Delhi Court December 1982 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.
Santosh Kumar JaIn Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-20-1982
Reported in: 1983(1)Crimes945; 23(1983)DLT164
R.N. Aggarwal, J.(1) This it a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by the detenu Santosh Kumar Jain for the quashing of the order of detention dated 29th September, 1981. (2) On 29th September, 1981 Shri B B.Gujral, Additional Secretary to the Government of India, passed an order under Section 3(1) of the Conservation of the Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974, as amended, (hereinafter referred to as 'COFEPOSA') for the detention of Santosh Kurnar Jain resident of F-13G, Lajpat Nagar, New Delhi with a view to preventing him from acting to any manner prejudicial to the augmentation of the foreign exchange. (3) The petitioner on 29th November, 1981 filed a writ petition in the Calcutta High Court and obtained an injunction order restraining the detaining authority from enforcing the detention order subject to certain conditions. The petition, it appears, was dismissed for default on 20th February, 1982. We may notice here that the respond...
H.L. Vijh and ors. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-20-1982
Reported in: ILR1983Delhi380
Sachar, J. 1. The staff working in Courts including that in High Court is normally a proverbial poor relation in comparison to the Secretariat staff. That possibly may be the reason why inspire of years spent in praying to get justice, nothing has been done necessitating the staff to resort, however, reluctantly to move this Court to get their legitimate dues which should have been given long back.2. The petitioners before us are the Deputy Registrars of this Court. Their claim in the petition is for payment of special pay. The posts of the Deputy Registrars are filled up either from amongst the members of Delhi Judicial Service or from amongst the Assistant Registrars of this Court by promotion. It is common case that a Deputy Registrar if he is a member of Delhi Judicial Service now gets Rs. 150 per mensem as special pay (it was Rs. 100 per mensem prior to 1-1-1978). However, no special pay is paid to a Deputy Registrar who is not a member of Delhi Judicial Service, At present the pe...
Wealth-tax Officer Vs. O.P. Kapoor
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Decided on: Dec-16-1982
Reported in: (1983)4ITD91(Delhi)
1. This appeal has been preferred by the revenue against order dated 6-8-1980 of the Commissioner (Appeals).2. 1973-74 is the assessment year concerned. The assessee is an individual. The assessment was completed by the WTO as per order dated 23-10-1974 determining net wealth at Rs. 1,69,633. The said figure included an amount of Rs. 19,597 as belonging to the assessee and lying in the Standard Bank Ltd., London in the sum off 1,088.32. The assessee had filed the return of net wealth for the said assessment year claiming the status of non-resident. Thus, according to the assessee in the light of provisions of Clause (i) of Section 6 of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957 ('the Act') the value of the assets and debts located outside India was not includible in the computation of the assessee's net wealth. The learned WTO, however, completed the assessment on the assessee in the status of resident. In this regard, the WTO, actually relied on the finding arrived at by the ITO in the present assesse...
State Vs. Dev Raj Singh and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-16-1982
Reported in: 24(1983)DLT156
M.L. Jain, J.(1) This is a revision petition against the order of discharge made by the Metropolitan Magistrate dated 22-7-1982. (2) A sample of laddus was purchased from the respondent accused on 22-8-1980. One part of the sample was sent to the Public Analyst, Chandigarh, who reported on 17-9-1980 that the sample is coloured with unpermitted orange coal tar dye. It appears that the accused made a representation to the Lt. Governor challenging the veracity of the said report as a result of which the local health authority acting under Section 13(2E) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (herein the Act) sent the sample to the Public Analyst, Lucknow, who reported on 16-10-1981 that the sample was genuine, and no adulteration was detected. In his letter dated 18-11-1981 the Public Analyst, Lucknow stated, 'Appearance-faint yellow coloured sample. No added colour present in the sample'. Yet the Administration decided to prosecute the respondent and consent for prosecution was...
Mannalal Soorana Vs. Wealth-tax Officer
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Decided on: Dec-15-1982
Reported in: (1983)4ITD131(Delhi)
1. The assessee's appeals relating to the assessment years 1973-74 to 1975-76 against the orders of the Commissioner, Jaipur, were disposed of by the Tribunal vide its order dated 16-11-1981 in WT Appeal Nos.527 to 529 (Jp.) of 1980. By this order, the order(s) of the Commissioner (Appeals) was sustained upholding the penalties levied under Section 18(1)(c) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957 ('the Act'), for each of the three assessment years. The assessee has now moved a miscellaneous application under Section 254(2) of the 1961 Act stating that there are certain mistakes apparent from the record in the above order, inasmuch as some of the facts mentioned in the Tribunal's order are not borne out from the record and also certain submissions made during the course of the hearing of the appeals have not been incorporated in the order passed by the Tribunal. It has also been stated that the quantum appeals against the assessments which were decided by the Tribunal in favour of the assessee wer...
