Delhi Court July 2001 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.
Madho Parshad Vs. Shri Ram Kishan and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-23-2001
Reported in: 94(2001)DLT254
ORDERV.S. Aggarwal, J.1. Madho Prasad, the plaintiff has filed the suit for permanent injunction against the defendants. The facts alleged are that there is a piece of land measuring 2866.6 sq yrds forming part of khasra no. 52 in village Masoodpur village. Initially the land was owned and possessed by one Roshan Lal and his relatives. There was duly executed sale deeds in their favor and mutations had been filed in their names. During the consolidation proceedings in village Masoodpur the entire land was given which formed part/share of khasra no. 52 which is 40 bighas. The plaintiff had purchased the same before 20th October, 1956 for residential purpose and thereforee the matter was not covered by sub-section 3 to Section 3 of Delhi Land Reforms Act. The plaintiff is in physical possession of the said land. The said land is stated to have been urbanised on 1st November, 1954.2. The plaintiff and other co-owners had instituted proceedings under the Delhi Land Reforms Act claiming the...
The Motor and General Finance Ltd. Vs. T.K. George and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-23-2001
Reported in: 95(2002)DLT350
V.S. Aggarwal, J.1. The Motor and General Finance Limited, hereinafter described as the applicant has filed the present petition under Section 20 of the Arbitration Act, 1940.2. The facts alleged by the applicant can well be delineated. On 31st March, 1986 respondent no. 1 (T.K. George) and respondent no. 2 (M. Stalin) as hirer and guarantors respectively made a proposal to the petitioner/applicant for hiring a Tata Diesel Truck Model 1986. The applicant company accepted the proposal and entered into a hire purchase agreement dated 31st March, 1986. Respondent no. 1 in pursuance of it agreed to take the said vehicle on hire from the applicant company with respondent no. 2 as guarantor. The liability of both the respondents was co-extensive. The amount was to be paid in 47 Installments and accordingly the delivery of the vehicle was given to respondent no. 1.3. Respondent no. 1 stated to have paid only a sum of Rs. 76,300/- towards hire money and Rs. 11,000/- towards incidental expenses...
Subhash Chand Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-23-2001
Reported in: 93(2001)DLT404; 2001(60)DRJ503
R.S.Sodhi, J.1. Criminal Appeal No.13/1995 is directed against the Judgment and Order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge in SC No.82/1992 whereby the learned Additional Sessions Judge vide his Judgment and Order dated 24.8.1994 held the appellant guilty under Sections 326/379/511, IPC and further vide Order dated 25.8.1994 sentenced the appellant to undergo RI for four years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for six months. For offence under Section 379/511, IPC he was awarded sentence of six months with fine of Rs. 500/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for three months.2. The case when called out today, nobody appeared for the appellant in support of the appeal, inspire of warning begin indicated in the cause list. Since this is a case of 1995 it can brook no further delay. Mr. R.P.Luthra is present on behalf of the Legal Aid. I, thereforee, appoint him as amices ...
Ramphool Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-23-2001
Reported in: 93(2001)DLT366
R.S. Sodhi, J.1. This criminal appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 25.1.1995 of the learned Additional Sessions Judge in case FIR No. 219/1989 registered at the Police Station Badarpur whereby the learned Additional Sessions Judge held the appellant guilty under Section 308, IPC and further by his order dated 27.1.1995 sentenced the appellant-accused to undergo R.I. for 18 months with a fine of Rs. 8,000/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo R.I. for three months.2. The case when called out today, nobody appeared for the appellant in support of the appeal, inspire of warning being indicated in the cause list. Since this is a case of 1995 it can brook no further delay. Mr. R.P. Luthra is present on behalf of the Legal Aid. I, thereforee, appoint him as amices Curiae to assist me in this case.3. With the assistance of learned amices Curiae and learned Counsel for the State, I have gone through the record of the case. Learned amices on the basis of the...
Subrata Roy Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-23-2001
Reported in: 93(2001)DLT149
R.S. Sodhi, J.1. This criminal appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 21.5.1997 of the learned Additional sessions Judge in Sessions Case No. 60/96 whereby the learned Additional Sessions Judge held the appellant guilty under Section 376, IPC and further by his order dated 23.5.1997 sentenced the appellant-accused to undergo R.I. for ten years with a fine of Rs. 1,0001/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo S.I. for three months.2. The case when called out tody, nobody appeared for the appellant in support of the appeal, inspire of warning being indicated in the cause list. Since this is a case of 1994 it can brook no further delay. Mr. R.P. Luthra is present on behalf of the Legal Aid. I, thereforee, appoint him as amices Curiae to assist me in this case.3. With the assistance of leaned amices Curiae and leaned Counsel for the State, I have gone through the recorded of the case. Learned amices Curiae on the basis of the record fairly concedes that he c...
