Delhi Court August 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.
Hakish J. Mal Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-04-1982
Reported in: 1982CriLJ2123; ILR1983Delhi940
Avadhbehari Rohatgi, J.(1) On adifference of opinion between two judges of this Court R. N. Aggrawal and D. R. Khanna JJ. this appeal has come to me for my opinion under section 392 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Aggarwal J. dismissed the appeal and maintained the conviction and sentence of the appellant under section 302 Indian Penal Code and section 380 Ipc, Khanna J. allowed the appeal. He set aside the conviction and sentence of the appellant. Now as a third judge I have to give. my opinion on the appeal. (2) The appellant Harish J. Mal is a young man of 26 years In 1976 he was committed to the court of sessions to stand trial on a charge of murder under section 302 Indian Penal Code . At that time he was 22 years of age The charge was that on 28-5-1976 he had committed the murder of his aunt, Mrs. Micle Violet Law. He was also charged for committing theft from her dwelling house under s6c. 380 Indian Penal Code . The Additional Sessions Judge tried him. He found him guilty on ...
Ghandu Lal Gupta Vs. Sri Ram Nagar
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-04-1982
Reported in: 22(1982)DLT381
Yogeshwar Dayal, J.(1) This revision petition is directed against the order of Additional Rent Controller, Delhi dated 15th July, 1977 dismissing the application filed by the petitioner for ejectment of the respondent. (2) The Petition itself was filed by the petitioner for ejectment of the respondent inter alias on the allegations that the petitioner is the owner of the premises ; the premises had been let out to the respondent for residential purposes only and that the petitioner requires the premises bona fide for his residence and the residence of his family members dependent upon him. It was alleged in the petition that the family of the petitioner consists of himself, his wife, three sons, six daughters, three daughter-in-laws, five grand-daughters, six grand-sons. It was also stated that all the six daughters are married and they often visit with their husbands and stay with the petitioner, Along with their children for several days. Two of the grand-sons were stated to be 25 an...
R.N. Gujral and ors. Vs. Shyam Sunder and Sons and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-03-1982
Reported in: 1982CriLJ2012; 1982(3)DRJ374
Charanjit Talwar, J. (1) In this revision petition, the petioner who had filed a. complaint under section 7/11 of the prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (hereinafter called the 'Act') against M/s Shyam Sunder & Sons and others has challenged the order passed on September 8, 1980 by Shri J.P. Sharma, Metropolitan Magistrate discharging the accused respondent herein (2) Briefly the fads of the prosecution case were that M/s Shyam Sunder & Sons were dealing in the sale of edible oil at their shop D-6 Shardhanand Market, Delhi. On November 8, 1979, at about 4.40 P.M., Shri Gian Chand Food Inspector, purchased a sample of Imported Soyabean Oil from one of the partners of M/s. Shyam Sunder & Sons under the provision of the Act and the Rules made there under. This sample of Soyabean oil was sent for analysis. According to the public Analyst, it was adulterated. The report declaring it to be such is as follows : 'THEsame is adulterated due to 30.2 excess in proxide value expressed as mi...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›