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 Madhan and anr. Vs. Delhi Development Authority and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-01-1996
Reported in: 64(1996)DLT497
Devinder Gupta, J. (1) The petitioner in this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India on 2nd March, 1990 prayed for direction against the respondents to forthwith hand over peaceful, 'vacant and quiet possession of plot bearing No. A-1/171-A, Janak Puri, New Delhi and further to direct the Delhi Development Authority (for short D.D.A.) to pay interest at the rate of 24% p.a. on the amount deposited with D.D.A. since the date of deposit till the date the respondents handover actual physical possession of the auctioned plot. (2) Facts in brief are that respondent No. I, which is a statutory body, set up and functioning under the provisions of the Delhi Development Act, 1957 and is empowered to transfer land, placed at its disposal by Central Government, by way of sale, exchange or lease or otherwise, in exercise of its powers on 6th June, 1988 fixed an auction for transfer by way of sale on perpetual lease hold rights in respect of the aforementioned plot measuring ...
Jai NaraIn Sharma and anr. Vs. Lalit Kala Acedemi
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-01-1996
Reported in: 64(1996)DLT461
Devinder Gupta, J. (1) Petitioner No. 1, L.D.C., and petitioner No. 2, U.D.C., posted in Lalit Kala acedemi (for short the 'acedemi') at its headquarter at New Delhi have challenged the order of their transfer, Annexure H dated 20.9.1995. Petitioner No. I has been ordered to be transferred to the Regional Lalit Kala Kendra, Lucknow and Petitioner No. 2 to Regional Lalit Kala Kendra, Bhubneshwar. Challenge to the order of transfer primarily is on the ground of malafide. (2) It is alleged that petitioners are employees of the respondent acedemi which is a registered Society registered under Societies Registration Act. Petitioner No. I is the Vice President and petitioner No. 2 is a member of the Executive of the Lalit Kala acedemi Employees' Association (for short the 'Association') which has filed Cw 1967/95 in this Court against the respondent-acedemi in which main relief sought by the Association is to have a proper investigation into large scale irregularities in the functioning of t...
Runu Ghosh Vs. State (Central Bureau of Investigation)
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-01-1996
Reported in: 1996IVAD(Delhi)783; 64(1996)DLT474; 1996(39)DRJ221
S.K. Mahajan, J.(1) The petitioner after having been arrested in case Rc No.3(A)/96/CBI/ACU Iv under sections 120-B and section 13(2) read with section 13(l)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, has applied to this Court for being admitted to bail after her bail application was dismissed by the trial Court. A few facts which are relevant for purposes of deciding this petition in short are: That Department of Telecommunication (in short referred to as 'DoT'), Ministry of Communication, Government of India, had issued a notice inviting tenders for procurement of 3,000 numbers of 2/15 Marr shared radio systems (in short referred to as the 'system'). Out of these, 1,000 numbers were required for the year 1992- 93 while 2,000 were required for the year 1993-94. On scrutiny of the tenders, the Tender Enquiry Committee (TEC) recommended a price of Rs.3,54,000.00 per system with single antena working including antena coupler and isolator quoted by. M/s.Indotronics, being the lowest. T...
Muni Lal Vs. Union of India
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-01-1996
Reported in: 1996VAD(Delhi)218; 64(1996)DLT1
S.N. Kapoor, J.(1) 'THIS revision petition has been filed against an order rejecting the application for review for enhancing compensation of the acquired land from Rs. 4,000.00 and Rs. 3000.00 of Block, A & B respectively to Rs. 7,100.00 per , f Bigha. (2) In this case, none has appeared. It is also not clear as to whether the petitioner has complied with the order of restoration of revision petition dated 4th November 1992 by depositing cost of Rs. 500.00 . (3) In this matter, the contention of the applicant/petitioner was that his 13 Bighas 6 bids was land located in Village Samalka, Delhi was acquired vide Award No. 70/722-73. He owned the above said land in equal share along with Tota Ram. He filed a reference petition Lac No. 357/73 (decided on 1st September, 1978) while Tota Ram filed Lac No. 382/73 (decided on 15th September, 1979). Though in both the cases similar evidence was led, yet in his case, he was awarded compensation at nearly half the rates as compared to the compens...
Rajendra Narayan Vajpeyi Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-01-1996
Reported in: 64(1996)DLT99; 1996(39)DRJ393
S.K. Mahajan, J. (1) The petitioner is carrying on business under the name and style of Chanda Advertising and besides having office-at 32, Metcalf Street, Calcutta since 1978 had also opened an office in Delhi sometimes in 1991. Respondent No.2 is the proprietor of a firm known as M/s.SMN Phototype Setters with their office at 1-6, Lajpat Nagar-II, New Delhi. Since 1987 the petitioner had the dealings with respondent No.2 and used to get his work done from the said respondent for which regular bills used to be sent by her which in the normal course of business used to be paid by the petitioner. In the year 1992, the petitioner got some work done from respondent No.2 for which the said respondent submitted her bills and on a particular date a sum of Rs.l,36,394.00 was allegedly due from the petitioner to respondent No.2. Respondent No.3 was the office in-charge of the petitioner's office in Delhi at the relevant time. It appears that for certain reasons the petitioner closed his office...
Paturu Rama Rao Vs. State (Central Bureau of Investigation)
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-01-1996
Reported in: 1996VAD(Delhi)48; 64(1996)DLT455; 1996(39)DRJ557
S.K. Mahajan, J.(1) The petitioner after having been arrested in case Rc No.3(A)/96/CBI/ACU Iv under sections 120-B and section 13(2) read with section 13(l)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, has applied to this Court for being admitted to bail after his bail application was dismissed by the trial Court. A few facts which are relevant for purposes of deciding this petition in short are :(2) That Department of Telecommunication (in short referred to as 'DoT'), Ministry of Communication, Government of India, had issued a notice inviting tenders for procurement of 3,000 numbers of 2/15 Marr shared radio systems (in short referred to as the 'system'). Out of these, 1,000 numbers were required for the year 1992-93 while 2,000 were required for the year 1993-94. On scrutiny of the tenders, the Tender Enquiry. Committee (TEC) recommended a price of Rs.3,54,000.00 per system with single antena working including antena coupler and isolator quoted by M/s. Indotronics, being the lowes...
Boc Properties Ltd. Vs. Delhi Development Authority
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-01-1996
Reported in: 1996VAD(Delhi)26; I(1996)BC15; 64(1996)DLT143
S.K. Mahajan, J.(1) The tender of the petitioner for the work of 770 Mig DUs in Sector 18, Rohini, Phase Ii was accepted by the respondent for a total sum of Rs. 12.59 crores. In terms of the contract, a sum of Rs. 90 lakhs was released to the petitioner by way of mobilisation advance against six Bank guarantees issued by Canara Bank, Connaught Circus, New Delhi. On account of the petitioner having not been able to perform the contract, the respondent is alleged to have terminated the same and by letter dated 28th October, 1994, invoked the Bank guarantees and called upon the Bank to pay to the Authority the total sum of Rs. 90 lakhs which the Bank had undertaken to pay under the aforesaid guarantees. (2) That it was on the writing of the said letter invoking the Bank guarantees that the petitioner filed this petition under Section 20 of the Arbitration Act on November 1,1994 alleging that certain disputes had arisen between the parties under the subject contract which required to be r...
Mehandi Hassan Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-01-1996
Reported in: 1996IVAD(Delhi)315; 63(1996)DLT963; 1996(39)DRJ537
S.K. Mahajan, J. (1) By judgment dated 31st July, 1995 the appellant was convicted of the offence punishable under Section 21/61/85 of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (in short referred to as 'NDPS Act') on account of his being in possession of 500 gins. of smack and was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of ten years and to pay a fine of Rs.l,00,000.00 or in default of payment of fine to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for another one year. Being aggrieved by the judgment of the Additional Sessions Judge, the appellant has preferred this appeal. The facts which are relevant for purposes of deciding this appeal and which resulted in the conviction of the appellant may be briefly stated as under : - (2) That on receipt of a secret information that two persons engaged in sale of smack will pass through Ajmal Khan Road, New Rohtak Road crossing, New Delhi, a raiding party was organized which reached the spot at about 6.15 p.m.; 3/4 passersby were ...
Mahatam Parshad Vs. State of Delhi
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-01-1996
Reported in: 1996IVAD(Delhi)208; 63(1996)DLT884; 1996(38)DRJ591
S.K. Mahajan, J. (1) On July 22, 1991 during patrolling, Asi Chandan Singh received secret information that a person sitting in Ram Leela Park opposite Shiv Shakti Marg eastern side was having charas in his possession. A raiding party was thereafter formed by Asi Chandan Singh and he requested 5-6 passerby to join the raiding party but they expressed their inability except that one Deep Chand was included in the raiding party. The accused was found standing on the eastern side of the park opposite Shiv Shakti Marg. He was apprehended and was informed that he was suspected to have charas. He was given an option to be searched in the presence of a gazetted officer or a Magistrate but the accused declined the option. On search 800 gms. of charas in batti form was recovered from the bag which was carried by the accused. In the meantime, Sho had also reached at the spot in the Government vehicle while patrolling. Out of the charas recovered from the accused 30 gms of. charas was taken out a...
Prem Sagar Vs. Vijay Kumar Rajput
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-01-1996
Reported in: 64(1996)DLT406; 1996(39)DRJ80; 1996RLR469
Usha Mehra, J.(1) MR.VIJAY Kumar respondent herein (petitioner before the Trial Court) filed a petition under Section 19 of the Slum Areas (Improvement & Clearance) Act,1956 (in short the Act) seeking permission to institute eviction proceedings against the present petitioner Mr.Prem Sagar. The Competent Authority by the impugned order granted the permission. The permission was sought, inter alia, on the ground that Mr.Prem Sagar (petitioner herein) had not been paying rent regularly. He had damaged the property by lowering the plinth area of the shop. He had sub- let, assigned and parted with possession of the shop in question to another person. It was further alleged that Wooden partition raised in the shop was without the consent and permission of the landlord. The sub-tenant had been running the business of 'paan' and 'Cigarettes'. That the rent of the entire shop was Rs.35.00 per month. That tenant happens to be a rich man. His daily income from his business was about Rs.300.00 pe...