Delhi Court August 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.
Vishal Sethi and ors. Vs. Vinod Kumar Sethi
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-01-1995
Reported in: 59(1995)DLT672
S.D. Pandit, J.(1) This application is filed by the petitioners who had filed this Suit No. 82/92 under the provisions of Order Xxxiii of the Code of Civil Procedure as indigent persons. Along with their application under Rule 1 of Order Xxxiii they had filed this application to get interim maintenance as they had filed the suit against their father Shri Vinod Kumar Sethi to get a decree for maintenance and the amount for the marriage expenses of petitioner No. 3, Deepali. It is the claim of the applicants/petitioners that the monthly income of their father is more than Rs. 15,000.00 . All the petitioners are minor. They are taking education and they are living with their mother.They have sought a permanent decree of maintenance at the rate of Rs. 1,000.00 per month per petitioner and Rs. 2.00 lakhs towards the marriage expenses of petitioner No. 3 Deepali. (2) In this application they have averred that they are unable to maintain themselves. Their mother is working as a teacher and he...
Dilbagh Singh Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-01-1995
Reported in: 1995IIIAD(Delhi)499; 59(1995)DLT647; 1995(34)DRJ685
P.K. Bahri, J, (1) Dilbagh Singh, Manak Chand and Pooran Kumar- appellants have been convicted of offences punishable under Section 120B read with Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, Section 302 read with Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code for murder of a truck driver Phool Chand and under Section 392 read with Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code for committing robbery of truck bearing No.MRL-666 and Manak Chand appellant has been also convicted in addition of an offence punishable under Section 25 of the Arms Act vide judgment dated June 12, 1989, of an Additional Sessions Judge, New Delhi. Vide order of the even date the appellants have been sentenced to undergo each imprisonment for life and to pay each a fine of Rs.2,000.00 and in default of payment of fine to undergo further rigorous imprisonment of six months for the offence of murder and to undergo each rigorous imprisonment for ten years and also to pay a fine of Rs.2,000.00 each and in default of payment of fine to unde...
S.R. Subhramaniam Vs. Kashmir Singh and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-01-1995
Reported in: 1995IIIAD(Delhi)630; 59(1995)DLT761
C.M. Nayar, J.(1) The present appeal is directed against the award dated 29th October, 1981 passed by Shri S.P. Sabharwal, Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Delhi. The claim petition was filed by the appellant under Section 110-A of the Motor Vehicles Act claiming compensation of Rs. 1,75,000.00 on account of injuries sustained by him in motor accident that took place on 20th January, 1976 at about 6.45 p.m. on Curzon Road near Bhartiya Vidya Bhawan School, New Delhi. The appellant was going on his two wheeler scooter from Connaught Place and was proceeding towards India Gate via Curzon Road. It was alleged that he was driving his scooter at a slow speed on correct side of the road. When he reached near Cghs Dispensary on Curzon Road, car No. DHB-3465 came from a side lane. The said car was driven by respondent No .1 rashly and negligently and at a fast speed. The respondent did not stop the vehicle at the junction of the side lane and entered the Curzon Road at a reckless speed w...
S.S. Khera Vs. Anand Son and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-01-1995
Reported in: 60(1995)DLT97
K. Ramamoorthy, J. (1) The plaintiff has filed a suit for injunction restraining the defendant from dealing in Dry Cleaning business or in any other business under the name Snowhite Drycleaners or any other trade name identical/deceptively similar to the plaintiff's trade name Snowhite. In I.A. 3503/94 the plaintiff has prayed for interim orders. (2) The case of the plaintiff tersely stated is that on 20.1.1976 there was an agreement between the plaintiff and the defendant in and by which the plaintiff granted license to the defendant to use the name in Ghaziabad on payment of royalty and the defendant had been paying the royalty to the plaintiff continuously and the plaintiff has filed letters from 1984 onwards showing the attitude of the defendant accepting the license and paying the royalty to the plaintiff. On 24.4.1982 the plaintiff issued a notice to the defendant stating, inter-alia, that the defendants had committed breach of the agreement dated 20.1.1976 and that he should imm...
S.K. Bhatnagar Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-01-1995
Reported in: 59(1995)DLT518; 1995(35)DRJ449
Vijender Jain, J.(1) This writ petition was initially dismissed on 20.11.1989. Against the dismissal order the petitioner preferred a Special Leave Petition in the Supreme Court. On 14.7.1992 the Supreme Court set aside the order of dismissal and remanded the case back to the High Court. On 1.2.1993 rule was issued. According to Mr.Bhat, learned counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner joined the Health Department of M.P.Government as Assistant Surgeon through Public Service Commission on 7.3.1967. On 24.5.1971 the petitioner joined the Indo-Tibetan Border Police (hereinafter referred to as 'ITBP') as Junior Medical officer 'Grade II'. His pay was fixed in the grade of Rs.350-900. Pursuant to the offer invited by the respondents for absorption in the Itbp, the petitioner exercised his option to be absorbed in the ITBP. On 1.1.1972 the M.P.Government revised the pay scale of Assistant Surgeon to Rs.420-900. Although the petitioner remained in the grade of Rs.350-500. Consequential on ...
