Delhi Court September 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.
Lalit NaraIn Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-01-1996
Reported in: 1996VAD(Delhi)46; 64(1996)DLT536
S.K. Mahajan, J.(1) On 22nd February, 1995, it was reported by Mr. B.D. Sharma to the Police at Ps Mansarovar Park that his son Dinesh alias Debu, aged about Ii years was missing since 21st February, 1995. On the information having been received by the Police about a dead body on 24th February, 1995, the dead body of Debu was recovered from a Government plot at Kattu Farm in front of mosque. On 26th February, 1995, accused Naval Kishore was arrested from near Shahadra Railway Station. This accused made an extra judicial confession that he and the petitioner had hatched a conspiracy to kidnap Debu for a ranson of Rs.l,00,000.00 . As per plan. Naval Kishore took the child Debu on his bicycle and got him a toffee from a shop near the plot. The child was then taken to the petitioner and then all of them went in the room where Naval Kishore was living. In the room, the petitioner caught hold of the legs of Debu and aforesaid Naval Kishore strangulated him with the belt of Debu himself. Afte...
Jaiveer @ Raju Vs. State (National Capital Territory of Delhi)
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-01-1996
Reported in: 1996IVAD(Delhi)154; 64(1996)DLT210; 1996(38)DRJ524
S.K. Mahajan, J.(1) On 9th May, 1992 Smt.Viresh @ Rajeshwari was married to Jaiveer @ Raju according to Hindu rites and ceremonies and she was found dead in her matrimonial home on 5th December, 1993 due to asphyxia resulting from hanging. On the statement of the mother of the deceased, case Fir No.493/93 under sections 498-A/304B/406 Indian Penal Code was registered with Ps Gokul Puri. (2) Since 5th December, 1993 they are in custody. By this order I am disposing of the bail application of the husband of the deceased being Crl.M.(M).1207/96 and that of Shyam Lal and Smt.Har Pyari, the parents of Jaiveer being Crl.M.(M).358/95 since they arise out of the same incident. (3) Fir was registered on the statement of the mother of the deceased recorded before the Sub- Divisional Magistrate. It was stated by her that she was informed by her daughter that her husband Jaiveer used to beat her and used to demand motor cycle and used to say that her father had not given anything in dowry. He used...
Satish Kumar Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-01-1996
Reported in: 64(1996)DLT707; 1996(39)DRJ426
K.S. Gupta, J.(1) This appeal by Satish Kumar is directed against the judgment and order both dated December 22, 1990, of an Additional Sessions Judge whereby he was convicted under Section 302 Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine ofRs.2,000.00 . In default of payment of fine, he was to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months. (2) Case of the prosecution, as borne out from the charge-sheet filed under Section 173 Criminal Procedure Code . by Shri A.A.Khan, Deputy Superintendent of Police, Cbi, New Delhi, is that Smt.Krishna was married to Satish Kumar accused on June 27, 1982, as per Hindu rites at village Agwanpur in District Sonepat. After marriage she came to Delhi and started living with the accused, her parents-in-law Bhagwat Prasad, Smt.Leelawati and sisters-in-law Kumari Pushpa and Shakuntala in house No.C-33, Channa Mal Park, Punjabi Bagh. On the third day of marriage Smt.Krishna went to her parents' house as per the cu...
Chandraswami and anr. Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-01-1996
Reported in: 1996IVAD(Delhi)625; 64(1996)DLT193
S.K. Mahajan, J.(1) The petitioners are facing trial for their having allegedly committed an offence punishable under Sections 420/120(B) Indian Penal Code now pending in the Court of Mr. Ajit Bharioke, Additional Session Judge, Delhi. The charges were framed against the petitioners and the statement of the complainant Lakhubhai Pathak was recorded by the Trial Court on 5th, 6th and 8th July, 1996. .On the basis of the evidence, the Trial Court by order dated 9th July, 1996 added Mr. P.V. Narasimha Rao as an accused to the criminal conspiracy and he was summoned under Sections 120B/420 IPC. This order was challenged by Mr. P.V. Narasimha Rao in this Court. His petition for quashing the summons was dismissed on 30th July, 1996. Against the order of this Court dated 30th July, 1996, Mr. Rao preferred a Special Leave Petition in the Supreme Court of India. The Supreme Court granted exemption from personal appearance till the disposal of the Special Leave Petition. The Special Leave Petiti...
O.P. Bhalla Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-01-1996
Reported in: 1996IVAD(Delhi)745; 64(1995)DLT419; 1997(40)DRJ401
S.K. Mahajan, J.(1) One Pooja Bhalla was married to Hitesh Bhalla, son of the petitioners, on April 23, 1995. It appears that the marriage between them was a disaster and right from the date of marriage, Pooja Bhalla had started complaining of the mental and physical torture meted out to her by her husband and the petitioners on account of demand of dowry. Certain complaints were lodged by both the parties with the police. Thereafter, on the intervention of police and near relatives, the parties appeared to have arrived at a settlement and both husband and wife started living in a rented accommodation at Rohini in September, 1995. It was alleged by Pooja Bhalla that all her dowry articles were retained by the petitioners and when they shifted to Rohini, her parents had to settle the house for her and her husband. In January, 1996 Hitesh Bhalla is alleged to have deserted Pooja unless his demand of a new car was fulfillled by her parents. Pooja subsequently lodged a complaint with the p...
Amar Singh Vs. Vimlesh
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-01-1996
Reported in: 64(1996)DLT426; 1996(39)DRJ160
J.B. Goel, J.(1) PETITIONER/HUSBAND has-filed this civil revision petition challenging the legality and propriety of order dated 27th October, 1995 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Delhi under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act (hereinafter called the Act) in favor of the respondent/wife. (2) Briefly the facts are that the parties are Hindus and were married according to the Hindu rites and customs on 9.7.1980. Two children were born out of the wed lock. The petitioner/husband had filed petition for dissolution of marriage on the ground of adultery under Section 13(i)(ib) of the Act and also impleading the alleged adulterer as respondent No.2. (3) He has alleged that on 30.7.1991, the respondent/wife left the matrimonial home to an unknown place and took away all the gold and silver ornaments and cash amounting to Rs.35,000.00 which was withdrawn by her from the bank on 6.6.1991 and another RS.100.00 on 28.6.1991 without the knowledge and consent of the petitioner. Af...
State Bank of India Vs. Pushpa Arora
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-01-1996
Reported in: 1996VAD(Delhi)207; 64(1996)DLT557
Devinder Gupta, J. (1) Defendant appellant has preferred this an appeal under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure against the judgment and decree passed on 18.10.1993 by Shri Shiv Charan, Additional District Judge, Delhi in Suit No. 478/91 decreeing the suit of the plaintiff respondent for possession in respect of the suit premises and also for damages at the rate of Rs. 8,000.00 p.m. w.e.f. 1.9.1991 till delivery of possession. (2) In November 1970 one room in the ground floor of property bearing L-71, Malviya Nagar, New Delhi was let out by the plaintiff to defendant-Bank. The tenancy of the room was renewed. Rent which initially was Rs. 700.00 p.m. was also increased. On additional space being provided to the defendant-Bank, rent was increased to Rs. 2,700.00 p.m. On 19.7.1986, letter, Ext. D-1, was sent by the Branch Manager of the defendant-Bank to the plaintiff, with reference to the discussion held amongst the parties on 28.5.1986, conveying the approval of the Regional of...
Prabhat Krishna Vs. Lt. Governor
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-01-1996
Reported in: 1996VAD(Delhi)63; 69(1997)DLT632a; 1996(39)DRJ184
Mohd. Shamim, J.(1) The petitioner Shri Prabhat Krishna ('the petitioner' for short) through the present petition has challenged the order dated October 30,1989 passed by the Lt. Governor, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as respondent No. I for the sake of brevity). He further wants that a direction be issued to respondent No.3 to enrol him as a member of the Anamika Co-operative Group Housing Society Ltd., D-2/3, 14, Rajpur Road, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as. the Society for the sake of convenience) over and above the respondents No. 4 to 7 w.e.f. July 4,1988 with all benefits and privileges which were available to him on the said date. (2) In short, the case of the petitioner is that the petitioner herein applied on a plain paper for being enrolled as a member of the Society on July 28,1988 as is manifest from the endorsement on the application. Respondent No.3 asked the petitioner vide letter dated August 1,1988 to move an application on the prescribed form. Subsequently through...
Sees Ram Vs. Union of India
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-01-1996
Reported in: 63(1996)DLT890; 1996(38)DRJ663
Devinder Gupta, J. (1) The petitioner has sought the quashing of order of dismissal from service dated 6.3.1991 passed by the Commandant, 67 Bn., Border Security Force in exercise of powers conferred under Section 11(2) of (he Border Security Force Act, 1968 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') along with all consequential reliefs. (2) The petitioner was enlisted as Constable (Messenger) on 23.2.1961 in Punjab Police and later on embodied in Border Security Force (for short BSF) with effect from 1.3.3966. The petitioner remained posted in Punjab, Nagaland, Tripura and New Delhi. On 17.2.1989 he was attached from his Unit 67 Bn. Bsf Ferozepur to Bsf Signal Regiment, Delhi for 3 months for the treatment of his only son, who had got fractured his leg in an accident. He was ordered to return back to his unit at Ferozepur on 31.3.1989, i.e., before the expiry of the said period of 3 months' leave. The petitioner represented against the premature recall and on 4.5.1989, it is alleged by hi...
Rajinder Kumar Rakyan and ors. Vs. Jitender Kumar Rakyan
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-01-1996
Reported in: 1996IVAD(Delhi)541; 65(1997)DLT845; (1997)115PLR41
Manmohan Sarin, J.(1) This appeal is an off-shoot of acrimonious family litigation between two brothers, to which the father aged 82 years is a mute and helpless witness. The appellant No. 1 Mr. Rajinder Kumar Rakyan is the elder brother, the appellants No. 2 and 3 Mr. Ravi Rakyan and Mr.Pankaj Rakyan are his sons. The respondent No. 1 is Mr. Jitender Kumar Rakyan. The present appeal is against the order of the learned Single Judge dated 26.7.1996 and 31.7.1996. By the order dated 26.7.1996, learned Single Judge as an interim measure pending the suit had directed that the disputed barsati room be divided by erecting a partition wall with 2/3 of the barsati room being allotted to the appellants and 1/3 to the respondent who would in addition have the use of the adjoining store room and the toilet on the barsati floor. (2) The facts leading to the appeal are that respondent No. 1 and late Smt. Krishna Kumari Rakyan had purchased property bearing No. W/114, Greater Kailash, Part-I, New De...
- ‹ Prev
- 16
- 17
- 18
- 19
- 20
- 21
- 22
- 23
- 25
- 26
- Next ›
- Last »