Skip to content


Latest Cases Home > Latest Court: delhi Page 6236 of about 75,398 results (0.397 seconds)

May 22 1997 (HC)

Hindustan Fertilizer Corporation Ltd. Vs. Great Eastern Shipping Co. L ...

Court : Delhi

Reported in : 74(1998)DLT82; 1998(46)DRJ344; (1998)120PLR25

S.N. Kapoor, J.1.By this petition, the petitioner a wholly owned Government Company seeks declaration about existence of a valid arbitration agreement between the petitioner, assignee under the Bill of Lading and respondent No.1 and valid reference of disputes between the parties to the two joint Arbitrators-respondent Nos.2 & 3 and in the alternative seeks reference of the disputes to the Arbitrators already appointed. 2.1 The petitioner themselves claims that petitioner Company is authorised agent of Government of India in regard to handling and distribution of imported fertilizers. The respondent is a common carrier by sea and is the owner of the merchant ship 'JAGRAHAT'2.2. Under a Charter Party Agreement dated April 22,1992 between the President of India and the respondent Company - The Great Eastern Shipping Co. Ltd., the respondent Company undertook that its vessel 'm.v. JAGRAHAT' would call at one or two safe ports in U.S., Gulf, part of Tampa and there is could load full and c...

Tag this Judgment!

May 22 1997 (HC)

Babu Khan Vs. State (Delhi Administration)

Court : Delhi

Reported in : 1997IVAD(Delhi)465; 1997(4)Crimes258; 67(1997)DLT452

J.K. Mehra, J. (1) I have heard the parties. In this case, 8 kgs. of poppy straw was seized. Notice under Section 50 was duly given.. veracity whereof is disputed by amices Curiae. The only question which the petitioner has pressed before me is that before taking search of the accused, the raiding party officials did not offer themselves to be searched by the accused to eliminate the possibility of any narcotic being planted. This is a very important safeguard which was enunciated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Bihar v. Kapil Singh, reported as Air 1969 Sc 58. That very view was further elaborated and adopted in the judgments delivered under Ndps Act, by Madhya Pradesh and Bombay High. Courts in the cases of Gurcharan Singh v. State of Vf.P., reported as 1992 (3) Crimes 412; Mohd. Siraj v. State of Maharashtra, reported as 1994 (2) Crimes 99 : 11 (1994) CCR805 and Najukrao Ramchatldra Kale v. State of 'Maharashtra reportedas l992(3)CCR2460. 8 kilos of poppy straw ...

Tag this Judgment!

May 21 1997 (HC)

Mohan Construction Co. Vs. Delhi Development Authority

Court : Delhi

Reported in : 1997IVAD(Delhi)101; 1997(2)ARBLR189(Delhi); 67(1997)DLT579; 1997(42)DRJ263

Anil Dev Singh, J. (1) The parties entered into an agreement with regard to construction of 360 dwelling units in pocket C-IA, Pankha Road, New Delhi. The agreement contained arbitration clause. Disputes arose between the parties and the matter was referred to the arbitration of Mr. G.R. Hingorani. The Arbitrator made and published his award on 7th November, 1987. The respondent-DDA not being satisfied with the award has filed the instant application being I.A. 1575/88 under Sections 30 and 33 of the Indian Arbitration Act, 1940.(2) The main grievance of the respondent is with regard to the award pertaining to Claim No. 10. Under this claim the petitioner claimed a sum of Rs. 79,480.00 on account of providing brass stays and handles in steel windows. The Arbitrator after considering the submissions of the parties made the following award :-(3) Claim No. 10 for Rs. 79,480/0 on account of providing brass stays and handles in steel windows: A careful reading of the agreement item of steel...

Tag this Judgment!

May 21 1997 (HC)

S. Jayadev Vs. State

Court : Delhi

Reported in : 1997IVAD(Delhi)29; 1998(1)ALT(Cri)3; 67(1997)DLT564; 1997(42)DRJ88

J.K. Mehra, J. (1) I have heard the parties. In this case, after the service of summons, the petitioner had approached the Trial Court for exemption from personal appearance under Section 205(1) Cr.P.C. The Trial Court rejected the application for exemption from personal appearance and directed that the accused must appear. The accused challenged the orders of the Trial Court rejecting the request for exemption from personal appearance. Justice N.G. Nandi after hearing the parties, disposed of the matter on 17.12.1996, setting aside the order of the Trial Court dated 30.8.1996 whereby exemption from personal appearance had been declined. This Court granted the exemption from personal appearance to the petitioner. Before this Court the petitioner/accused through his counsel submitted that he does not dispute his identity and also does not object to the progress of the case in his absence and further that he will continue to appear through his counsel before the Trial Court Mr. Gulati al...

Tag this Judgment!

May 21 1997 (HC)

Dal Chand Vs. Secretary (Labour) and Labour Commissioner and anr.

Court : Delhi

Reported in : 67(1997)DLT466; (1997)IILLJ339Del

C.M. Nayar, J.(1) The present petition is directed against respondent No. 1 to pay to the petitioner forthwith a sum of Rs. 9827.84 which the said respondent received from respondent No. 2. The petitioner was employed by respondent N 0.2. as a Khalasi Mazdoor and the Presiding Officer, Labour Court No. 1I, Delhi vide orders dated 18thMay, 1994 in Labour Court Application No. 7/90 computed a sum of Rs.9827.84 and passed an order infavour of the petitioner and against respondent No.2.Respondent No. 1 issued recovery certificate as far back as on 15th November, 1994 to the District Collection Officer, Delhi for recovery of the said sum of Rs. 9827.84 from respondent No. 2. The said officer recovered the sum from respondent No. 2 and deposited the same with respondent No. 1 for payment to the petitioner. However, respondent No. 1 did not proceed further in the matter and refused to pay the amount to the petitioner without any valid reason. It is unfortunate that a small sum of Rs. 9827.84 ...

Tag this Judgment!

May 20 1997 (HC)

Rajdhani Chit Fund (P) Ltd. Vs. Mukesh Maheshwari

Court : Delhi

Reported in : 1997IVAD(Delhi)77; [1999]96CompCas837(Delhi); 67(1997)DLT493

M.S.A. Siddiqui, J. (1) This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 29th July, 1994 passed by the Addl. Distt. Judge, Delhi in Rca 438/93 arising out of judgment dated 29.9.93 passed by the Sub Judge in Civil Suit No. 59/93 dismissing the plaintiff/respondent's suit for injunction. (2) Briefly stated, facts giving rise to this appeal u/Section 100, Civil Procedure Code are that the respondent No. 1/plaintiff filed a suit for mandatory injunction against the appellant/defendant on the allegations that the appellant company being licencee of the suit premises, had refused to vacate the same after termination of the licence. The suit was resisted by the appellant-Company on the ground that it was in occupation of the suit accommodation as the tenant of the respondent No. 1 and the agreement dated 1.9.75 (Ex Public Witness Public Witness 1/1) executed between the parties is a camouflage to circumvent the provisions of Delhi Rent Control Act. It was also averred that the respondent N...

Tag this Judgment!

May 20 1997 (HC)

Joginder Singh Vs. Roma Arjani

Court : Delhi

Reported in : 70(1997)DLT90

M.S.A. Siddiqui, J. (1) Learned Counsel for the appellant seeks an adjournment. Learned Counsel for the Caveator has opposed the request. This appeal is pending for admission since 31.1.1997. Several adjournments have been granted to the appellant is hereby rejected. (2) HEARD. (3) The respondent No. 1-Smt. Roma Arjani filed a suit for permanent injunction restraining her husband, father-in-law, mother-in-law, brother-in-law and sister-in-law from dispossessing her from first floor of the premises N/5, Kirti Nagar, New Delhi. Along with plaint, she also filed an application u/Order 39, Rules 1 & 2 for an interim injunction. (4) By the impugned order dated 7.12.1996, the learned Additional District & Sessions Judge allowed the said application restraining the defendant from interfering with the possession of the respondent No. 1 over the premises in question. Aggrieved by this order, the appellant has filed this appeal. (5) Admittedly, the respondent No. 1 is the wife of the respondent ...

Tag this Judgment!

May 19 1997 (HC)

P.V. Narasimharao Vs. State

Court : Delhi

Reported in : 1997IVAD(Delhi)1; 1997CriLJ3117; 67(1997)DLT567; 1997(42)DRJ78; ILR1997Delhi376

Mohd. Shamim, J. (1) This is an application by Rashtriya Mukti Morcha through their President for permission to intervene in the present proceedings preferred by Shri P.V.Narasimha Rao for quashment and setting aside the order dated May 6, 1997 passed by the trial court.(2) Learned counsel for the petitioner Mr. P.N.Lekhi, Senior Advocate, has contended that initially a complaint was lodged with the Central Bureau of Investigation by the applicant showing the commission of a cognizable offence, yet no case was registered against the petitioner and other co-accused persons. It was only when a direction was given by a Division Bench of this Court as per the request of the applicant in Civil Writ Petition No. 1718/96 on February 26, 1996 that the Central Bureau of Investigation registered a case against the Members of Parliament belonging to Jharkhand Mukti Morcha. Learned counsel thus contends that the Central Bureau of Investigation was very much reluctant to register an Fir against the...

Tag this Judgment!

May 19 1997 (HC)

Dharam Pal Vs. Union of India

Court : Delhi

Reported in : 70(1997)DLT596

Arun B. Saharya, J. (1) This is an appeal under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1984 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act) against award and decree dated 2.8.1984 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Delhi, determining the amount of compensation payable to the appellants for acquisition of their land situated in Village Badii, Delhi. (2) The piece of land in question was acquired by notification under Section 4 of the Act dated 24.10.1961. Declaration under Section 6 of the Act was issued on 6.12.1966 and Award was made by the Land Acquisition Collector on 10.11.1981. (3) The question of market value of the land in the same village, acquired by the very same notification, was the subject-matter of Rfa No. 208/1993: Bhoop Singh v. Union of India, which was decided by a Division Bench of this Court on 12.12.1984. In that case, market value was assessed @ Rs. 7,000.00 per bigha. (4) Accordingly, we hold that market value of the land of the appellants in the present cas...

Tag this Judgment!

May 19 1997 (HC)

Sneh Nagpal Vs. Indira Priyadarshi

Court : Delhi

Reported in : 70(1997)DLT337

Usha Mehra, J. (1) It is established principle of law that in order to obtain leave to defend the tenant must make out a prima facie case thereby raising such pleas and issue which if proved would disentitle the landlord of an order of eviction.The triable issues should be sufficient to grant leave. The test is triable issue and not the final success. At the same time, while considering the leave application extraneous and frivolous defense cannot be considered.(2) Keeping this principle in mind we have to see whether the defense raised by the present petitioner amounted to triable issue or was frivolous and extraneous.Let us have quick glance to the leave affidavit filed by the petitioner. The pleas raised therein can be summarised, under following heads, namely, (1) the motive of seeking eviction was to pressurise the tenant to increase the rent. In this regard here lied on a notice issued by the landlady dated 8/12/1985. Secondly, the need of the landlady was not bonafide. The first...

Tag this Judgment!


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //