Delhi Court April 1995 Judgments
Home Cases Delhi 1995 Page 10 of about 100 results (0.030 seconds)New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Shashi Kumar and ors.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: II(1995)ACC356
C.M. Nayar, J.1. The present appeal is filed by the New India Assurance Co. Ltd. against the judgment dated July 6,1987 of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Delhi. The learned Counsel has only confined his relief to the question of limited liability of the Company to the extent of Rs. 50,000/-. He has otherwise not impugned the award. The claim petition was filed by Shashi Kumar, respondent - claimant for a sum of Rs. 2,50,000/ - on account of the injuries sustained by him in a road accident. The said Shashi Kumar was working as Senior Project Engineer in M/s. Bhargava Consultants and drawing a salary of Rs. 2500/- per month. He started from his house on March 12,1980 at about 9.30 a.m. on motor-cycle No. ATX 9853 for his office situated in East of Kailash. When he reached near Durga Mandir truck bearing No. DLG 6174 came from the opposite direction at a high speed and came on the wrong side all of a sudden and hit the motor-cycle of the respondent-claimant who was going on his right...
Tag this Judgment!Haryana Paper Mills Vs. Union of India
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1995(35)DRJ34
Devinder Gupta, J. (1) The respondent has preferred these objections to the award made and published on 28.2.1990 by Shri Shiv Prakash, Additional Legal Advisor to the Government of India, Ministry of Law and Justice, New Delhi the sole arbitrator appointed by the Director General of Supplies and Disposal, New Delhi. Disputes had arisen amongst parties within the ambit of arbitration clause contained in the agreement entered into between the parties with respect to work of contract contained in Rate Contract No. POM-9/RC-Paper/0682 Writing |& Printing/82-83/322/COAD dated 21.1.1983. (2) The objector alleges that the arbitrator misconducted himself in making the award which is not based on documentary evidence. The objector had pointed out before the arbitrator that the claimant had failed to furnish any documentary evidence showing payment of excise duty to the tune of Rs.3,57,679.63. Without going into this aspect the arbitrator erred in awarding 50% of the amount without even himself...
Tag this Judgment!Veer Bahadur Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1995IIAD(Delhi)228; 1995CriLJ3169; 1995(3)Crimes181; 1995(33)DRJ261
P.K. Bahri, J. (1) The appellant, Veer Bahadur, S/o Tula Bahadur, a native of Nepal, has been convicted of offences punishable under Sections 363, 366 and 376 of Indian Penal Code vide judgment dated May 28, 1991 of an Additional Sessions Judge and by subsequent order dated May 29, 1991, he has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000.00 and in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year under Section 376 Indian Penal Code . and has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years and to pay a fine of Rs.500.00 and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months under Section 366 and further sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year for an offence punishable under Section 363 of the Indian Penal Code with the directions that all substantive sentences shall run concurrently. He has come up in appeal in challenging his conviction and the sentences. (2) Facts of the ...
Tag this Judgment!Gulab Singh Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1995CriLJ3180; 1995(3)Crimes462; 59(1995)DLT199
P.K. Bahri, J.(1) Gulab Singh s/o Shri Jiwan Lal, presently aged about 45 years, has been convicted of an offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life for having caused the murder of one Khushal Chand on August 17, 1988, at about 10.30 p.m. vide judgment dated April 9,1991, of an Additional Sessions Judge, Delhi. He has filed the present appeal challenging his conviction and the sentence. (2) Facts as alleged by the prosecution, in brief, are that Khushal Chand was residing with his wife Asha Rani and the children in House No. A-1 /95, Sector Iv, Rohini, at the relevant period. On August 17, 1988, Khushal Chand had gone to PW4 Bhudev Singh, who was vending fruit juice in Avantika on the footpath at 10.30 p.m. and had procured two glasses of fruit juice from PW4 and thereafter leaving his two wheeler scooter at the said place had walked across 70-80 feet wide road and came to the business place of appellant, who was having ...
Tag this Judgment!Pritam Singh MakIn Vs. Municipal Corporation of Delhi
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1995IIAD(Delhi)242; 1995(33)DRJ406
C.M. Nayar, J.(1) The present second appeal arises from the judgment dated January 12, 1977 of the Additional District Judge, Delhi. The learned Judge allowed the appeal of the respondent-MCD and dismissed the suit of the plaintiff. (2) The appellant/plaintiff filed a suit for decree of possession of plot Nos. G.45 and G.46 forming part of Khasra Nos. 629, 802, 803, 839 and 840, village Tihar, Hari Nagar Extension shown in the plan Ex.P.5 filed with the plaint and for the recovery of Rs.2160.00 towards mesne profit as well as for pendente lite and future mesne profit for the use and occupation of the aforesaid plots by the respondent M.C.D. (3) The appellant/plaintiff has stated in the plaint that he is the owner of the aforesaid plots; that he purchased the same from one Bans Gopal vide registered sale deed dated August 19, 1955; the appellant had been employed out of Delhi and during his absence in the year 1962 or so, the respondent Corporation illegally and wrongfully took possessi...
