Delhi Court September 1995 Judgments
Home Cases Delhi 1995 Page 16 of about 167 results (0.020 seconds)Milan Chaudhuri and anr. Vs. Surinder Singh and ors.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: I(1996)ACC259; 1997ACJ493; 61(1996)DLT131; 1995(35)DRJ191
C.M. Nayar, J.(1) The present appeal is directed against the Award dated January 28, 1982 of Shri R.K.Sain, Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Delhi. The appellants who are the parents of the deceased Master Pradipto Chaudhuri filed petition under Section 110-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, against the respondents for compensation of Rs. 2 lakhs alleging that on March 13, 1975, at about 18.15 hours, when the deceased, aged about 13 1/2 years was going along Pandara Road on his cycle,Bus No. DLP-5862 suddenly turned to left without giving any indication and with such speed that it went partially on the pavement and hit the deceased. The driver drove away the vehicle without stopping after the accident. It was, thereforee, alleged that the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving on the part of the driver. The deceased was in prime of youth and could have lived a long life but for this unfortunate accident. He was the only son of the appellants and would have looked after a...
Tag this Judgment!Adarsh Pal Singh and ors. Vs. Didar Singh and ors.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: I(1996)ACC216; 1997ACJ353; 61(1996)DLT75
C.M. Nayar, J.(1) The present judgment will dispose of two Appeals, Fao No. 168/92 filed by the claimant for enhancement against the award dated 28th January, 1982 passed by Shri P.R. Thakur, Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Delhi and Fao No. 130/82 filed by New India Assurance Company Ltd. impugning the finding of the Tribunal that the Insurance Company will be liable for the entire amount of the Award. The appellant, Adarsh Pal Singh, was a pillion rider of two- wheeler scooter No. Dhn 3811 driven by one Satish Chander on 27th August, 1977 near the turning of Joshi Road and New Rohtak Road. The truck bearing registration No. MTT3023 coming from Joshi Road side suddenly took a turn towards right side without giving any horn or indication and struck against the scooter and as a result of the said impact the scooterist and the appellant who was the pillion rider were thrown from the scooter while the scooter came under the truck. It got entangled with the truck which did not make ...
Tag this Judgment!Ansuya Parshad Vs. Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs and anr.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 60(1995)DLT177
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 th...
Tag this Judgment!Basumati Mahajan Vs. Foremost Industries India Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1995(34)DRJ732
K. Ramamoorthy, J. (1) The above suit is for the recovery of possession of the suit property from the defendant Company who was a tenant in the premises.(2) The defendant Company has filed is 4234/95 under Section 442 and 446(1) of the Companies Act read with Section 22 of the Sick Industrial Company (Special Provision) Act, 1985 for staying of proceedings in the suit until the plaintiff obtains leave of the Hon'ble Company Judge Bombay High Court and also consent from Bifr .(3) According to defendant Company M/s Nicco Corporation had filed a company petition No. 415/92 in the Bombay High Court for winding up the defendant Company. On 28.9.1983, the Company Judge, Bombay High Court appointed the official liquidator as Provisional liquidator under Section 446(1) of the Companies Act. The Petitioner in is has stated as follows:- a) The Defendant most respectfully submits that prior to the company has become a sick unit as defined under the Sick Industrial Companies Act; in a Company Peti...
Tag this Judgment!Krishan Chand Vs. Union of India and anr.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1995IVAD(Delhi)285; 60(1995)DLT597; 1995(35)DRJ434
Usha Mehra, J. (1) The short point involved in this petition is whether services rendered by the petitioner in the Indian Air Force for nearly 22 months can be counted towards pensionary benefits. The petitioner joined Indian Air force and served from 21st March,1967 to 11th January,1970. He was, however, discharged from Air Force w.e.f. 11th January,1970 on 'Selection for Permanent Commission' in the Army. His lien on the present rank was not maintained nor the service rendered by him for the duration of his pre-commissioning training has been counted towards pensionery benefits. The action of the respondent is based on the wrong interpretation of the rules. When on being selected on permanent commission, his duration of pre-commissioning training was not considered. The petitioner made representation through Commandant Indian Military Academy seeking benefit of service rendered during that period. He also met personally with the then Chief of Air Staff, but his representation was rej...
Tag this Judgment!N.K. Garg and ors. Vs. I.i.T., Delhi and ors.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 60(1995)DLT214; 1995(35)DRJ218
P.K. Bahri, J. (1) The petitioners, who are working as Assistant Professors in I.I.T, Hauz Khas, New Delhi, have filed this writ petition seeking writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari for quashing the pay revision order dated the 19th April 1990 as communicated by the Department of Education, Ministry of Human Resource Development, Government of India and the resolution of the Board of Governors dated the 17th May 1990 and for requiring the respondents to reframe the Cadre structure of the teaching staff of the I.I.T. and to remove the discrimination which the impugned order has created against the petitioners. A writ of mandamus is also prayed for an order for placing the petitioners, who were earlier in the middle rung as Assistant Professors, in the old Cadre and they be considered to be Associate Professors in the new scheme with effect from January 1, 1986 or from the date of joining after January 1986. Another writ is sought for quashing the selections made to the ...
