Delhi Court July 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.
Shashi Malhotra Vs. Lakshman Kumar Aggarwal
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-01-1996
Reported in: 1996(38)DRJ363
Lokeshwar Prasad, J. (1) This Order will dispose of the two applications (IA No. 5394/88 & 3297/88), both filed by the plaintiff under Order Xxxix Rule 1 & 2 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as 'the CPC'). Vide application, diarised as is 5394/88 the plaintiff has prayed for grant of an ex parte order of injunction restraining the defendants, their servants, agents from registering any agreement to sell and/or sale deed in favor of any person, other than the plaintiff in respect of properly bearing No. E-28, Saket. New Delhi. In the second application, numbered as is 3297/88, the plaintiff has prayed for grant of an ex parte order of injunction restraining the defendants from transferring, alienating and parting with the possession of the suit properly bearing No. E-28, Saket, New Delhi. It has also been prayed that the defendants, their servants, agents be also restrained from entering into any agreement to sell or selling or entering...
Maruti Udyog Ltd. Vs. Hi-q International
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-01-1996
Reported in: 63(1996)DLT481; (1996)114PLR41
K. Ramamoorthy, J.(1) The plaintiff has filed a suit under Order xxxvii Cpc against the defendant for the recovery of Rs. 7 lacs arising out of a contract between the parties for the supply of what is called Rep licences. The case of the plaintiff can be stated briefly in the following terms. (2) There was a tender issued by the plaintiff calling upon the interested persons for the supply of Rep licences. In response to that tender the defendant by fax message dated 10.4.1991 offered to sale Rep licences (non-flexible) at the value of Rs. 3 crores at a premium of 12.75% subject to the license being valid up to 3-1/2 months. The defendant undertook to deliver the licences within 7 days as required by the plaintiff. On the same date, 10.4.1991, the plaintiff accepted the offer made by the defendant and directed the defendant to supply the Rep licences (nonflexible) so as to reach the plaintiff on or before 17.4.1991. It is made clear in the letter that if the supply was not made by 17.4....
Metalex Pipes Ltd. Vs. Iatc (P) Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-01-1996
Reported in: 1996IVAD(Delhi)117; 1996(38)DRJ436
K.S. Gupta, J.(1) Plaintiff has filed this suit for prohibitory and mandatory injunctions against the defendants, inter alia, on the allegations that it is engaged in the sale and purchase of ferrous and non-ferrous metals and is also the manufacturer of steel pipes at B-23 Mayapuri Industrial Area Phasel, Rewari Line, New Delhi. Defendant No.1 is engaged in import and export of ferrous and non- ferrous metals. Plaintiff entered into a Bond Transfer Sale Agreement dt. 5.12.95 with defendant No.1 for purchase of Hot rolled coils (for short the goods) weighing 3078.320 Mt stored under bond nos.CW-18-48 to CW-18-59 all dt. 25.9.95 at Bhandup Bonded Warehouse, Bombay under the control of defendant 2 and these goods are covered under the bill of lading no.s 1 to 12 all dt. 10.8.95. It is further alleged that in lieu of the sale consideration plaintiff paid Rs.6,60,000.00 vide cheque no. 744785 dt. 5.12.95, Rs. 6,00,000.00 vide cheque no. 468391 dt. 26.12.95, Rs. 9,00,000.00 vide cheque no. ...
Deepak Fertilizer and Petrochemicals Corporation Ltd. Vs. Union of Ind ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-01-1996
Reported in: 1996(38)DRJ229
Y.K. Sabharwal, J.(1) Under the Essential Commodities Act, the Fertilisers(Control) Order 1985 (earlier it was 'Fertiliser Control Order, 1957) was enacted to ensure that fertilisers are available to the farmers at a subsidised price. A Scheme was notified on 1st November 1977 under which a fertiliser producing unit was to submit data of its cost of production to Fertiliser Industry Co- ordination Committee (for short 'FICC') Along with other fixed/capital cost related details. Ficc was to work out a retention price which is a combination of norms and actuals in regard to the cost of production plus depreciation plus interest plus 12% post tax return on net worth. If the selling price at which a manufacturer is compelled to sell is less than the retention price fixed for the unit, the difference between the two is payable to the manufacturer under the Scheme. (2) The petitioners in the year 1978 sought for an industrial license to set up a plant of Ammonia fertiliser at Taluja. The ind...
Central Bank of India Vs. Seth Brothers
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-01-1996
Reported in: 1996IVAD(Delhi)225; II(1996)BC385; 64(1996)DLT131; 1996(39)DRJ269
Manmohan Sarin, J. (1) This is an application moved by the defendants 1I to 3 under Section 151 Cpc wherein they have prayed for the recalling of the order dated 22-5-1995, transferring the present suit to the Debt Recovery Tribunal in view of the valuation being more than Rs.10 lacs. (2) The plaintiff. Central Bank of India has filed the present suit for the recovery of Rs.27,99,396.00 on account of credit facilities, overdraft limits and open loan availed of by defendants. The amount includes claim for interest also. Defendant No.1 is the partnership firm. Defendant Nos.2 and 3 are the partners, while the defendant No.4 is the guarantor. Pleadings and admission/ denial of documents has been completed. 3.Defendants denied their liability alleging several acts of omission and commission by the bank officials. The defendants questioned the action of the plaintiff' bank in recalling of the loan, freezing of account, when it had hypothecated stocks of over Rs.30 lacs apart from other secu...
