Skip to content

Delhi Court October 1997 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.

Oct 01 1997

Ber Sarai Co-operative Vegetable and Fruit Growers Marketing Society a ...

Court: Delhi

Decided on: Oct-01-1997

Reported in: 1997VIAD(Delhi)750; 69(1997)DLT624

Arun Kumar, J. (1) Rule D.B. Liberty to parties to apply for early hearing after the pleadings are complete. C.M. 7368/97 (2) In the writ petition, the petitioners have challenged the virus of Rule 64 of the Delhi Co-operative Societies Rules as notified vide Notification No. F66/ Polices/RCS/97-98/1851 dated 6th August, 1997. By the said notification Rule 64 stands amended. The question which has arisen for consideration is whether the election which was ordered to be held vide this Court's order dated 26th November, 1993 and for which Justice J.D. Jain had been appointed as the Election Officer, should be held as per the amended Rule 64. The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner apart from challenging the virus of amended Rule 64 on various grounds, has submitted that in view of the fact that election process had already commenced, the election in the present case should in any case be held without giving effect to the amendment in Rule 64. We have heard the learned Counsel fo...


Oct 01 1997

Sudhir Kumar Dhingra Vs. Union of India

Court: Delhi

Decided on: Oct-01-1997

Reported in: 70(1997)DLT791

Manmohan Sarin, J. (1) Petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 17.5.1996, passed by the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, holding that the goods that had been seized as well as the Indian and foreign currency that had been ordered to be released by the Commissioner of Customs as well as by the Customs Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal (in short CEGAT) is case property required during trial. (2) Learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, thereforee, held that it would be premature, improper and unjust to release the said case property prior to the conclusion of the trial and at least before the conclusion of the evidence. The impugned order was passed on an application moved by the department seeking directions in view of the orders passed by the Commissioner of Customs as well as by the Cegat, declining stay of the order of the Commissioner of Customs. (3) It may also he noticed that the petitioner had also filed a writ petition seeking similar relief. Howe...


  • Next ›

AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial