Delhi Court November 1996 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.
Ram Beti Vs. Sumesh Prashad
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-01-1996
Reported in: 1996VAD(Delhi)454; 65(1997)DLT125; 1996(39)DRJ799; 1997RLR151
Lokeshwar Prasad, J. (1) The present petition, filed by the petitioners, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, is directed against the order passed by Shri H.S. Sharma, Additional Rent Controller, Delhi on 2.12.95 and confirmed in appeal by Ms. Sharda Aggarwal, Rent Controller, Delhi vide order dated 10.1.1996. The facts relevant for the disposal of the present petition lie in a narrow compass. Shri Sumesh Prasad (respondent No.1) had filed an eviction petition under Section 14(l)(e) read with Section 25B of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 against one Shri Roop Kishore. During the pendency of the eviction proceedings said Shri Roop Kishore expired leaving-behind three sons and one widow. However, the landlord i.e. said Shri Sumesh Prashad (respondent No.1) imp leaded only Shri Ram Kishore, one of the sons of the deceased Shri Roop Kishore as the respondent and a decree for eviction was passed in those proceedings against said Shri Ram Kishore. Thereafter execution was filed ...
Kamal Gandhi Vs. M.G. Atri
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-01-1996
Reported in: 1997IAD(Delhi)521; 65(1997)DLT99; 1997(40)DRJ106
S.K. Mahajan, J.(1) On a complaint made by the Chief Enforcement Directorate (Foreign Exchange Regulation Act), Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue, New Delhi under Section 61(2)(ii) read with Section 56 of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act( in short referred to as the Act) for offences committed under Sections 9(1)(b), 9(1)(d) and 8(1) of the Act, the petitioner and 16 other accused persons were summoned by the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate for 22nd February, 1996. Accused Nos.6,9,10,13,15 & 16 were enlarged on bail by the Court of the Acmm on 22nd February, 1996 when they appeared before the Acmm pursuant to the issuance of the said summons. The petitioner was, however, alleged to have not been served for 22nd February, 1996 and when he appeared in the Court of the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate on 20th August, 1996, his bail application was rejected and he was sent to judicial custody. The petitioner made another application for the grant of bail before...
Dr. A.C. Mehra Vs. Behari Lal and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-01-1996
Reported in: I(1997)ACC657
Usha Mehra, J.1. Appellant Dr. A.C. Mehra was awarded compensation of Rs. 4,500/- along with interest @ 6% per annum by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (in short the Tribunal) vide the impugned award dated 22nd November, 1979. Aggrieved appellant preferred this appeal against the impugned award because he felt that compensation allowed was on the lower side. Further the Tribunal wrongly concluded that since the appellant had already received the claim from his Insurance Company for the damage of this car hence he was not entitled to claim any compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act (in short the Act).2. The case of the appellant is that this plea of double enrichment was not taken by the respondent before the Tribunal. Hence cannot be taken now nor can take advantage of the insurance amount received by the appellant. That payment he received was pursuance to a separate contract entered into With his Insurance Company. Moreover, the Tribunal erroneously ignored the price paid by th...
- ‹ Prev
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 15
- Next ›