Tag this Judgment!Steel Authority of India Ltd. and ors. Vs. Rameshwar Dass Bishan Dayal ...
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1995IVAD(Delhi)633; 60(1995)DLT271; 1995(35)DRJ135
Anil Dev Singh, J. (1) This appeal under Section 10 of the Delhi High Court Act, 1966 read with clause 15 of the Letters Patent arises from the order of the learned single Judge dated March 24, 1995, in is No.10561 of 1994 in Suit No. 2538 of 1994 whereby the application of the appellants (defendants in the suit) under Order 7 rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short'CPC') has been dismissed. The facts giving rise to the appeal are as follows: (2) The first appellant, a public sector Government Company invited tenders on July 24,1994 in prescribed form for handling iron and steel materials at its Stockyard at Naini, Allahabad. According to clause 2.1 of the invitation to tender,a tenderer was required to have experience, in its own name and style, of handling at least 20,000 Mt of steel materials in any of the preceding five financial years. Clause 7 of the invitation to tender stipulated that the tender shall be kept valid for a period of 90 days from the date of opening of P...
Tag this Judgment!Indian Aluminium Cables Ltd. Vs. State Elect. Board and ors.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1995(34)DRJ697
S.K. Mahajan, J. 1. M/s. Indian Aluminium Cable Limited, the petitioner herein, had offered to supply ACSR conductors 'Panther' size 30/7 3.00 mm conforming to IS : 398/1961 with latest amendment thereof in quantity 490 kilometers at the rate of Rs. 4,390 per kilometer exclusive of excise duty and central sales tax totaling Rs. 21,77,440/-. This offer was confirmed by the Superintending Engineer/Design for Chief Engineer(P&C;), Haryana Slate Electricity Board, Chandigarh on 4.8.1972 vide its purchase order No. 170/9999/T-349. Under this purchase order certain disputes had arisen between the parties which, as per the arbitration agreement contained in the purchase order, were liable to be referred to arbitration. One arbitrator each was to be appointed by the respective parties and the third was to be appointed by the President of the Institute of Engineers. The respondent No. 1 by notice dated 26th July, 1976 called upon the petitioner to make payment of Rs. 37,61,465.60 paise which wa...
Tag this Judgment!Syndicate Bank Vs. I.K. Malik
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1995IVAD(Delhi)267; 60(1995)DLT376
Manmohan Sarin, J. (1) The petitioner assails the order dated 8.5.1995 of Shri I.S. Mehta, Additional District Judge, Delhi, dismissing their application under Order Vi, Rule 17 Civil Procedure Code . for amendment of written statement. The facts in brief are:- (I)The respondent has filed a suit for possession and recovery of damages mesne profits in respect of premises No. C-17, Vasant Vihar, New Delhi, which were let out to the petitioner in the year 1973. The respondent claims to have terminated the tenancy of the petitioner vide a notice dated 15.11.1992. The petitioner in the written statement filed in March, 1993, averred termination of the tenancy was not in accordance with law. Further that the petitioner was in possession of the tenanted premises and the adjacent premises C-18, for the last 20 years under an oral agreement and the tenancy continued. The oral agreement to lease was a joint one and also for property No. C-18. This was to provide a banking hall on the ground floo...
Tag this Judgment!Raj Bahadur Baweja Vs. Narender Singh Sahni and ors.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1995IIIAD(Delhi)887; 60(1995)DLT310; 1995RLR506
Mohd. Shamim, J.(1) The petitioner through the present revision petition has taken exception to an order dated February 6,1995 passed by the Additional Rent Controller, Delhi, whereby he dismissed the application for leave to defend moved by him under Section 25B of the Delhi Rent Control Act,1958 (hereinafter referred to as the Act for the sake of convenience) and passed an order of eviction in respect of the premises in occupation of the petitioner shown by red colour in the site plan Ex. Ca annexed with the petition. (2) Brief facts which gave rise to the present petition are being stated in order to facilitate the disposal of the present revision petition. The respondent herein i.e. Shri Narinder Singh Sahni brought, forward a petition for eviction before the Rent Controller, Delhi against the petitioner and respondent No. 2 on the following grounds: that he was owner and landlord of the premises bearing No. 267/2, Street No. 2, Joshi Road, KarolBagh, Delhi. A portion of the said p...
Tag this Judgment!