Delhi Court May 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.
Prakash Chand Lunia Vs. Union of India
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-01-1997
Reported in: 1997IVAD(Delhi)466; 68(1997)DLT883; 1997(42)DRJ77
ORDERS: On the returnable day of such rule or any day to which the hearing thereof may be adjourned if no cause is shown or if cause is shown and disallowed, the Court shall pass an order that the person or persons, improperly detained shall be set at liberty. If the cause is allowed, the rule shall be discharged.' (6) Inasmuch as no cause has been shown by the Union of India, prima facie it appears that there is a delay in consideration of the representation made by the Central Government. (7) Accordingly we direct that the petitioner be released forthwith, if not required in any other case. ...
Munna Lal Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-01-1997
Reported in: 67(1997)DLT55
N.G. Nandi, J.(1) The appellant, Munna Lal, s/o Bindeshwari stands convicted for the offence under Sections 300/34,1.P.C. and sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life and fine of Rs. 25,000.00 and in default further R.I. for 3' years by the Additional Sessions Judge, Delhi in F.I.R. No. 447/90, Police Station Saraswati Vihar, Delhi in Sessions Case No. 29/91. (2) The facts leading to the filing of the present appeal, shortly stated, are that one Vijay Kumar had inducted Dinesh Kumar as a watchman in the property i.e., bungalow No. 75, Sandesh Vihar, P&T; Colony belonging to one Munish Kumar who was living in Bungalow No. 75, Sandesh Vihar, P & T Colony with his wife and two of his cousin brothers Munna Lal and Prakash; that on 25.11.1990 at about 7.30 a.m, a telephonic information given by one Ram Pal Anand was received at Police Station Saraswati Vihar transmitted from Police Control Room to the effect that one person was lying in burnt condition in House No. 75, Sandesh Vihar, P & T...
Satish Mehra Vs. Anita Mehra
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-01-1997
Reported in: 70(1997)DLT616
Manmohan Sarin, J. (1) Petitioner has filed this civil misc.application.viz.CM. 1566/97, seeking regular visitation rights with his children for approximately I to 2 hours a day. Petitioner submits that he has not met with his children since February, 1993 and is in India for a duration before returning to United States of America by mid July, 1997 or so. Petitioner had filed another misc. application, viz. CM. 2497/97 seeking preponement of the hearing of pending revision petition. Petitioner has serious misapprehensions about the further psychological and physical damage to his children by the respondent wife, whom he alleges, suffers from psychiatric disorder'. (2) In reply to CM. 2497/97, respondent wife has set out her version, which shall be shortly adverted to. Respondent submits that reply to CM. 2497/97 be treated as also reply to the petitioners application, CM. 1566/97, seeking visitation rights, as no separate reply has been preferred. (3) This case has had a checkered hist...
Revlon Inc. and ors. Vs. Sarita Manufacturing Co.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-01-1997
Reported in: 1997IIIAD(Delhi)897; AIR1998Delhi38; 1997(1)ARBLR600(Delhi); 67(1997)DLT399
S.K. Mahajan, J.(1) The plaintiffs claiming themselves to be the owners of the trade marks 'Revlon', 'Charlie' and 'Intimate' for cosmetics, perfumery, essential oils, hair and toiletries, etc., have filed this suit for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from in any manner manufacturing and selling the perfumes, toiletries, etc. or any other product bearing the aforesaid trade marks or any other mark deceptively similar to the same. Certain other reliefs have also been claimed in the suit. The facts in short relevant for decision of this application are: (2) That the plaintiffs have alleged to have coined the trade mark 'Revlon' using the same as the key portion of their trading style and got it registered for various goods in the United States of America and many other countries of the world. Plaintiff states that it deals in cosmetics, perfumery and toiletries, etc. which are mostly used by ladies. In the year 1963, they opened the Revlon Research Centre in New York with...
Delhi Development Authority Vs. Behari Parshad
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-01-1997
Reported in: 1997(42)DRJ192
Jaspal Singh, J.(1) The learned Civil Judge framed a preliminary issue with regard to jurisdiction of the civil court and dismissed the suit holding that the matter related to the exclusive jurisdiction of the Labour Court under the Industrial Disputes Act. However, the view so taken did not find favor with the learned Additional District Judge. He thus accepted the appeal. Dissatisfaction with the order of the 1st Appellate Court has led to this Appeal.(2) The facts are not taxing. The respondent who claims to be a regular employee of the Delhi Development Authority has been transferred to the employment of the Municipal, Corporation of Delhi. He says the Dda could not do it because of his service conditions and that, in any case, the order affects adversely his seniority and chances of promotion. Hence, his suit for declaration that he could not be so transferred and for injunction restraining the Dda from implementing the order.(3) In response to the suit though the Municipal Corpor...
Vimla Devi and anr. Vs. Surinder Kumar and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-01-1997
Reported in: 1997IVAD(Delhi)420; 67(1997)DLT728
J.B. Goel, J. (1) This order disposes of the application of defendant No. 1 under Order 6 Rule 17, Civil Procedure Code seeking amendment of the written statement. (2) Briefly the facts are that the plaintiffs have filed a suit against defendant No. 1 for possession of premises in property No. 97-D, Kamla Nagar, Delhi alleged to be in his unauthorised occupation and for recovery of mesne profits. Defendant No. 1 is contesting the suit and has filed the written statement. He has inter alias alleged that he was inducted as a tenant on 1.11.1977 by late Shri Mangat Rai Gupta to whom rent was paid in cash but did not issue any receipts and after his death on 5.2.1977 his son Shri Radhey Shyam Gupta, defendant No. 2 has been Realizing the rent and has been issuing rent receipts; he was not in unauthorised occupation and was a lawful tenant. And in preliminary objection No. 1, he has taken the objection that the suit is barred under Section 50 of the Delhi Rent Control Act. This written stat...
B.B. Mahajan Vs. Commissioner, Municipal Corporation of Delhi
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-01-1997
Reported in: 1997(43)DRJ735
Devinder Gupta, J. (1) The grievance made by the petitioner in this petition preferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India on 28.10.1987 is against the final seniority list circulated on 20.8.1986 through circular Annexure Xiv that he should have been placed below Seriall No.46 and above Seriall No.47 instead of being placed at Seriall No.62. Consequential directions sought are for assigning him correct seniority in the list of Assistant Engineers w.e.f. the date of recommendations of the Departmental Promotion Committee, namely, 28/29.6.1971 and to issue further directions to consider his case for further promotions to the post of Superintending Engineer w.e.f. 7.8.1987 when respondents 3 & 4, his juniors were promoted and to grant all other consequential benefits.(2) The undisputed facts in brief are that the petitioner possessing qualification 'Inter Overseer Certificate' which is equivalent to Diploma in Civil Engineering, joined the Municipal service in the cadre of Jun...
itc Ltd. Vs. Gagandeep Singh Sodhi and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-01-1997
Reported in: 1997IVAD(Delhi)779; 1997(2)ARBLR525(Delhi); 67(1997)DLT718
Lekeshwar Prasad, J.(1) The petitioner, named above, has filed the present petition under Section 20 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act), averring that the petitioner is a Company, having its registered office at 37, Chowringhee, Calcutta and its Hotels Division Welcomgroup at W.G. Maurya Sheraton, Hotel & Towers Diplomatic Enclave, New Delhi and Shri M.M. Bhatnagar is the constituted attorney of the petitioner-Company who is competent to sign and verify the pleadings and to institute the present proceedings on behalf of the petitioner-Company. It is averred that the petitioner-Company owns and operates a chain of other Hotels, situated at various places in this Country and runs a number of Hotels including Hotel Maurya Sheraton, Hotel and Towers at Delhi and about 15 other Hotels, popularly known as Welcomgroup of Hotels. The operation of these Hotels & Restaurants is a specialised operation, requiring considerable skill and knowledge in the field of hot...
Shriram Pistons and Rings Ltd. Vs. Manju Awasthy
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-01-1997
Reported in: 1997IVAD(Delhi)689; 68(1997)DLT112; (1997)117PLR15
Manmohan Sarin, J. (1) The petitioner is aggrieved by the order passed under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure by the District & Sessions Judge, transferring a suit for ejectment against the petitioner from the Court of the Civil Judge to the Court of the Additional District Judge, where another suit for recovery of mesne profits, filed by the respondent against the petitioner, was pending. The above two suits had been filed by the respondent-landlady against the petitioner-tenant. (2) Vide orders dated 19.12.1996, the District & Sessions Judge allowed an application moved by the respondent for transfer of suit for ejectment, viz. Suit No. 369/95, filed by the respondent against the petitioner, before the Civil Judge to the Court of Shri S.S. Bal, Additional District Judge, where Suit No. 91/95 for recovery of mesne profits was pending. The District & Sessions Judge by order dated 20.1.1997 also dismissed the application moved for review of the order dated 19.12.1997. (3) The l...
S.K. Kochar Vs. Nimmi Singh and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-01-1997
Reported in: 1997VAD(Delhi)213; 68(1977)DLT914
K. Ramamoorthy, J. (1) The plaintiff has filed the Suit seeking Specific Performance and also damages. The defendant No. 1 is Mrs. Nimmi Singh. The second defendant Dr. Achhar Singh was the father-in-law of the first defendant and he died pending the suit The third defendant M/s Mahender Jain & Company was a property broker who was set ex parte. The fourth defendant, the Under Secretary, Land & Buildings Department, Delhi Administration, Delhi was deleted vide order dated 24.4.1981.(2) The suit is against the first defendant Mrs. Nimmi Singh. The plaintiff has prayed for the following reliefs:(A)direct/make the defendants I and 2 to fulfilll/complete the specific performance of their part of the contract i.e. in terms of the 'Agreement to sell' (Annexure 'A') enter and execute/register sale deed of the said plot of land as mentioned in the 'Agreement to Sell' as subject matter of the sale. (B)that respondents 1 and 2 be directed to give the vacant possession of the plot in question at ...
- ‹ Prev
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 16
- 17
- 18
- 19
- 20
- 22
- Next ›
- Last »