Delhi Court February 1978 Judgments
Browse smarter
Turn browsing into brief-ready notes
Open any judgment and get a structured AI Brief in seconds — plus Semantic Search when you need to hunt by meaning, not keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed — log in to pick up where you left off.
Hari Datt Vashist and ors. Vs. Municipal Corporation of Delhi and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-28-1978
Reported in: ILR1978Delhi28
H.L. Anand, J.(1) These petitions by common owners of land under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India arise out of two separate proceedings initiated by them pursuant to their intention to put up a building for a cinema on the site and raise certain common questions with regard to the true meaning and correct interpretation as well as the application of certain provisions of the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957, for short the Act. (2) The petitions were filed in the following circumstances : Amin Chand, grandfather of the petitioners owned land measuring 12-77 acres in the village of Chowkhandi near Tilak Nagar, Najafgarh Road, New Delhi, within the limits of the Corporation. He submitted a layout plan in respect of the land which was sanctioned under section 313 of the Act by the Standing Committee of the Corporation in December 1958. Subsequently, a revised lay-out plan, by which sizes of plots and width of certain roads was changed, was approved in 1964. Plot Nos. 33, ...
The Controller of Estate Duty, New Delhi Vs. Madan Lal
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-28-1978
Reported in: 14(1978)DLT10; [1978]113ITR332(Delhi)
V.S. Deshpande, J. (1) The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal has referred the following questions of law to this court under section 64 of the Estate Duty Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) : '1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was correct in law in holding that no estate duty was chargeable under section 5 of the Estate Duty Act, 1953 (2) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, and in view of the clear provisions of sub-section (1) of section 34 of the Estate Duty Act, 1953 estate duty was rightly charged ?' 2. The undisputed facts are that Shri Jai Ram Dass was a member of an undivided Hindu family, of which Shri Madan Lal and others were members. The interest which passed on the death of Shri Jai Ram Dass was valued Rs. 31,429. The value of the interest of his lineal discendants was Rs. 1,90,750. While the Assistant Controller of Estate Duty assessed the interest of Shri Jai Ram Dass passing on his death to duty at t...
Sunil Batra, Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-23-1978
Reported in: 1979RLR176
S. Rangarajan, J.(1) On 28.9.70, a Van of Union Bank was carrying cash. It was intercepted by a car allegedly carrying the 4 appellants and H.S. Ahlawalia who later on turned approver. The Van was forced to a nearby secluded place by the occupants of the car. Driver of the Van and gunman of the Bank resisted and were shot. The other 2 occupants of the Van under threats were compelled to transfer 2 cash boxes containing Rs 6 lakhs to the car which which then sped away carrying the loot. The dacoity was witnessed by a young boy of 17,18 years. The prosecution recovered a substantial part of the loot from the appellants except from Vipin Jaggi. One of the participant in the dacoity turned approver. Trial Court convicted Sunil Batra for causing the deaths of gunman and the driver and for dacoity and senterced him to death. Other 3 appellants were sentenced to imprisonments for life. Appellants appealed to High Court. As facts were in great detail, very long judgment was written. Relevant p...
State Vs. Sunil Batra Alias Bobby
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-23-1978
Reported in: ILR1978Delhi536
S. Rangarajan, J.(1) This judgment in Murder Reference No. 1of 1977 will dispose of not only Cr. Appeals No. 43/77 and 44/77 (filedby Sunil Batra), 68/77 and 123/77 (filed by VipinKumar Jaggi and Ravinder Nath Kapur, respectively), 186/77and 187/77 (filed by Shahwar Mohd. Khan), but also Cr. Appeal No. 164 of 1977, referred by the State seeking to enhance the sentence onthe other three appellants except Sunil Batra (who will hereafter bereferred to as Sunil). For purposes of convenience Vipan Kumar JaggI will hereafter be referred to V. jaggi, the name which appears frequently:CD/78-2in evidence; Ravinder Nath Kapoor will hereafter be referred loas Ravi and Shahwar Khan as Shahwar only.(2) Sunil has been convicted under Sections 120-B, 302, 396 as wellas under S. 395 read with Ss. 397 and 398 1. P. C. for having causedthe death of both Bansi Ram and Ram Niwas, the gun man and thedriver, respectively, of the green coloured van of the Union Bank ofIndia, Chandni Chowk (bearing No. Dhb 76...
Parkash Chand Gupta Vs. Kamla Gupta
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-21-1978
Reported in: AIR1979Delhi33
ORDER1. These are two cross revisions before the Court directed against the same order which was passed during the hearing of a petition under S. 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, instituted by Shri Parkash Chand Gupta against his wife Shrimati Kamla Gupta praying for divorce under S. 13 of the said Act.2. This is not the first case between the parties; in fact it is the third case, and hence an issue was raised to the effect that the petition was barred on principles of rest judicata which was tried as a preliminary issue. The petition being based on the grounds of cruelty and desertion was held by Shri G.R. Luthra, Additional District judge. Delhi to be barred by rest judicata but not so barred on the ground of cruelty. This has led to both the parties coming before this Court for revision of the order. It is the case of the husband (Petitioner in the court below and petitioner in C.R.No.533 of 1977) that neither of the grounds is barred by rest judicata and it is the case of the w...
