Delhi Court May 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.
Ashok Chawla Vs. Rakesh Gupta
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-24-1996
Reported in: 1996(26)ARBLR255(Delhi); 63(1996)DLT146
Lokeshwar Prasad, J.(1) The petitioner, named above, has filed the present petition under Section 9 of the Arbitration And Conciliation Ordinance, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as `the Ordinance' ). The facts relevant for the disposal of the above mentioned petition, briefly stated are, that the petitioner who is a retired Colonel from the Army is in the aviation business and that in July, 1994 he was approached by the respondent with certain business proposals. It is alleged that though the business proposals did not materialise but the petitioner and the respondent developed a relationship and the petitioner starting trusting the respondent implicitly. The respondent it is averred, represented to the petitioner that he was running a big airlines company by name `United India Airways' and requested the petitioner to be a part of the company and guide and control the business as he needed experienced and financially sound persons for expanding the business. It is averred that the petit...
Prime Channel Vs. Union of India
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-24-1996
Reported in: AIR1997Delhi18; 1996(38)DRJ106
Dalveer Bhandari, J. (1) This appeal has been preferred against the judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 19.4.1996 passed in Writ petition No. 1319/96. Brief facts which are necessary to dispose of this appeal are recapitulated as under:(2) An application for production of Seriall 'Chandrakanta' based on the novel of late Shri Devki Nandan Khatri was first made to Doordarshan by Shri Kamleshwar a well known short story writer in May, 1984. The Seriall was proposed to be completed in 13 episodes. Doordarshan's approval was conveyed for production of this Seriall on 28th March, 1985.(3) On the request of Shri Kamleshwar the above Seriall was transferred in the name of M/s Prime Channel on 13th January, 1987. Again on the request of Shri Kamleshwar, Doordarshan granted permission to exhibit 26 episodes including the original 13 episodes for the Seriall. Again on the request of the appellant, the Doordarshan vide its letter dated 21st February, 1994 conveyed in principle the decision...
Ballarpur Industries Ltd. Vs. Union of India
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-24-1996
Reported in: AIR1997Delhi1; 63(1996)DLT306; 1996(38)DRJ327
C.M. Nayar, J. (1) The present judgment will dispose of two petitions being C.W.P.No-5424/93 (Ballarpur Industries Ltd. and others v. Union of India and others) and C.W.P.No-546/1995 (M/s Balsara Hygiene Products Ltd. and another v. Union of India and others). The First petition is filed for issuance of writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the impugned notification dated 26th August, 1993 and for an appropriate order or direction including writ of prohibition prohibiting the respondents from in any manner implementing and acting upon or enforcing the provisions of the aforesaid notification. It may only be necessary to state the facts of the first petition as both the petitions raise common questions of law in respect of the challenge to the same notification.(2) Petitioner No.1 is engaged in the business of paper, Chemicals, edible oils etc. and is alleged to be one of the biggest manufacturer of edible oils with large turnover. Petitioner No.2 is engaged in the business of d...
Jai Pal Singh Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-24-1996
Reported in: 1996IIIAD(Delhi)429; 1996CriLJ4097; 64(1996)DLT754
Mohd. Sharnim, J. (1) The case of the complainant which emerges from the evidence led by the prosecution may shortly be stated as under: that on March 6,1990 at about 1.00 p.m., PW2 Bhuvnesh Kumar Along with his father known as Kunwar Pal ( hereinafter referred to as the deceased to facilitate the reference) called on his maternal uncle, Public Witness 7 Ramesh at his house at S-166/15, Baba Lakhi Nath,Ward No. 3, Mehrauli, New Delhi. While he and his father i.e. the deceased and aforesaid PW7 Ramesh were taking tea Jai Pal ( hereinafter referred to as the appellant for the sake of convenience), his brother Bijender, his son Dashrath @ Pappu and one Ajay Pal Singh also arrived at his house. Ramesh (Public Witness 7) also entertained them with tea. The appellant herein is the maternal uncle of the wife of PW7 Ramesh. They fell to talking. The appellant while talking to the deceased went into his tantrum and alleged that he ( i.e. the deceased) had falsely implicated him in a criminal ca...
Raj Rani Sehgal Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-24-1996
Reported in: 70(1997)DLT688; 1996(38)DRJ122
Devinder Gupta, J.(1) The sole question for consideration in this appeal, which has arisen against an order passed on 5th April, 1995 by Shri S.M.Aggarwal, Additional District Judge, Delhi in Probate Case No.245/91, Raj Rani v. State is that whether the appellant has been able to rule out the suspicious circumstances pertaining to the due execution of will Ex.P.2 and for that the impugned order is vitiated holding that the will Ex.P.2 is surrounded with innumerable suspicious circumstances, none of which have legitimately been explained by the appellant.(2) It is now well settled that mere proof of execution of will by producing scribe or attesting witnesses or proving genuinely of testator's signature itself is not sufficient to establish the validity of a will, unless suspicious circumstances are ruled out by the propounder and Court's conscious is satisfied, not only on due execution but about the authenticity. In H.Venkatachala Iyengar v. B.N.Thimmajammaand others, : AIR1959SC443 ,...