Tag this Judgment!Niranjan Lal Kanodia Vs. Harbans Lal
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1995IIAD(Delhi)347; 1995(34)DRJ14
Arun Kumar, J. (1) The appellant has filed the present appeal against the judgment of the Rent Control Tribunal dated 25th September 1981 whereby an eviction order was passed against the appellant under clause (b) of the proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 14 of the Delhi Rent Control Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act). (2) The brief facts are that the respondent filed an eviction petition against the appellant herein alleging that the appellant tenant had sublet,.assigned or otherwise parted with possession of the tenancy premises and, thereforee, was liable to be evicted in view of the provisions of Clause (b) of proviso to Sub-section (1) of Section 14 of the Act. The respondent landlord claims to have purchased the property in suit on 16th December 1968 through a duly registered sale deed. The appellant is an old tenant in a shop in the property bearing No.3116,Gali Chapa Khana Wali, Sadar Bazar, Delhi. In the eviction petition itself the landlord stated that the appellant ...
Tag this Judgment!Tikka Shatrujit Singh and ors. Vs. Sukhjit Singh and anr.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1995(33)DRJ465
P.K. Bahri, J.(1) Before I deal with the arguments addressed on the question of review of the judgment, I may reproduce the issues framed in the case: 1. Whetherthe properties in suit are coparcenary properties O.P.P. 2.If issue No.1 is proved, whether the properties are not liable to be partitioned O.P.D. 3.Is the present suit not in the interest of plaintiffs 1 & 2 O.P.D. 4.What are the rights of plaintiffs 3 & 4 and defendant No.2 in the property in dispute in case they are found to be coparcenary properties and partible? Opp 5.Did Maharaja Jagatjit Singh make a declaration dated 11-8-1948 declaring Mussooorie Chateau and other associated properties to be his self-acquired properties? If so, to what effect? Opp 6.Did Maharaja Jagatjit Singh execute a Will dated 16-1-1949 If so, to what effect Opd 7.If issue No.1 is proved in favor of the plaintiff, whether Maharaja Jagatjit Singh could be quea the the property by Will dated 16-1-1949 Opd 8.Did Maharaja Paramjit Singh execute a Will ...
Tag this Judgment!O.K. Bhardwaj Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1995IIAD(Delhi)217; 1995(34)DRJ35; 1995LabIC1958
S.D. Pandit, J. (1) Petitioner O.K. Bhardwaj was appointed as a Warehouse Assistant Grade Ii on 16.3.1985 by respondent No.2, Central Warehousing Corporation. He was posted at Sonepat branch of respondent No.2. On 31.10.1991 Shri Jagjit Singh, Deputy Manager (Technical Division) visited the godowns .where the petitioner was working and he made certain investigation. In the said investigation he found certain serious irregularities and lapses. He recorded the statement of the petitioner in respect of the lapses observed by him as he had found 421 non-standard bags and when all those 421 non- standard bags were weighed and converted only 367 standard 100 per cent bags could be found. Thereafter two memos dated 24.6.92 and 30.6.92 were issued to the petitioner. By the first memo dated 24.6.92 he was called upon to give Explanationn regarding certain charges leveled against him and to the said memo he had given his reply and asked for supply of certain documents and on getting the said doc...
Tag this Judgment!Ram Niwas Gupta Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1995IIAD(Delhi)330; 1995(32)DRJ282
Mohd. Shamim, J. (1) The petitioner through the present writ petition seeks quashment of the detention order dated June 23,1994 passed under Section 3(1) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act,1974 ( hereinafter referred to as the Act for the sake of convenience) by the Administrator, National Capital Territory of Delhi.(2) Brief facts which led to the present petition are as under: that while the petitioner was leaving for Dubai he was intercepted at the Indira Gandhi International Airport. His person and baggage were searched which resulted in the recovery of foreign currency ( Rs. 5,45,718.90 in terms of Indian Rupee). The petitioner was forced and coerced to make voluntary statement under Sections 106/108 of the Customs Act. The petitioner was arrested on the aforesaid date. He moved two bail applications and the same were rejected on June 8,1994 and June 15,1994. Subsequently, the petitioner was detained under Section 3 of the Act though...
Tag this Judgment!Gyan Singh and anr. Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1995IIAD(Delhi)222; 1995(34)DRJ43; 1995LabIC1705
S.D. Pandit, J. (1) Petitioners were working as motivators in the Scheme of Jan Shikshan Nilayam sponsored by the Ministry of Human Resource Development, New Delhi, under the Nehru Yuva Kendra for social education activities for spread of general awareness, eradication of illiteracy, removal of exploitation among women and weaker sections. They were under the control of Regional Director for Haryana region, petitioners were being paid monthly stipend of Rs.200.00 and Rs.l25.00 towards library expenses. the respondent issued two memos bearing Nos.5099/NYKD/92 dated 23.6.92 and 5096/NYKD/92-93 dated 23.6.92 anc closed the various kendras which were being run under the said scheme and discontinued the engagements of the petitioners. It is the claim of the petitioners that the said memos are illegal and arbitrary and their services are terminated illegally and arbitrarily. According to them, as they had formed the Zilla Parerak Association and had made a demand for the pay scale of Rs-1400...
Tag this Judgment!