Des Raj Vs. Tek Ram and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-01-1995
Reported in: 59(1995)DLT454
C.M. Nayar, J.(1) The present appeal is directed against the judgment dated February 24, 1977 of Additional District Judge, Delhi. (2) The respondent Tek Ram and others filed a suit for ejectment of the appellant from the site shown red in the plan attached to the plaint and for recovery of Rs. 18.00 on account of rent from July 1,1963 to March 31, 1964 and damages from April 1,1964 to June 30,1966 amounting to Rs. 54.00 . The said suit was filed in the year 1966 in the Court of Senior Sub Judge, Delhi. The respondents/plaintiffs alleged that they were the owners of the site in dispute; that the appellant was in possession of the same since 1949 under an oral agreement of tenancy at the rate of Rs. 2.00 per month; that on July 5,1960 a Panchayat was held at village Chandrawal and the appellant became the tenant of the land in dispute at the rate of Rs. 2.00 per month; that neither possession had been delivered nor the arrears of rent for use and occupation had been paid despite notice ...
Telecommunications Consultants India Ltd. Vs. Nangia Constructions (In ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-01-1995
Reported in: 59(1995)DLT438
K. Ramamoorthy, J.(1) This O.M.P. is filed for a declaration that the arbitration under the sub-contract dated March 21, 1985 be conducted in accordance with the Rules of International Chamber of Commerce. Paris. (2) In view of the prior proceedings in this Hon'ble Court in Suit No. 690A/91, instituted by the respondent herein, it is not necessary to set out the facts in full. However, to appreciate the contention of the petitioner herein, a few facts have to be noticed. On 2.2.1985 there was a contract between the Ministry of Posts and Telecommunications, Saudi Arabia (shortly, PTT) for External Plant Work in Dammam, Saudi Arabia and Beta Company, a Company incorporated in Saudi Arabia. This is called the main contract by the petitioner. The said Beta Company assigned the contract to the petitioner, which is called a sub-contract. On 21.3.1985 the petitioner awarded sub-contract to the respondent. Article 146 of the sub-contract is the arbitration clause, which is in the following ter...
Rajshri Pictures Pvt. Limited Vs. Hem Chand and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-01-1995
Reported in: 59(1995)DLT667
Manmohan Sarin, J.(1) Mr. A.P. Aggarwal, Advocate appears for the respondents and place his power of attorney on record.(2) This is a revision petition filed by the petitioner under Section 115 of Code of Civil Procedure assailing the order dated 12.1.1995 passed by Shri Sunil Kumar Aggarwal dismissing the application filed under Order Xiv Rule 5 of Civil Procedure Code . for addition/deletion of issues framed by the Court in the suit.(3) The respondent filed a suit for recovery of possession and damages for premises that had been let out to the petitioner at a rental of Rs. 4500.00 per month. It is the respondent's case that the monthly tenancy was terminated by a valid notice but the petitioner did not vacate the premises. Hence the suit. The petitioner filed his written statement raising a number of pleas. The Trial Court framed the following issues: '1. Whether suit has been valued properly for the purposes of Court fees and jurisdiction? Opd 2. Whether defendant is a perpetual les...
Shakuntla Devi Vs. Manoj Kumar
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-01-1995
Reported in: 1995IVAD(Delhi)238; 60(1995)DLT358
Devinder Gupta, J. (1) Plaintiff is the widow of late O.P. Gupta who owns the suit property. It is her case that O.P. Gupta died issueless on 28.2.1985 and on his death she being the only heir has inherited the entire property and is the absolute owner of the same. Out of her wedlock with O.P. Gupta, no children were born. There was nobody else to stay with her. She, accordingly allowed seven of her nephews to reside with her in the suit property. Defendants 1 & 2 are her nephews, out of seven who are also residing in the property. It is also alleged that Defendants No. 1 has set up a Will, alleged to have been executed by late O.P. Gupta on 30.9.1981 and under if it is claimed by defendant No. 1 that the plaintiff has only life interest in the property and has also claimed that half of the front portion of the house has been bequeathed to him and the rear half has been bequeathed to defendants 2 & 3. Defendant No. 1 has started troubling her and harassing her. Defendant No.1 has no ri...
Union of India Vs. Badhwar and Co.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-01-1995
Reported in: 60(1995)DLT281
Devinder Gupta, J.(1) On disputes having arisen amongst the parties concerning the award of work through supply order dated 10th June, 1077 to M/s. Badhwar & Co., the same in terms of arbitration clause were referred for adjudication to the sole arbitration of Shri Vijay Kumar, Deputy Chief Engineer (T.P) who on 29th March, 1990 made and published his award. The respondent/objector filed objections on 7th May, 1992. Admittedly the objections are not within the period of limitation. thereforee, application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, (IA 8397/93) has also been moved seeking condensation of delay in filing objections. (2) The facts in brief are that after the award was made and published by the Arbitrator, the same was filed in this Court of which notice was directed to be issued to the parties. The claimant, namely. Union of India was duly served and did not choose to file objections. The respondent was not served and was ultimately directed to be served for 8th April, 1992 t...
- ‹ Prev
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 16
- Next ›
- Last »