Surendra Vs. Union of India
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-24-1996
Reported in: 62(1996)DLT583; 1996(37)DRJ621
J.K. Mehra, J. (1) This is a Writ Petition brought by the petitioner, who had joined Indian Army on a short service Junior commission for five years subject to further extension regularization later on.(2) In this case the only arguments advanced by Mr. Bagai are that the petitioner is the only one who was not regularised nor was his term extended out of a total number of 145 persons who were considered for regularisation while 144 were regularised. This was inspire of the fact that while having him discharged from army, he was given excellent report and was described as a person of outstanding merit and for the years 1988, 1991 and 1992, he was rated as above average, high average and outstanding respectively while he was rated average for 1989 and 1990. The Department was directed to produce the criteria fixed for regularisation and also the ACRs of all the 145 persons that reveals that ACRs up to 1991 alone were considered and out of that the criteria fixed was that a candidate shou...
H. Singh Vs. Govt. of Nct of Delhi
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-24-1996
Reported in: 63(1996)DLT97; 1996(38)DRJ40
M.K. Sharma, J. (1) The petitioner in this writ petition has sought for a direction to the respondents to allow the petitioner to function as the Principal of the Guru Harkishan Public School, Punjabi Bagh, New Delhi as the suspension of the petitioner stood revoked in terms of letter dated 10.4.1996 issued by the respondent No.3 and/or ensure compliance of the aforesaid order dated 10.4.1996. (2) The petitioner was promoted as the Principal of the Guru Harkishan Public School, Punjabi Bagh in the month of September, 1992. The appointment of the petitioner as the Principal of the said school was approved and confirmed by the Governing Body of the School after she was selected by the Promotion Committee. (3) However, through letter dated 12.3.1996 the petitioner was put under suspension from the Principalship of the school as she was found guilty of certain charges. In the said letter it was further stated that the decision to suspend the petitioner was taken at a meeting of the Governi...
Ram Vir Singh Vs. Union of India
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-24-1996
Reported in: 1996IIIAD(Delhi)63; 1997(40)DRJ721
Devinder Gupta, J. (1) Petitioner has, in this writ petition, prayed for quashing of the order, annexure P-7 dated 30.3.1993, of his removal from service. (2) The facts in brief are that the petitioner joined Border Security Force (for short B.S.F.) as a Constable in 1989 and was promoted as Naik, Radio Operator, in the Communication set up of B.S.F. In the month of March, 1993, the petitioner was deployed in 7th Bn. B.S.F. Ajnata, Amritsar, on 3.3.1993 Officiating Commandant A.S. Gill of the Battalion detailed Bhupinder Singh, Assistant Commandant of the Unit, to prepare Record of Evidence in the case of the petitioner, who was stated to have been charged for an offence under section 20(a) of the Border Security Force Act, 1968 (for short the 'Act'), which was required to be done, in accordance with Rule 48 of the Border Security Force Rules, 1969 (for short the 'Rules'). Assistant Commandant was also enjoined upon to comply with the requirements of sub rule (8) of Rule 48, after reco...
M.S. Nehra Vs. Union of India
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-24-1996
Reported in: 1996IIIAD(Delhi)981; 62(1996)DLT647; 1996(38)DRJ47
M.K. Sharma, J. (1) The present writ petition is directed against the order dated 7.9.1995 passed by the respondents calling for nominations of the departmental candidates of the rank of Inspectors for promotion to the post of Assistant Commandant in the General Duty (Executive) Cadre. One of the further reliefs prayed for by the petitioner in this writ petition is for issuance of direction to the respondents to treat all the eligible Inspectors irrespective of the Cadre/category to which they belong, equally by fixing only one cut off date of promotion as Inspector for the purpose of their consideration for promotion to the rank of Assistant Commandant in the General Duty Cadre. (2) The petitioner was promoted to the post of Inspector (Subedar) on 11.4.1988. The criteria for promotion to the post of Assistant Commandant is governed by the Border Security Force (Assistant Commandants) Recruitment Rules, 1985 (hereinafter called the Rules). Under the provisions of the aforesaid Rules 50...
Jagdish Prasad Sharma Vs. the State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-24-1996
Reported in: 1996CriLJ4424; ILR1997Delhi545
Usha Mehra, J. (1) Delay, it is well known is fatal to criminal investigation, as well as to the trial. it gets worst if it can be attributed to lethargic and lackadaisical manner of investigalion. if prolongs the agony of the person under investigation. In such a situation, the alleged accused lives every moment under extreme emotional and mental stress. There is no denying the fact that delayed investigation and delayed institution, of charge sheet thereafter delayed trial are the factors which cause grave prejudice and disadvantage to the accused. It has been abhorred by the Apex Court i.n umpteen of cases. The Courts arc protector of right and personal liberty of the citizen. In such circumstances, Court has to step in and if the facts permits, resort to drastic remedy of quashing further proceedings. It is in this backdrop that we have to examine the facts of this case.(2) The petitioner joined service in Mcd as Laboratory Assistant in 1952 in pay-scale of Rs. 60 per month. He was...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »