It has also been stated by the petitioner that as the surety of the petitioner moved the Court for cancellation of surety, the petitioner was again taken into custody on 16.5.1994. The order of detention was served on the petitioner when he was in judicial custody on 17.5.1994. The learned counsel for the petitioner has also argued that when the petitioner was in judicial custody on 16.5.1994 the detention order w...
Munna Lal Khandelwal Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-01-1995
Reported in: 1995(58)LC249(Delhi)
Vijender Jain, J.1. The detention order under Section 3(1) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 (hereinafter referred to as COFEPOSA ACT) was passed on 6th May 1994. The said detention order was served upon the petitioner on 12th June 1994 along with grounds of detention.2. The learned Counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Trilok Kumar urged various grounds in the writ petition such as inordinate delay in passing and in execution of the detention order, relevant material neither placed nor considered by the detaining authority thereby vitiating the subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority give non-supply of all relied upon documents pari pasu grounds of detention amounting to infraction of Section 3(3) of the COFEPOSA ACT and Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India, all relied upon documents not supplied in the language known to the petitioner, supply of unintelligible relied upon documents and placing of reliance on irrelevant...
- ‹ Prev
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 15
- Next ›