Safari Airways Vs. the Estate Officer and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-14-1982
Reported in: AIR1983Delhi347; 1983(4)DRJ279
Avadh Behari Rohaigi, J. (1) The only question in this writ petition about the validity of the notice dated 19.3.1982 issued by the Estate Officer is Delhi Airport Palam, respondent No. 1 to the petitioner, M/s Safari Airway.(2) These are the facts. On 22.10.71 the President of India execute a license in favor of the petitioner, M/s Safari Airways) for a period of one year. Safari Airways Were allowed to occupy a plot of land at Delhi Airport measuring approximately 82 sq. yards on a certain annual fee. This license expired on 31.10.72 No written license was executed thereafter.(3) On 19.3.82 the Estate Officer of the International Airport Authority of India at Delhi Airport, Palam issued to Safari Airways a notice under section 4(1) of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 (the Act). This notice reads as under : 280 Notice Office Of The Estate Officer Delhi AIRPORT: Palam, New DELHI-110010. No : AAD/EO-4(81)/5208-11 19th March 1982 To M/s Safari Airways, (...
Copal Vs. Baso Mal Jagat NaraIn and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-13-1982
Reported in: 23(1983)DLT221; 1983RLR226
Sultan Singh, J.(1) This second appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure is directed against the judgment and decree of the Additional District Judge dated October 17, 1980 confirming the judgment and decree of the commercial Sub Judge, Delhi dated September Ii, 1978, holding that the tenancy of Radhey Shyam Gupta was validly terminated during his life time. Briefly the facts arc that Radhey Shyam Gupta predecessor of the appellant and respondents Nos. 2 and 6 was inducted by respondent No. I as a tenant at Rs. 66.00 per month in a portion of property No. 648, Gali Sethan, Katra Neel, Delhi for period of eleven months with effect from lit November, 1953 in terms of the rent note dated October 29, 1953 executed by the deceased Radhey Shyam Gupta. After the expiry of fixed period of tenancy the deceased tenant continued to reside by virtue of the protection against eviction available to him under Delhi and Ajmer Rent Control Act, 1952. The plaintiff-respondent No. I on Mar...
Collector of Central Excise at Poona and Others Vs. Sushil Kumar and O ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-10-1982
Reported in: 1983(14)ELT2226(Del)
B.N. Kirpal, J. 1. This appeal under clause X of the Letters Patent has been filed against the judgment dated 3rd November, 1981 whereby a single Judge of this Court allowed the petition under Article 226 of the Constitution filed by the respondents and had quashed the seizure, and subsequent confiscation, which had taken place on 9th July, 1968, of a large quantity of gold under the provisions of Gold (Control) Ordinance, 1968. 2. One Keshrimal Porwal had two businesses, a bidi business at Kamptee and a gold and silver shop in Mandsaur. On 7th October, 1952 he died leaving behind a widow named Ratanbai, a daughter named Shantabai and a son named Nemkumar. Both the said children were married. Shantabai had a son who had some congenital abnormality and was almost invalid since birth. Nemkumar, on the other hand, had five sons in all, one of them having been born at the time when Keshrimal was alive. 3. After Keshrimal's death the business at Mandsaur was stated to have been wound up and...
VipIn Maneklal and ors. Vs. Sushil Kumar and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-10-1982
Reported in: AIR1983Delhi307
B.N. Kirpal, J. (1) This appeal under clause X of the Letters Patent has been filed against the judgment dated 3rd November, 1981 whereby a single Judge of this Court allowed the petition under Article 226 of the Constitution filed by the respondents and had quashed the seizure, and subsequent confiscation, which had taken place on 9th July, 1968, of a' large quantity of gold under the provisions of Gold (Control) Ordinance, 1968. (2) One Keshrimal Porwal had two businesses, a bidi business at Kamptee and a gold and silver shop in Mandsaur. On 7th October, 1952 he died leaving behind a widow named Ratanbai, a daughter named Shantabai and a son named Nemkumar. Both the said children were married. Shantabai had a son who had some congenital abnormality and was almost invalid since birth. Nemkumar, on the other hand, had five sons in all, one of them having been born at the time when Keshrimal was alive. (3) After Keshrimal's death the business at Mandsaur was stated to have been wound up...
Nirmal JaIn Vs. the State and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-10-1982
Reported in: AIR1983Delhi120; 1983(4)DRJ152; 1983RLR130
Sultan Singh, J.(1) This first appeal under Section 47 of the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 (for short 'the Act, 1890) is directed against the Judgment and order of the District Judge. Delhi dated 19th November, 1979 dismissing the appellant's application under Section 25 of the Act for a declaration that she is the guardian of her minor son and for a direction to the respondents to give his custody to her.(2) In her application filed on 14th January, 1975 S nt. Nirmal Jain has pleaded that she wag married to Vipan Kumar Jain on 5th February, 1965 at Delhi according to Hindu rites, that the marriage was consumated and a son was born on 9th November, 1968 who is named Ashu, that her husband died on 14th October, 1974 and at that time she was staying with her father at 68, Raja Park, Shakurbasti, Delhi, and that she was informed about his death after funeral ceremony. She has further pleaded that the respondent i.e. the mother, brothers and sisters of her deceased husband want to deprive...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »