Delhi Court July 1981 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.
Trilochan Singh Vs. the State (Delhi Administration, Delhi)
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-17-1981
Reported in: 20(1981)DLT20b
ORDER1. The petitioner was declared a proclaimed offender on April 21, 1981 in FIR 395 of April 25, 1980 registered in the P.S. Kingsway Camp under Section 302/34/120B, I.P.C. and Section 27 of the Arms Act, for murder of Nirankari Chief Baba Gurbachan Singh in Delhi, which is under investigation by the C.B.I. He was liable to arrest under Section 41(1)(c), Cr.P.C. by any police officer. 2. It so happened that in order to deal with the anti-smoking agitation, a notification was issued on January 6, 1981 by the District Magistrate, Amritsar for surrender of arms. The petitioner was one of those who did not comply. He was arrested on June 17, 1981 when it was discovered that he was a man wanted by the police of Delhi as aforesaid. He was produced before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Amritsar on June 18, 1981, who transferred him to the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Delhi as required by R. 26.20 of the Punjab Police Rules, 1934. He was then produced before him on June 19, 1981. On the s...
The Additional Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Handicraft and Handloom ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-16-1981
Reported in: 1982(3)DRJ14; [1982]133ITR590(Delhi)
(1) The assessed Corporation was set up by the Ministry of Commerce of the Government of India in 1958 as a government company under the name and style of Indian Handicrafts Development Corporation Ltd. Till the year. 1962-63, She Corporation was known under this name and its expenditure was being met by the Govt. of India by way of grants sanctioned on the basis of budget estimates submitted from year to year. In June 1962, the entire paid up share capital of the Corporation was acquired by the State Trading Corporation from the Government of India. In October, 1962 the Handloom Exports Organisation of the State Trading Corporation was merged with the Indian Handicrafts Development Corporation and the name of the assessed corporation was changed into its present name. For the assessment year 1964- 65, the Corporation's accounts showed a loss of Rs. 1,116.599.00 . The Corporation made a request to the S.T.C. for re-imbursement of the loss which ft was stated was mainly accounted for by...
Dharam Pal and Sons and anr. Vs. Parmeshwari Das
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-14-1981
Reported in: 20(1981)DLT197
Yogeshwar Dayal, J. (1) This second appeal under Section 39 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (hereinafter called the Act) is directed against the judgment of the Rent Control Tribunal dated 19th August, 1977 affirming the order dated 20th May, 1974 passed by the Additional Rent Controller, Delhi ordering eviction of the appellants on the ground contained in proviso (a) to Sub-section (1) of Section 14 of the Act and also passing an order under Section 15(1) of the Act and holding that if the appellant deposits arrears of rent with effect from 1st December) 1972 up to date within one month @ 150.00 per month, the appellant will be entitled to the benefit of Section 14(2) of the Act. (2) The respondent landlord had filed a petition for eviction against the appellant on the ground that the appellant was habitual defaulter in the payment of rent and did not pay the same whenever it fell due. At present, it was stated, that a sum of Rs. l,500.00 was due for the period 1st December, 1972 ...
Jai NaraIn Vs. Ziey Singh and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-10-1981
Reported in: ILR1981Delhi792
T.P.S. Chawla, J. (1) It is odd that there is so little guidance in the cases as to the considerations which ought to weigh with a court when deciding what charges should be framed in a criminal case. May be, that is because the general run of cases poses no problem. Yet, there can be complexities as is borne out by this petition for revision, which has arisen in the following circumstances. (2) The nine respondents are being jointly tried before the Additional Sessions Judge, Delhi, in respect of an incident which occurred on 30th April 1980. The case against them appears sufficiently from the first information recorded by the police. Jai Narain, who is the petitioner here, was the informant. A free translation of what he said is as under : 'Iam a resident of village Deendarpur and cultivate land. A civil litigation was going on between my father, Ami Lal, and Fazal. Mohammed in respect of some land. The land was about 30 or 35 bighas in area. The case was decided in favor of my fathe...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›