Delhi Court February 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.
Hari Kishore Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-01-1996
Reported in: 1996IAD(Delhi)981; 1996CriLJ2540; 62(1996)DLT100
P.K. Bahn, J. (1) The appellant, Hari Kishore, has been convicted of an offence punishable under Section 302 I.P.C. of having committed the murder of one Babu Lal during the intervening night of March 15 and 16, 1987 in House No. CPA/14, New Seelam Pur, Delhi by an Additional Sessions Judge, Delhi vide his judgment dated February 25,1992 and has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 500.00 and in default of payment of fine to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two months vide separate order of the even date. He has filed this appeal challenging his conviction and the sentence. (2) Babu Lal, deceased was employed as sweeper in Municipal Corporation of Delhi and so was his wife Shanti Devi, PW-1. They were living with their five children including son Prakash, PW-6 aged about 17 years in the aforesaid house. The house comprised of only one room and a Courtyard. The entrance to the house could be had easily even though the doors of the Courtyard ...
V. Bhagat Vs. D. Bhagat
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-01-1996
Reported in: 1996IAD(Delhi)699; 61(1996)DLT747; 1996(36)DRJ457; 1994RLR34
Jaspal Singh, J. (1) The petitioner, Mr.Bhagat, is a lawyer of long standing. The respondent is a vicefpresident in the Indian Tourism and Development Corporation. They fought in marriage, and for so long and with such venom and bitterness that the Supreme Court had to intervene and dissolve their marriage. They are now fighting out of marriage. The battle now centres around the premises which once happened to be their matrimonial home. Despite the divorce, the respondent has not walked out of it, nor, it appears, she intends to. Not, at least, till she is compelled to. The petitioner seems equally determined to make her go. The battle-lines are thus clearly drawn and once again the courts are witness to the clash of the two titans with both sides betraying no signs of battle weariness. (2) Soon after the dissolution of the marriage, the petitioner instituted a criminal complaint against the respondent under section 448 of the Indian Penal Code. To his chagrin, if I may say so, the lea...
Subhash Gulati Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-01-1996
Reported in: 1996IAD(Delhi)677; 62(1996)DLT145; 1996(36)DRJ696
Usha Mehra, J. (1) Appellant has been convicted under Section 323 Indian Penal Code (in short IPC) and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months and a fine of Rs.500.00 in default to undergo simple imprisonment for one month. This order of the Additional Sessions Judge, Delhi, has been assailed by the appellant, inter alia, on the ground that author of the Fir, Shri Ram Singh, alleged to be an eye witness had not been examined by the prosecution. The other eye witness Mahender Verma's testimony had been discredited and nor relied by the Trial Court on the charge of murder because of the contradictory statements, made by him. His testimony on the point of injuries alleged to have been inflicted by the appellant ought not to have been relied for the same reason. That Dr.V.K.Kapoor's testimony docs not support the version of injuries given by Shri Mahender Verma. Hence, testimony of Shri Mohinder Verma, Pw ought to have been rejected as a whole and the conviction could n...
Lakshmi and ors. Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-01-1996
Reported in: 1996RLR196
Jaspal Singh, J. (1) On 2 3.90 two Public Witness s. were examined name- ly, Krishan Kumar and Shiv Narain. Whereas Shiv Narain was cross-examined, Krishan Kumar was not, despite opportunity. Much thereafter, an application was moved u/S. 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for recalling PW1, Krishan Kumar besides other witnesses for cross-examination. The learned Mm declined the request as far as Krishan Kumar is concerned. Hence this petition.(2) It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that when PW1 Krishan Kumar was examined, the counsel for the petitioners was not available and came to the court only when PW2 Shiv Narain was under examination and that is why PW2 Shiv Narain was cross-examined and not Krisban Kumar who had, by that time, already left the court. (3) There is nothing on the record to lend support to the version noticed above. Rather the record shows that opportunity was granted to the defense counsel to Loss -examine PW1, Krishan Kumar but the sam...
Vineet Kumar Gupta Vs. Pradip Kumar Gupta
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-01-1996
Reported in: 1996IAD(Delhi)891; 61(1996)DLT734; 1996(36)DRJ685
N.G. Nandi, J. (1) On attaining the majority, the plaintiff has filed the suit for declaration that the agreements, one dated 1.7.1977 and the other dated 21.8.1979, executed between defendants No. 1to 5 and the General Power of Attorney, are null and void and not binding on the plaintiff or alternatively that the same have become infructuous and can not be enforced now and for a decree for possession of the property directing defendant No.5 to hand over the possession of the suit property to the plaintiff and also restraining defendants 1-4 by permanent injunction from selling the property to defendant No.5 or to any body else and also further restraining defendant No.1 from demolishing the original structure built or portion of original construction or any portion and from making any new construction or alienating the property in any manner. The plaintiff by this Ia, seeks to restrain defendant No.5 from further demolishing the original structure or changing physical features of the ...
Standard Chartered Bank Vs. Chartered Bank Employees Union and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-01-1996
Reported in: 61(1996)DLT799; (1996)IILLJ52Del
S.D. Pandit, J.(1) -THESE three applications aremter-connected. thereforee, they are being disposed of by this common judgment. (2) Suit No. 2551/95 is brought by the plaintiff Standard Chartered Bank against in all five defendants. Defendant No. 1, Standard Chartered Bank Employees Union is the Union of the employees of the plaintiff Bank whereas defendants 2 to 5 are its office-bearers. Out of these office bearers defendant No. 4 was working in the Loan Centre Unit of the plaintiff's branch at 17, Parliament Street, New Delhi and by letter dated 1.11.1995 he has been transferred to Darya Ganj Branch and the said order was served on the defendant No. 4 on 2.1 11 995. It is the case of the plaintiff that on 3.11.1995 the defendants and its members started shouting pitched slogans against the management using filthy language for its officers and created unruly scenes, thumped the tables and caused hindrance to the officers in discharging their duties and also obstructing the customers. ...
Ratanlal Mandalaus Vs. Ram Avtar
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-01-1996
Reported in: 1996IAD(Delhi)1039; 61(1996)DLT861; 1996(36)DRJ506
S.K. Mahajan, J.(1) The plaintiff had filed this suit for partition of the property in Schedule A to the plaint and also for rendition of accounts. One of the properties which was sought to be partitioned was a plot of land measuring 7,389 sq. yards situated at 483/49A in Revenue Estate of Jhilmil, Tahirpur M.S. 6, Delhi Shahadara Border, close to Delhi Ghaziabad Trunk Road having about 20 sheds therein. During the pendency of the suit, a compromise was arrived at between the parties and joint application under Order 23 Rule 3 Civil Procedure Code was filed. On February 14, 1984 this Court passed a final decree in terms of the compromise exhibit C-1. Under this decree, the aforesaid property in Jhilmil, Tahirpur had come to the share of the plaintiff and defendant No.6. By order dated January 29, 1993 this Court had appointed the plaintiff as receiver of the property in Jhilmil, Tahirpur. On an application having been made by the receiver in Court being IA.No-2987/93 seeking police hel...
i.T.C. Vs. New Delhi Municipal Committee
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-01-1996
Reported in: 1996IAD(Delhi)995; 1996(36)DRJ702
M.S.A. Siddiqui, J. (1) The petitioner seeks quashing of the impugned assessment order fixing the annual rateable value of the Maurya Sheraton Hotel & Towers, Sardar Patel Marg, New Delhi at Rs.96,80,37,888.00 less 10% with effect from 1.4.1995. (2) The validity of the impugned assessment order has been challenged on various grounds enumerated in the writ petition. The grounds of challenge are inter-connected and substantially relate to one matter i.e., measure for determination of the annual rateable value of the property in question. However, main grievance of the petitioner is that the taxing authority did not observe the law and failed in its duty to determine the annual rateable value of the property in question in accordance with Section 6 of the Delhi Rent Control Act as directed by the Apex Court in Civil Appeal No.42-44/87 New Delhi Municipal Committee v. East India Ltd. It is further stated that the impugned order is without jurisdiction and as such it is null and void. Learn...
Maharaj Krishan Vs. Iqbal Krishan
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-01-1996
Reported in: 1996IAD(Delhi)743; 61(1996)DLT693; 1996(36)DRJ502
Manmohan Sarin, J.(1) The defendant has moved the present application under Order Xxiii Rule 3 read with Section 151 Cpc, for recording adjustment of the suit vide a Writing/Memorandum of Understanding dated 3-11-1993. Defendant prays that the above compromise be recorded and suit be decreed in terms thereof. The execution of the Memorandum of Understanding dated 3-11-1993 between the parties is admitted.(2) The application is opposed by the plaintiff on number of grounds. However, the principal ground being that as the mutually acceptable buyer at the mutually acceptable price, was not found within the stipulated time, the understanding lapsed and stood exhausted . It is urged that the Memorandum of Understanding was required specifically to be destroyed.(3) Let me recapitulate the facts in brief relevant for the disposal of the present application :- (I)The plaintiff claiming himself to the owner of the House No.B-6 Jangpura Extension, New Delhi filed the above suit for possession of...
Vinod Saluja Vs. Sita Rani
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-01-1996
Reported in: 1996IAD(Delhi)1021; 61(1996)DLT790; 1996(36)DRJ529
S.K. Mahajan, J. (1) This order will dispose of the application of the plaintiff under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 for the grant of an ad-interim order of injunction restraining the defendant from selling, transferring, alienating or creating third party rights in property being House No.N-1, Green Park Extension, New Delhi. Facts, in short, giving rise to the present suit are that : -(2) By an agreement alleged to have been entered into between the plaintiffs and the defendants on 15th September, 1994, the defendant had agreed to sell the terrace rights of the property bearing No.N-1, Green Park Extension, New Delhi to the plaintiffs for a total consideration of Rs.48 lakhs. The agreement is in the form of a receipt-cum-agreement on a paper of an exercise book. The defendant has signed on the back side of the said paper on the revenue receipt and the same has been witnessed by the son of the defendant. Certain other documents, namely, affidavit/undertaking, affidavit for submission of buil...
- ‹ Prev
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 15
- Next ›
- Last »