Court : Delhi
Reported in : 1992(3)Crimes876; 1992(24)DRJ375; 1992RLR517
usha mehra, j.(1) this revision petition has been filed by one shri daulat ram assailing the order passed by the additional sessions judge dated 18th february, 1991 thereby discharging the accused rajinder motwani and dismissing the complaint of the petitioner under section 211/500 indian penal code . (2) in brief, the facts of this case are that the petitioner is a landlord/owner of property bearing no. 3493, gali lallu nissar, qutub road, sadar bazar, delhi, and one shri sajjan dass of narain market, was a tenant under him in respect of one room used as a godown on a monthly rent of rs. 25.00 . the said sajjan dass vacated the said godown in the first week of april, 1986. the respondent and his father in order to blackmail the petitioners, started claiming the tenancy in the name of their firm m/s. popular stores. this they claimed because once upon a time sajjan dass was a partner in the said concern. since the petitioner refused to recognise them as a tenant, the respondent and his father filed a civil suit on which a local commissioner was appointed to ascertain the possession of the party in the suit premises. the local commissioner found that the respondent was not in possession of the alleged godown. having failed in their object, the respondent tried to dispossess the petitioner through illegal help and backing of the police and also tried to implicate falsely the petitioner in criminal cases. (3) the police officers visited the petitioner on 25/26th october, 1986 .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : 1995IAD(Delhi)152; 57(1995)DLT8; 1995(32)DRJ171
devinder gupta, j. (1) circular dated 2.8.1991 issued by respondent no.2 spelling out the policy of respondent no. 1 restricting registration of suppliers for the supply of 'meat tinned' only to public sector undertakings (for short 'psus') and state level federations (for short 'federations') owning manufacturing units is under challenge in this petition filed under article 226 of the constitution of india. at the time of filing of this writ petition, the petitioner had also sought relief restraining respondents 1 & 2 from accepting the tender of respondent no.3 and seeking directions to consider the petitioner's tender dated 23.9.1991 for supply of 800 metric tonnes meat canned curried for the consumption of indian defense forces. these prayers have now become infructuous due to the contract being awarded in favor of respondent no.3 and period of supply having come to an end. petitioners now seek prayer (a) and (c) namely to quash the circular dated 2.8.1991 and to direct respondents 1 & 2 to accept the registration of the petitioner for enlistment as an approved contractor for the supply of 'meat tinned'. (2) petitioner is a private limited company registered under the companies act. it commenced the business of meat processing in the year 1943 and claims to be the premier manufacturer/supplier within and outside india of meat and poultry products. it is alleged that it has-all the requisite equipments and facilities for undertaking bulk supplies. from 1959 till about 1985 .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : 47(1992)DLT212
s.b. wad, j. (1) these appeals arise out of the acquisition of land belonging to claimants in village malikpur kohi/rangpuri. the notification under section 4 of the land acquisition act was issued on 23.1.1965.(2) rfa. 386/71 is filed against the judgment of shri jagdish chandraadj, in lac no. 415/67 pronounced on 29.3.1971 relating to award no. 1958.shri jagdish chandra, adj, (as he then was) had relied upon his own judgment in lac. 434/67 bhaktawar singh & another v. union of india dated 23.3.1971.in bhaktawar singh's case the learned adj, relying on the sale instance of khasra no. 1587/1, where one'bigha of land was sold for rs. 5,000.00, held that market value for block i lands was rs. 7,000.00 per bigha and for block 2 landsrs. 5,000.00 per bigha. appellants' land was classified by the learned adj as block 2 land and was awarded compensation @ rs. 5,000.00 per bigha. the land acquisition collector had awarded only rs. 600.00 per. bigha for block2 lands. the appellants/claimants had claimed in the appeal that they should have been paid compensation @ rs. 7,000.00 per bigha. the union of india has filed an appeal against the judgment of jagdish chandra. adj, viz. rfa. 452of 1971. in the said appeal the claimants have filed the cross-objections. after the decision of this court in rfa. 122/78, hoshiar singh v. union of india, the claimants have claimed rs. 14,340.00 per bigha as compensation for all categories of land.(3) there are cross-appeals filed by the union of india .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : 1998VAD(Delhi)725; 75(1998)DLT381; 1998(47)DRJ479
c.m. nayar, j.1. the present petition is directed against the judgment dated 27th march, 1995 passed by shri p.d. gupta, additional rent controller, delhi.2. the respondent alleges that he is the owner and landlord of the premises known as 37, double storey quarters, new rajinder nagar, new delhi and the petitioners are the tenants of the said premises at a monthly rent of rs.1000/- which was let out to them in the year 1978. the premises were let out for residential purposes and are being used by the petitioners as such and the said premises are required by the respondent bona fide for himself and his other family members dependent on him. at the time of filing of the petition the respondent was in government accommodation and subsequently retired from the government service. thereforee, he was required to surrender the accommodation allotted to him by the government. petitioner no.1 took the plea that there is no relationship of landlord and tenant and that the respondent has concealed material facts. originally quarter nos.37, 38, new rajinder nagar, new delhi were purchased in an open auction by shri ram narain father of the respondent and grand father of the petitioners. the said shri ram narain died on 31st december, 1964 but he had executed a will by which he had given a life interest in both the quarters to his wife, smt.har kaur and after her death it was desired in the will that shri jagdish chander shall become owner of quarter no.38 while madhu sudan becomes the .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : 2002VAD(Delhi)78; [2002]111CompCas544(Delhi); 98(2002)DLT289; 2002(63)DRJ502
..... poddar reported in : 1984crilj1 , held that it is clear that anyone can set the criminal law in motion by filing a complaint of facts constituting an offence before a magistrate entitled to take cognizance. ..... anyone can set the criminal law in motion by filing the complaint constituting an offence. .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : 98(2002)DLT308
..... poddar reported in : 1984crilj1 , held that it is clear that anyone can set the criminal law in motion by filing a complaint of facts constituting an offence before a magistrate entitled to take cognizance. ..... anyone can set the criminal law in motion by filing the complaint constituting an offence. .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : (2001)170CTR(Del)51
..... animal is an organized being having life sensation and voluntary motion, typically distinguished from a plant, which is organized and has life, but apparently not sensation or voluntary motion. ..... animals in law include any animate being, which is not human, endowed with the power of voluntary motions. .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : (2005)196CTR(Del)582
madan b. lokur, j.1. the revenue has preferred five appeals claiming that a question of law arises out of an order of the income tax appellate tribunal (for short the tribunal) to the effect that the commissioner of income tax (appeals) (for short cit) erred in allowing the benefit of section 10(22) of the income tax act, 1961 to the respondent/assessed.2. the facts as they appear from the order of the tribunal clearly show that the assessed is running several schools (about 16 in number) employing more than one thousand teachers and nuns and imparting education to several thousand students. there is no doubt, as held by the authorities under the act, that the assessed was carrying on charitable activities but the question was whether it was existing solely for educational purposes.3. according to the assessing officer, the fact that the assessed was also running a dispensary, an orphanage and a church shows that the assessed was not carrying out activities only for educational purposes. the cit as well as the tribunal disagreed with the assessing officer and we think rightly so.4. the nuns who were teaching in the schools run by the assessed were donating their entire salary back to the assessed and the assessed in turn looked after their maintenance. provision of medical facilities for the benefit of the nuns and the students and running a church was found to be incidental to the principal activity of running an educational institution. similarly, the orphanage being run by .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : 2001(60)DRJ464
..... 'animal' is an organized being having life, sensation and voluntary motion, typically distinguished from a plant, which is organized and has life, but apparently not sensation or voluntary motion. ..... animals in law include any animate being, which is not human, endowed with the power of voluntary motions. .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : 1994IAD(Delhi)1037; 53(1994)DLT773; (1994)107PLR24
k.s. bhat, j. (1) there are several writ petitions involving the same question as to whether the permit of the stage carriage vehicle could be cancelled or suspended, if the vehicle causes any serious accident affecting the limb or life of any human being. as an illustrative case we may refer to the accident in which bus no.dl-ip-2798 was involved. a young boy died in the accident. a criminal case was registered in the police station and at the same time on 6.4.1993, a show cause notice was issued to the permit holder (first respondent) to submit his explanationn as to why his permit should not be cancelled/suspended and the bus be impounded. the permit holder replied stating that he had complained against the students of haryana shakti senior secondary school, khanjhawla with the principal of the school about their illegal activities and inspire of this the school authorities did not take any action and that the boy fell down from the front gate of the school and was crushed under the wheel of the bus. the driver ran away with the bus. the state transport authority which had issued the show cause notice considered the explanationn and thereafter made an order cancelling the permit. the permit holder filed an appeal before the state transport appellate tribunal. the appellate tribunal allowed the appeal and held that there was no condition in the permit which was contravened by the permit holder and thereforee, the cancellation of the permit was illegal. the state transport .....
Tag this Judgment!