Jagan Nath and ors. Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-23-2001
Reported in: 93(2001)DLT156
R.S. Sodhi, J.1. Criminal Appeal No. 11 of 1995 is directed against the judgment and order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Delhi in SC No. 2/1989 whereby the learned Additional Sessions Judge vide judgment and order dat ed 9.12.1994 held the appellants guilty under Section 366 read with Section 34, IPC and under Section 376, IPC. The learned Additional Sessions Judge vide Order dated 19.12.1994 sentenced the appellants to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years each and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- each under Section 376, IPC and in default of payment of fine to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for two months each; to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years each and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- each under Section 366, IPC and in default of payment of fine to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for two months each.2. The case when called out today, nobody appeared for the appellants in support of the appeal, inspire of warning being indicated in the cause list. ...
Mohd. Ali Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-23-2001
Reported in: 2001(60)DRJ351
R.S. Sodhi, J.1. This criminal appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 3.2.1995 of the learned Additional Sessions Judge in Sessions Case No. 192/1994 whereby the learned Additional Sessions Judge held the appellant guilty under Section 366 IPC and further by a separate Order of the same date sentenced the appellant-accused to undergo R.I. for five years with a fine of Rs. 1,000/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo R.I. for three months. 2. Learned counsel for the appellant, at the outset, does not challenge the Order of conviction but confines his arguments to the question of sentence only. He submits that the sentence undergone would suffice for the reasons that the case relates to29.10.1988 and the appellant has already undergone some time in custody. He has undergone the ordeal of trial for nearly 13 years. He submits that the accused has been on bail since 21.2.1995 and that there has been no complaint about his having belied the trust bestowed up...
international Building and Furnishing Company (Cal) Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Indi ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-23-2001
Reported in: 2001VAD(Delhi)1089; 93(2001)DLT517; 2001(59)DRJ756
Vijender Jain, J.1. This is an application filed by the defendant under Order 6 Rule 17 read with Section 151 CPC for amendment of written statement. Mr. Vashisht, learned counsel for the applicant/defendant has contended that no new cause of action will be introduced if amendment of written statement is allowed. Prayer in the application is to amend para 15 by adding paragraphs 1.5-A and 15-B after paragraph 15 of written statement. The amendment sought is to the following effect:'15-A. In the facts as stated in the foregoing paragraphs of the Written Statement above, which are not being reiterated for the sake of brevity and may be read as a part of this paragraph, the Defendant submits that it is entitled to a Set Off of a sum of Rs. 19,33,370.90 (Rupees Nineteen Lacs Thirty Three Thousand Three Hundred Seventy and Paise Ninety Only) along with interest @ 18% per annum from February 25, 1994, up to the date of adjustment in full and costs of the Set Off or such part thereof as may b...
Jallo Subsidiary Industries Co. (India) Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-23-2001
Reported in: (2001)171CTR(Del)516; [2002]256ITR452(Delhi); [2001]119TAXMAN344(Delhi)
Arijit Pasayat, C.J.1. Heard.2. At the instance of the assessed, the following question has been referred for the opinion of this court by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench 'D' (in short 'the Tribunal'), under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short 'the Act') :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the liability of excise duty at Rs. 93,879 arising out of the order of the Collector, Central Excise, made during the accounting period relevant to the assessment year under appeal arises and is allowable under Section 28/37 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ?'3. As the question itself indicates, the main issue related to accrual of liability and the fact that the Tribunal found that the accrual of liability was when the goods were removed from the factory, and not during the assessment year involved, i.e., 1973-74. The issue is no longer rest integra in view of the decision of the apex court in Kedarnath Jute Mfg. Co. Ltd. v. CIT : [1971]82ITR363(S...
Ashok Kumar Yadav Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-23-2001
Reported in: 2002(79)ECC773
ORDERR.S. Sodhi, J.1. This criminal appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 23.1.1995 of the learned Additional Sessions Judge in Sessions Case No. 106/1994 whereby the learned Additional Sessions Judge held the appellant guilty under Sections 20/61/85 Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act and further by his order dated 24.1.1995 sentenced the appellant-accused to undergo R.I. for 10 years with a fine of Rs. one lac and in default of payment of fine to further undergo R.I. for one year.2. The brief facts of the case as noted by the Additional Sessions Judge are as follows:3. In brief the case of the prosecution is that on 20.1.94 S.I. Raman Kumar along with H.C. Raj Kumar and other Consts. were on patrol duty and were present near Rain Basera Meena Bazar. At about 7.10 P.M. a secret information was received that a young boy who is having black colour school bag is standing near the Service Road Gate Major Sheikh Kalimullah who is having Charas in large quantity...
- ‹ Prev
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- Next ›
- Last »