Delhi Court August 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.
Subhadra Vs. State (Delhi Administration)
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-01-1996
Reported in: II(1996)DMC496; 1996(38)DRJ521
S.K. Mahajan, J. (1) That Shri Shiv Kumar, who is the brother of the petitioners in Crl.R.111/95 and nephew of the petitioner in Crl.R.156/95, was married to the complainant, Smt.Usha according to Hindu rites in Delhi on 1st July, 1990; Both, the complainant as well as Shri Shiv Kumar, were employed as train graduate teachers with the Directorate of Education, Govt. of Delhi. Due to some matrimonial discord, the complainant left the matrimonial home and on March 5, 1992 lodged a report with Crime Against Women Cell at Seelampur alleging that Shri Shiv Kumar and his family members including the petitioners had been harassing her by demanding dowry and had also not returned her istridhan which was entrusted to them after marriage. On the basis of the complaint and the subsequent report dated 20th July, 1992, case Fir No-430/92 was registered against Shri Shiv Kumar and other relatives under Section 498A/406/34 IPC. After the challan had been filed by the police, the trial Court vide impu...
Naushad @ Bhura Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-01-1996
Reported in: 1996IVAD(Delhi)571; 63(1996)DLT916; 1996(39)DRJ529
K.S. Gupta, J. (1) This appeal by Naushad @ Bhura is directed against the judgment dated August 28, 1993 and order dated August 30, 1993. of an Additional Sessions Judge, Delhi, whereby he was convicted and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (hefeinafter referred to as 'IPC').(2) The case of the prosecution in nutshell is that an information conveyed on telephone at about 11.45 Am on April Ii, 1991, in regard to assault on the head of a person with a hammer at premises No.A-253 (25 yards), Raghbir Nagar by Lady Constable Saroj (2693/PCR) was recorded in the Daily Diary at Seriall No.6 at Police Post Raghbir Nagar by Constable Rattan Chand Public Witness 12 and copy thereof was entrusted to Head Constable Azad Singh Public Witness 14, who Along with Constable Virender Kumar Public Witness 7 left for the above place for inquiry. Yet another information received through telephone around 11.45 Am from 0m Parkash, Duty Constable, Rml Hospit...
O.P. Malhotra Vs. State and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-01-1996
Reported in: 1996IIIAD(Delhi)910; 63(1996)DLT716
S.K. Mahajan, J. (1) Being dissatisfied with the investigation carried on by the Delhi Police in Case Fir No. 127/95 dated 26th April, 1995 registered at Ps Kotla Mubarak pur, New Delhi under Sections 302/ 120B/IPC, the petitioner has filed this petition for transfer of investigation to the Central Bureau of Investigation or any other independent agency. (2) One Praveen Malhotra was the son of the petitioner and was residing on the first floor of House No. A-lll, defense Colony, New Delhi. The petitioner and his wife i.e. the parents of Praveen Malhotra were residing on the ground floor of the same house. In the night intervening 19/20th December, 1994 Praveen Malhotra was found dead in suspicious circumstances in room No. 2 of South Delhi Guest House, NDSE-I, New Delhi. The petitioner made a complaint to D.C.P.(South) on 20th December, 1994 staling inter alias that he suspected foul play in the death of his son at the hands of certain persons whose names had been mentioned in the peti...
Personal Point Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-01-1996
Reported in: 1996IIIAD(Delhi)971; 63(1996)DLT804; 1996(38)DRJ720
S.K. MahaJan, J. (1) On 6th June, 1996 Dr.Sunil Kaul is alleged to have left his office in the evening for-a meeting with one Mr.Subhash Gupta in his office at Okhla. He was accompanied by Mrs. Deepa Gupta, Executive Manager (Finance) and Ms.Sujata Saha, Counsellor and together they went to the office of Mr.Subhash Gupta. None of the said three persons had .returned Co their houses till late in the night. At about 11.00 p.m. Mrs.Kaul, the wife of Dr.Sunil Kaul is alleged to have received a call from the husband of Deepa inquiring about his wife as she had not yet come home by that time. Sujata's father had also called the petitioner around 11.30 p.m. to find out whereabouts of his daughter. The petitioner is alleged to have gone to the office of her husband where at about 12.00 midnight she received a call from the wife of Mr.Subhash Gupta informing her that the license of Dr.Sunil Kaul had been found at the office of Mr.Subhash Gupta. The petitioner is alleged to have gone to the hous...
Rohit Arora Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-01-1996
Reported in: 1996IIIAD(Delhi)960; 63(1996)DLT691; 1996(39)DRJ376a
N.G. Nandi, J. (1) In this petition under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, the petitioners (original accused) prays for the quashing of Fir No. 307/92 under Section 406 Indian Penal Code, registered with police station Sriniwas Puri, New Delhi by complainant Ms. Anuradha Arora.(2) It is submitted by Mr. Gujral, learned counsel for the petitioners that the marriage was solemnised at Calcutta; that the entrustment of the articles given in marriage was at Calcutta; that Delhi court has no jurisdiction since Section 181(4) of the Code is not attracted and Fir in question could not have been filed in the police station at Delhi and so no investigation by Delhi Police. As against this, it is submitted by Mr. Behl, learned App for the State that the complaint is at the initial stage, the investigation is in progress, the investigation can not be thwarted and that Section 482 of the Code can not be invoked at this stage; that the investigation should be allowed to be completed and a...
