Court : Delhi
Reported in : 1986(2)Crimes535; 30(1986)DLT118; 1986(10)DRJ109; 1986RLR545
J.D. Jain, J. (1) This petition under Section 482' Code of Criminal Proceedure (hereinafter referred to as .the Code), raises some important questions of law. However, the facts giving rise to it lie in a narrow compass. (2) On 4th July 1983, the petitioner, his wife Smt. Malti Devi, the tenant of the petitioner Ramesh Chand and his wife Smt. Bhagwati Devi Were arrested by Si Bachan Singh of Police Station Sultan Pari under Section 93 read with Section 97 of the Delhi Police Act (for short 'the Act'). It was alleged that the petitioner and his wife on the one hand and Ramesh Chand and his wife on the other were indulging in abusive language and were fighting with each other in a public street and they would not desist C from doing so despite intervention by the people residing in the Mohalla and even the police. They were produced before the concerned Metropolitan Magistrate on that very day and were released on bail on furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 500.00 each. A report termed by ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : AIR1987Delhi285; 1987(13)DRJ119
C.L. Chaudhary, J.(1) This Letters Patent Appeal is directed against the order of the learned Single Judge dated 1-3-1983 by which the first appeal of the appellant, Rajinder Singh was dismissed in liming by a speaking order.(2) The facts giving rise to this appeal are that the appellant, Rajinder Singh married Smt. Pomila, respondent on 3-5-1981 according to Hindu/Sikh reties and ceremonies. The respondent filed a petition under Section 11 read with Section 5(1) and Section 12(l)(c) of the Hindu Marriage Act for declaring the marriage between the appellant and the respondent null and void. The petition proceeded on the allegations that the marriage between the parties was solemnised at Delhi on 3-5-1981. No child was born out of the wedlock. It is averred that after the solemnisation of the marriage the respondent stayed with the appellant as his wife at House No. D-7, Rajouri Garden, New Delhi for about 4 days. Thereafter the respondent stayed at Delhi with her parents while the appe...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : 62(1996)DLT210
M.K. Sharma, J.Rule D.B. (1) This appeal by the appellant respondent is directed against the order dated 8.11.1995 passed by the learned Single Judge in I.A.860/1994 in Suit No.2760/1993 dismissing the application filed by the defendant/respondent seeking for rejection of the plaint.(2) The respondent petitioner filed a petition under Section 20 of the Arbitration Act, 1940, (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') against the appellant/respondent seeking for filing of the arbitration agreement and for reference of the disputes to the arbitration. In the petition filed under Section 20 of the Arbitration Act, the respondent contented, inter alia, that in response to an invitation inviting tenders issued by the appellant/ respondent for construction of flats in 7 towers and external development work at Plot No. 14, Patparganj, Mayur Vihar, Phase-I, New Delhi - 110 091, the respondent herein submitted its tender as per the tender documents prepared by the appellant herein on 17.3.1986. It ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : 1987(12)DRJ1
G.C. Jain, J. (1) This second appeal under Section 39 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (for short 'the Act'), by the landlady, is directed against the order of the Rent Control Tribunal dated 4/5/1985. (2) The dispute is in respect of ground floor of property No. 145, Block M, Greater Kailash Part Ii New Delhi. Ms. V.W. Bagga, the appellant, is owner of the said premises. Janak Raj Sharma, the respondent approached her for letting out the same to him for residential purposes for a period of two years on a monthly rent of Rs. 1,450.00. Ms. Bagga accepted the offer. On 3/1/1977 they moved a joint application under Section 21 of 'the -Act' for permitting the appellant to let out the said accommodation to the respondent for a period of two years. The reason indicated in the application was that because of family circumstances she did not require the said premises presently and she had accepted the offer of the respondent for letting out the same to him for two years from the date of the...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : 31(1987)DLT369
B.N. Kirpal, J. (1) This judgment will dispose of a bunch of writ petitions in which .the common question which arises is as to what should be the rateable value, for the purposes of levy of Municipal taxes, of the property owned by the petitioner. (2) The petitioner purchased, vide a lease-deed dated 17th March, 1958, lease hold rights of plot of land bearing Nos. 9 and 10. Bahadur Shah Zafar Marg, New Delhi. The Premium which was paid by the petitioner fur the purchase of this land was Rs. 96,955. A building was constructed on the said plot of land. The construction commenced in the year 1958 and when it was completed, the total cost of construction, according to the petitioner, came to Rs. 31,78,945.47 p. (excluding the cost of land). (3) Under the provisions of the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act which will be referred to in greater detail presently. Municipal Taxes including property tax are determined having regard to the rateable value of the property in question. In the present...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : 39(1989)DLT87; 1989(17)DRJ53; 1989RLR495
Arun B. Saharya, J.(1) In this second appeal, under Section 39 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958, hereinafter referred to as 'the Act', arising out of an order of the Rent Control Tribunal dated 10th April 1986 affirming order of eviction of the appellant-tenant made by the Additional Rent Controller, Delhi, under Section 14(1)(b) of the Act, the main question of law which has arisen is: whether Clause (b) of the proviso to Sub-section (1) of Section 14 of the Act applies to residential premises let out to a company also. (2) The relevant facts lie within a narrow compass. The appellant is a public company having its registered office at Calcutta. The respondent let out his property No. 1 M-11, Greater Kailash No. 11, New Delhi, hereinafter referred to as the demised premises, to the appellant on terms and conditions contained in a deed of lease executed between the parties on 17th January, 1980. Clause (11) (c) of the lease deed contains one of the lessee's covenants in the followin...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : 1993IVAD(Delhi)809; 54(1994)DLT179; 1994(28)DRJ245
V.B. Bansal, J. (1) Mrs. Surinder Kaur, plaintiff has filed this suit against the Life Insurance Corporation of India for recovery of Rs. 1,28,800.00 (2) Briefly stated, averments made in the plaint are that the defendant, Life Insurance Corporation of India, was established under the Insurance Corporation Act and can sue and be sued in its name and is engaged in the business of life insurance. Mrs. Surinder Kaur is widow of late Mohan Singh. The aforesaid Mohan Singh got his life assured for a sum of Rs. 1 lakh for a term of 25 years, regarding which. Life Insurance Policy No. 50432319 was issued, which commenced on 28/3/1982 and was to mature on 28/3/2007. The premium was to be paid quarterly, payable on 28th of March, 28th of June, 28th of September and 28th of December of the each English calendar month. Each Installment of premium was for Rs. 1,367.50 paise. Mrs. Surinder Kaur was appointed as a nominee in this insurance policy. The payments of the premiums used to be made by the ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : 34(1988)DLT11; 1988(14)DRJ97
D.P. Wadhwa, J.(1) The only question that arises in this petition and other petitions which are being disposed of by this order is if the offences under Section 159 read with Section 162 and Section 220 again read with Section 162 of the Companies Act 1956 (for short 'the Act') are continuing offences within the meaning of Section 472 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 (for short 'the Code') so as to remove the bar of limitation to take cognizance of the offences as provided by Section 468 of the Code. Under Sub-section (1) of Section 468 of the Code, a court cannot take cognizance of an offence after the expiry of the period of limitation as provided under Sub-section (2) of that section. In the case where the offence is punishable with fine only, the period of limitation prescribed is six months. Section 472 of the Code provides, however, that in the case of a continuing offence, a fresh period of limitation shall begin to run at every moment of the time during which the offence ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : 49(1993)DLT653; 1993(26)DRJ33
P.K. Bahri, J.(1) All these petitions pertain to rent control proceedings in respect of different tenants of the same building and in all these cases', only ground of bonafide requirement for residence of the landlady and her husband has been set up. It is in the interest of justice that all these petitions are decided by this common judgment because facts in all these cases are similar and question arising on merits are also similar. (2) Property No.4974, Ward No. Xii situated at Mata Mandir, Roshanara Road, Subzi Mandi, Delhi is located in a plot measuring 122-6' X 18-8'. In this property rooms have been constructed in a row. There are common facilities of latrine and bath available to occupants of various rooms in this property. All the tenants in various rooms are very very old tenants and the rooms are just kuchha kothris and the tenants who come from very lower strata of life have been living in these rooms, some since 30 years and other since 40 years or so, and are paying very ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : 2008(103)DRJ294
Vikramajit Sen, J.WP(Crl.)509/19961. The Prayers in this writ petition are for the quashing of the Detention Order dated 19.12.1974 passed under Section 3(1) of Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 (for short COFEPOSA Act); for quashing of the Order dated 29.5.1978 under Section 19(1) of Smugglers & Foreign Exchange Manipulators (Forfeiture of Property) Act, 1976 (for short SAFEMA); and for restraining the respondent from acquiring/dispossessing petitioner's properties, namely, house property municipal No. 1115/X-5, Dhab Khatika, RB Saindas Road, Amritsar and factory premises bearing No. 31, Khasra No. 745, Jawahar Nagar, Batala Road, Amritsar along with some machinery installed therein and for passing any other appropriate order that may be equitable and just. Notably, the Petitioner has not filed a copy of the impugned Order dated 29.5.1978 allegedly passed under Section 19(1) of SAFEMA. 2. It needs to be clarified at the threshold that De...
Tag this Judgment!