Sunder Singh Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-01-1996
Reported in: 63(1996)DLT452; 1996(38)DRJ213
S.K. Mahajan, J.(1) The appellant, Sunder Singh, has been convicted for his having allegedly committed perjury by knowingly making contradictory and unreconcilable statements at two stages in courts and was accordingly sentenced to two months rigorous imprisonment. The appellant has preferred appeal against the impugned judgment of the trial court. (2) One Randhir Singh, while working as a clerk in the Hackney Carriage, Department of the Municipal Corporation of Delhi, had allegedly committed an offence punishable under Section 161 of the Indian Penal Code and also under Section 5(1)(d) read with Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. The appellant was a member of the trap-party which was formed to trap the said Randhir Singh while accepting bribe as prior information had allegedly been received by the CBI. After the arrest of the said Randhir Singh, statement of the appellant was recorded under Section 164 of the Criminal Procedure Code by the Metropolitan Magistrate on 26t...
Shakuntala Devi Vs. Suneet Kumar
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-01-1996
Reported in: 1997CriLJ335; 1996(38)DRJ130; 1996RLR437
Usha Mehra, J. (1) SMT.SHAKUNTALA Devi has felt aggrieved from the order of the Additional Sessions Judge thereby declining to frame the charge under Section 354, Indian Penal Code (In short the IPC) against the accused on the flimsy ground that the prosecution had not placed sufficient material on record to prove that the modesty of the petitioner was outraged.(2) Before dealing with the facts of the case it must be understood that the Apex Court in the case of joginder Singh Vs . State of Punjab, : 1979CriLJ333 and Kishun Singh v. State of Bihar Jt 1993(1) Sc 1773 observed that while forming prima facie view the Judge has to confine himself within the limits prescribed. At that stage the Court is not to evaluate or appraise the evidence to come to the conclusion that the petitioner would ultimately get convicted. The Court is only to satisfy himself that the accused is involved in the commission of the crime. Prima facie case does not mean proof. Keeping this principle in view, we ha...
Afroz Akhtar Vs. State (Through Delhi Administration)
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-01-1996
Reported in: 1996(38)DRJ288
S.K. Mahajan, J.(1) The points involved in this case are :- 1)Where the accused had surrendered before the Magistrate and was sent to judicial custody and was arrested by the police only after a notice had been sent by the Magistrate to the police, the whether the period of 90 days will begin from the date of surrender before the Magistrate or from the date of arrest by the police? 2) Whether the petitioner is entitled to the grant of bail as a matter of right after the expiry of the period of 90 days even if the challan has been filed in the Court on the 91st day i.e. the same day when the accused had made an application to the Court for being admitted to bail(2) Before I deal with these points, a few facts relevant to matter may be noted: (3) Case Fir No.289/95 was registered at Ps Shakarpur under Section 302 against the petitioner and another person. Fir was registered on May 22, 1995 and the petitioner could not be arrested. He surrendered in the Court on May 27, 1995 and was taken...
Bullan and anr. Vs. Jasmer Kavr and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-01-1996
Reported in: II(1996)ACC633; 1997ACJ940; 70(1997)DLT552
Usha Mehra, J. (1) By this order cross objections filed by the respondent (claimant before the Trial Court) are being disposed. (2) Shri Gurcharan Singh husband of respondent No. 1 Jasmer Kaur and father of respondents 2 to 5 i.e. Smt. Kartar Kaur, S. Gurdev Singh, S. Tirlochan Singh and S.Baldev Singh was killed in a motor vehicle accident on 8th June, 1973. Claimants/ respondents 1 to 5 filed a claim alleging rash and negligent driving on the part of the driver of Truck No. UPP-1505. In the said claim petition they claimed compensation to the tune of Rs. I lac. By the impugned judgment dated 22nd September, 1979 the learned Motor Accident a claims Tribunal (hereinafter called the Tribunal) awarded Rs. 68,260.00 as compensation to the claimants and restricted the liability of Insurance Company to the tune of Rs. 50,000.00 . owner and driver of the truck left aggrieved and filed the appeal which was listed as Fao No. 261/79. The same has already been dismissed. In that appeal cross obj...
Uttam Kaur and ors. Vs. Gopi Ram and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-01-1996
Reported in: 1997ACJ1062; 70(1997)DLT533
Usha Mehra, J. (1) The appellants (claimants before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal) (in short Tribunal) have assailed the impugned order passed by the Tribunal on 3rd January, 1974 thereby awarding them a sum of Rs. 10,800.00 . The short point involved in this appeal is, could the Tribunal ignore the evidence while fixing the quantum or the dependency income of the deceased. What multiplier the Tribunal should have applied. Lump sum deductions at the rate of 50% from the dependency income of the deceased is against law. That the Tribunal did not take into consideration the future prospects of the deceased while awarding the compensation. Deceased was 42 to 43 years at the time of his death. (2) In order to appreciate the contentions raised at the bar, we may have quick glance to the facts of the facts of this case. The deceased Sumer Singh was going on his motor cycle when suddenly truck bearing No. DLG-88 driven by respondent No. 1 Gopi Ram struck against the motor cycle driven by...
- ‹ Prev
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 16
- 17
- 18
- 20
- 21
- 22
- 23
- Next ›
- Last »