Chemical Sales Corporation Vs. New Delhi Municipal Committee
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-01-1996
Reported in: 1996VAD(Delhi)89; 64(1996)DLT160; 1996(39)DRJ30; 1996RLR495
S.N. Kapoor, J.(1) These three writ petitions which raise common question of law and facts, are being disposed of by this common judgment. Common questions are as follows: I)Whether a writ could be maintained by just challenging a demand raised by Municipal Authorities? ii) Whether (2) In all these three writ petitions, petitioners have filed writs for quashing the demand of property tax raised for the years 1982-83, 1983-84 and 1984-85 relating to flats No. 301 to 303 Avg Bhawan, 3 Connaught Place, New Delhi, and relating to flat No. 103 and 105, M-3 Connaught Place and seeking a mandamus directing the respondents to determine the house tax by arriving at the standard rent by resorting to the provisions of Section 6 of Delhi Rent Control Act (hereinafter called the Drc Act for short) on the basis of the purchase price of flats. (3) According to the petitioners, they purchased these flats. The petitioners, arbitrarily fixed the annual value. The petitioners again received bills followe...
V.N. Gupta Charitable Trust Vs. Delhi Development Authority
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-01-1996
Reported in: 1996IVAD(Delhi)90; AIR1997Delhi50; 63(1996)DLT739; 1996(38)DRJ546
Mohd. Shamim, J. (1) With the said end in view the petitioner No.2 moved the application for allotment of land before the respondent No.1 ( vide application dated July 15,1985) . Later on the case of the petitioners was also sponsored as per the requirement for the allotment of land by respondent No.3 i.e. the Directorate of Health Services, Delhi Administration through their letter dated February 26,1988. The petitioners were allotted a plot of half an acre of land vide letter dated March 23,1989 ( Annexure N) as per their request made vide letter dated January 13,1989 ( vide Annexure M) at the rate of Rs.19 lacs per acre. The petitioners were, however, very much dis-satisfied with the rate i.e. Rs. 19 lacs per acre which was being charged from them. According to the petitioners they should have been charged at the rate of Rs. 10,000.00 per acre. This was the rate at which hospitals were being allotted lands in the year in which the application was moved i.e. 1985. The petitioners, ho...
Prem Prakash Vs. Air. India Corporation
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-01-1996
Reported in: 64(1996)DLT77; 1996(38)DRJ532
Devinder Gupta, J. (1) Petitioner has in this writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution prayed for quashing of communications annexure F dated 10.2.1993 and subsequent communications dated 26.2.1993 and 26.3.1993 (Annexure K). In nutshell the petitioner's grievance is against the action of the respondent in declining to act on the withdrawal of petitioner's resignation which according to the petitioner had been conveyed to the respondent before acceptance of the resignation. Petitioner's case is that resignation was tendered to an incompetent authority and it was not a valid resignation and in any case its acceptance, irrespective of its withdrawal on 10.2.1993, was by an incompetent authority and as such the same is non-est. (2) Facts in brief are that the petitioner, a permanent and confirmed employee of Air India and posted as Traffic Assistant at Delhi, on 3.2.1993 submitted his resignation with immediate effect by sending a telegram annexure B addressed to the Mana...
P.S. Gupta vs. N.D.M.C.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-01-1996
Reported in: 70(1997)DLT124; 1996RLR431
M.S.A. Siddiqui, J.(1) The petitioner challenges the validity of the notice of re-entry upon cancellation of license w.e.f. 28.4.1985, issued by the Estate Department, dated 22.1.1996 purporting to be on behalf of the respondent No. 1. The said notice required petitioner to vacate the Stall No. 12-A, Janpath within ten days from the date of its receipt and to pay damages at the market rate w.e.f. 28.4.1985. He also challenges the validity of an earlier notice dated 22.12.1995 issued by the Estate Department to the petitioner to show cause why his license should not be cancelled w.e.f. 28.4.1985. (2) It is undisputed that there was a space 6' x 4' in area in between Stall No. 12 and 13 at Janpath known as Piao area (hereinafter called the PIAO'). In 1977, the Piao was allotted to the petitioner in lieu of his earlier allotment of space No. 83 at R.K. Ashram Marg, New Delhi (Annexure A). This allotment was confirmed vide letter dated 23.2.1979 (Annexure B) on payment of monthly license f...
Anand Dev Tyagi Vs. Lt. Governor of Delhi
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-01-1996
Reported in: 1996IVAD(Delhi)249; 70(1997)DLT135; 1996(39)DRJ175
Devinder Gupta, J. (1) The instant writ petition was preferred on 25.5.1995 in which the petitioner has sought directions for quashing memo annexure Px dated 10.7.1994, placing the petitioner under suspension in contemplation of initiating disciplinary proceedings. The other prayer made is to quash the charges contained in charge sheet annexure P-XII dated 17.7.1994 being void and illegal, in view of Section 8(4) of Delhi School Education Act (for short 'the Act') as well as Rules 115 and 116 of the Delhi School Education Rules, 1973 (for short 'the Rules') and to grant a declaration that the petitioner is in continuous employment as a teacher in respondent No.4 School. (2) Various facts stated in their respective affidavits filed by the parties need not be stated except noticing those as are relevant for the purpose of deciding this petition. At the very outset it may be observed that at this stage, in exercise of writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India we are...
- ‹ Prev
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 17
- Next ›
- Last »