Amrit Lal Vs. State and Municipal Corporation of Delhi
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-17-1978
Reported in: 14(1978)DLT166
R.N. Aggarwal, J.(1) This is a revision petition against the order of the Additional Sessions Judge affirming the order of the Magistrate convicting the petitioner Amrit Lal under section 7 read with section 16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 and sentencing him to regorous imprisonment for six months and a fine of Rs. 1,000.00 and in default of fine to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months. (2) On 11th September, 1975 at 7 a, m. Food Inspector Devi Singh (PW. 2) intercepted the petitioner near the New Bank of India, Shivaji Park Rohtak Road, while he was carrying a can containing 17 litres of cow's milk on a bicycle. There was an indication on the can that the milk was 'cow's milk'. The Food Inspector disclosed his identity to the petitioner and purchased 660 milk litres of milk for analaysis on payment of Rs. 1.20 p. as the price of the sample milk The Food Inspector divided the sample into three parts and sealed it in three dry bottles. One part of the sample ...
Lok Kalyan Samiti, New Delhi Vs. Municipal Corporation of Delhi
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-17-1978
Reported in: AIR1978Delhi189; 14(1978)DLT7; 1978RLR356
Yogeshwar Dayal, J. (1) This writ petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution has been placed before the Full Bench in view of the order of reference dated March 5, i976 passed by Chawla, J. (2) It is necessary to state the facts as alleged by the petitioner and the reply filed on behalf of the respondent-corporation. (3) The petitioner is 'Lok Kalyan Samiti' a Society registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860, and is a charitable institution. (4) The respondent is the Municipal Corporation of Delhi. (5) The petitioner society owns a building known as Lok Kalyan Bhavan, 11-A Rouse Avenue, New Delhi. The rateable value of the said building was assessed at Rs. 540. (6) By a communication dated November 15. 1961, sent by the respondent to the petitioner, the latter was exempted from payment of general tax in respect of the said building under sub-section 4(a) of Section 115 of the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957. In view of the said communication, though the rate...
The Delhi Cloth and General Mills Co. Ltd. and anr. Vs. the Joint Secr ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-16-1978
Reported in: 1978(2)ELT121(Del); ILR1978Delhi216
V.S. Deshpande, J. (1) The levy and collection of excise duty on goods listed in the First Schedule to the Central Excise and Salt Act, 1944 (hereinafter) referred to as the Act) can be done only after the relevant requirements of the Act and the Rules are satisfied. In the present case, the following requirements of section 3 and 4 of the Act and Rules 9 and 49 of the Rules framed there under are relevant:- (1)The duty can be imposed only on 'goods', i.e. things which have an economic significance, that is value, utility, exchangeability, etc. (2)Since the Calcium Carbide listed under entry 14AA of the Schedule is assessable to duty ad valorem, its value would be deemed to be the cash price for which an article of the like kind and quality is sold or capable of being sold. (3)The value has to be determined at the time of the removal of the article chargeable to duty from the factory or any other premises of manufacture or production for delivery at the place of manufacture or product...
Municipal Corporation Vs. Mahbir
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-15-1978
Reported in: 1978RLR365
V.D. Misra, J.(1) This revision for enhancement of sentence is directed against the judgment of Mr. J.D. Kapoor, Metropolitan Magistrate, who awarded a sentence of fine of Rs. 1,000.00 only for an offence under Section 7/16, Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. (2) The relevant facts, in brief, are that Food Inspector R.S. Avasthi found the respondent carrying boiled cow's milk for sale in a milk can on May 14, 1975 at about 10.15 A.M. on Ajmal Khan Road, Karol Bagh, Delhi. The Food Inspector bought 660 mls of milk for analysis. After going through the requisite formalities, one of the sample bottles was sent to the Public Analyst who found it to be highly adulterated because of deficiency to the tune of 90.4% in the milk fat. The Municipal Corporation of Delhi filed a complaint on the basis of the report of the Public Analyst. (3) The defense of the respondent was that he was not a milk seller and was not carrying milk for sale. According to him it was skimmed boiled milk for the purp...
Mohammed Masoom Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-15-1978
Reported in: 1979CriLJ365; ILR1979Delhi764
T.P.S. Chawla, J. (1) The petitioner, Mohammed Masoom, is being detained under an order dated 25th January 1975 made by the Administrator of Delhi under section 3(1) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act 1974 ('COFEPOSA'). This petition for a writ of habeas corpus has been moved on his behalf by his son Mohammed Saleem. (2) Counsel for the petitioner attacked the order of detention on three grounds. First, and foremost, he said, that there had been unexplained and excessive delay in effecting the arrest of the petitioner after the order had been made, which showed that the satisfaction of the Administrator about the necessity for detaining the petitioner was not real or genuine. Secondly, he contended, that the grounds on which the order had been based were 'stale' and could not justify the order. And, thirdly, that the Administrator had taken note of certain statements made by the petitioner to the customs authorities, but had not been info...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »