Delhi Court May 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.
Smt. Chandrawati and Etc. Vs. the State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-26-1995
Reported in: 1996CriLJ975
M.S.A. Siddiqui, J. 1. The appellant Mst. Chandrawati was convicted by the learned Additional Sessions Judge; Delhi under Section 302 IPC and was sentenced to death together with a fine of Rs. 10,000/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year. She was also convicted under Section 498-A/34 IPC and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months. Appellants Kishan Lal and Harkesh were convicted u/S. 498-A/34 IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years together with a fine of Rs. 5,000/- each and in default of payment of fine to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months. Appellants have appealed against their convictions and sentences. The record is also before us for confirmation of the death sentence. The appeal and death reference a being disposed of by this common judgment. 2. Deceased Krishna, who died of burn injuries on 14...
Sh. Mahesh Bansal Vs. Executive Engineer (F.C.D. 1)
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-26-1995
Reported in: 1995IIIAD(Delhi)242
Usha Mehra, J. 1. Shri Mahesh Bansal entered into an agreement with the Executive Engineer (FCD. 1) regarding the work of 'construction of puce drain in between R.D. 1200 to R.M. 1800 of Nasirpur Link Drain'. An agreement was entered into between the parties. The said agreement contained an arbitration clause No. 25. Disputes arose between the parties. The petitioner asked for the appointment of an Arbitrator pursuance to Clause 25 of the agreement. When the respondent failed to do so, he moved a petition in this court under Section 20 of the Arbitration Act. This court vide order dated 20th September, 1990 directed the respondent to appoint an arbitrator to adjudicate the disputes arisen between the parties. Pursuance to the said order, Chief Engineer (I and P), Delhi Administration appointed Shri S. S. K. Bhagat, Chief Engineer (Civil), N.D.M.C. as the sole arbitrator. 2. Tae said arbitrator has made and published his award dated 12th March, 1991. The said award was filed in the cour...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Dalmia Cement (Bharat) Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-26-1995
Reported in: (1995)129CTR(Del)370; [1995]215ITR441(Delhi)
Dr. M.K. Sharma, J.1. This petition under section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, has been preferred by the Revenue for the assessment year 1984-85 seeking a direction to the Tribunal to state a case and refer to this court for its opinion the following question of law : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was correct in law in accepting the assessor's method of valuation of DBM dust which was changed for valuing the closing stock ?'2. The assessed is being assessed in the status of a company and has been carrying on in its Dalmia Magnesite Corporation Unit in Salem, the business of raising magnesite ore and converting it into dead burnt magnesite (DBM). In the year under consideration, the assessed showed an opening stock value of DBM dust at Rs. 77,50,677, but it showed the same in the closing stock at nil value on the ground that it was having silica content above a specified percentage, i.e., at 15 per cent., and, hence...
Shubham Enterprises and anr. Vs. Collector of Customs and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-26-1995
Reported in: 60(1995)DLT8; 1995LC29(Delhi); 1995(80)ELT250(Del)
D.P. Wadhwa, J.(1) The petitioner, an importer, has filed this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution seeking a writ, order or direction requiring there spondents to produce its records relating to order dated 16/06/1994 of the Additional Collector of Customs, New Delhi, whereby he dropped the show cause notice dated 16 February, 1993 issued to the petitioner earlier under the provisions of the Customs Act, 1962. The show cause notice was issued to the petitioner requiring him to show cause as to why Fob and Cif value of the goods as declared in the Bill of Entry No. 240554 dated 7 August, 1992 for components and parts of photocopier machines be not enhanced and duty charged accordingly and why the goods be not confiscated under Section 111(m) of the Customs Act, 1962. The petitioner also seeks a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction requiring the respondents to permit the clearance of the aforesaid goods to the petitioner without payment of any dem...
J.K. Rajgarhia Vs. Ravi Singh and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-26-1995
Reported in: 1995IIIAD(Delhi)234; 59(1995)DLT231; 1995(34)DRJ199; 1995RLR455
Jaspal Singh, J.(1) Along with his suit for specific performance on the basis of a Memorandum of Understanding with regard to sale of premises No. C-63 Meharani Bagh, New Delhi, the plaintiff has also moved an application under Order 39 rules 1 and 2 seeking to restrain the defendants from 'parting with ownership/possession' of the said premises. It is that application which has led me to pen these lines.(2) First a bird-eye view of the facts.3. The plaintiff claims that Dr.Ravi Singh defendant for himself and on behalf of the other co-owners who too are arrayed as defendants, executed a Memorandum of Understanding agreeing' thereby to sell the building for a consideration of Rs.2,35,00,000.00 and in terms of the said agreement he even received a payment of Rs.500,000.00 through a Bank draft but is now refusing to proceed ahead with the execution of a sale deed.(4) The defendants allege that Dr.Ravi Singh had no authority to act on behalf of the other co-owners and as such the Memorand...
Chandravati and Harkesh and anr. Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-26-1995
Reported in: 60(1995)DLT573
M.S.A. Siddiqui, J.(1) The appellant Mst. Chandrawati was convicted by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Delhi under Section Indian Penal Code . and was sentenced to death together with a fine of Rs. 10,000 and in default of payment of tine toundergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year. She was also convicted under Section 498A 34 Indian Penal Code . and sentencedto pay a fine of Rs. 5,000 and in default of payment of fine toundergo rigorous imprisonment for six months. Appellants KishanLal and Harkesh were convicted u/s 498-A/34 Indian Penal Code . and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years together with a fine of Rs. 5,000 each and in default of payment of fine to under go rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months.Appellants have appealed against their convictions and sentences.The record is also before us for confirmation of the death sentence.The appeal and death reference are being disposed of by this common judgment.(2) Deceased Krishna,...
Ramesh Kumar Vs. Delhi Electric Supply Uudertaking
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-26-1995
Reported in: 1995RLR488
Mahinder Narain, J.(1) Only a short question is involved in this petition. We issue Rule D.B. and proceed to decide this petition. (2) The petitioner is a rural ice factory owner. The petitioner comes to Court saying that without giving any notice, the electricity supply to the ice factory has been disconnect ed, despite the fact that the petitioner hold a municipal license from the Health authorities regarding the ice factory, and also despite the fact that the water from the municipal supplies is used in the factory, and a laboratory approved by the Mcd has given a certificate that the ice produced is suitable for human consumption. (3) Show cause notice (SCN) was issued by us to the respondents. Response to that has been filed contending inter alia, in para 12 as follows : 'THAT in view of the aforesaid situation, the policy decision was taken at the highest level to disconnect supply of all ice factories in Lal Dora area which are operating illegally. On account of the emergent sit...
Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Rekha Gupta and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-26-1995
Reported in: 1996ACJ266; 1995IIIAD(Delhi)155; 1995(34)DRJ716
C.M. Nayar, J. (1) The present appeal is directed against the judgment and award dated October 28, 1988 of Shri B.L.Garg, Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Delhi. The appeal is filed by the Insurance Company, the Oriental Insurance Company Limited. The respondents-claimants have filed cross-objections, being C.M.No. 1550 of 1989 for enhancement of compensation as awarded by the Tribunal. (2) The respondents-claimants filed petition before the Tribunal claiming compensation of Rs.50 lakhs on account of the death of Shri Ganga Ram Gupta as a result of the accident. The deceased was coming from Najafgarh side on March 30, 1987 at about 10 P.M. in his Maruti Car No. Dbd 7613 on the left side of the road and it is alleged that he was driving at a low speed. When the said car reached near Aggarwal Dharamshala, Uttam Nagar, Najargarh Road, a bus bearing No. Dep 4442 driven by Bhoop Singh, respondent no.6 herein, rashly and negligently came on the wrong side of the road and hit the said M...
Ram Dulari Vs. Delhi Development Authority and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-26-1995
Reported in: 59(1995)DLT262; 1995(34)DRJ129
Jaspal Singh, J.(1) SMT.RAM Dulari is the plaintiff. She claims to be the owner of property bearing municipal No. 33-C, Arjun Nagar, New Delhi, which as per the plaint, comprised, of two shops, five rooms, two bath rooms, three kitchens, two W.C.s and one store on the ground floor, five rooms besides one bath room, two kitchens on the first floor and two looms, one kitchen, one Wc, two store rooms besides water tank and a Verandah on the Barsati floor. She alleges that the entire building was constructed in the year 1956 and that on 10th and 11th October, 1975 the Delhi Development Authority illegally and without authority of law demolished apart of the building. She claims that fearing further demolition she filed a civil suit in which, on October 19, 1975, the Delhi Development Authority was directed to maintain status quo. Her grievance is that despite that order the remaining portion of the building was demolished on November 4, 1975. She has thus instituted this suit for the recov...
Harcharan Singh Josh Vs. Hari Krishan
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-26-1995
Reported in: 1995IIIAD(Delhi)217; 60(1995)DLT237
Vijender Jain, J.(1) This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner on the ground that his removal from service by the Deputy Inspector General of the respondent was illegal. (2) Nobody had been appearing in the matter for the respondent thereforee, the Court directed Mr. Madan Lokur, Advocate, to appear in the matter. (3) It is admitted that the petitioner was appointed as a 'Naik' on 28.9.1959. Thereafter, he was promoted as Head Constable on 16.5.1961 and as Sub-Inspector on 8.10.1967. The petitioner was again promoted as 'Subedar' (Inspector) on 13.11.1975. Thereafter, he was posted at Tin-Sukia on 14.6.1979. On account of certain charges of mis-conduct, the petitioner was removed from service vide order dated 26.6.1980 passed by the Deputy Inspector General of Police. Thereafter, the petitioner preferred a statutory appeal on 30.3.1981. It was also dismissed by the Inspector General of Police. (4) Mr. R.P. Nautiyal. learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner, has argued tha...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »