Delhi Court March 1983 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
Ram Gopal Kejriwal Vs. Devki Rani
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-17-1983
Reported in: 23(1983)DLT419
N.N. Goswamy, J.1. This second appeal by the tenant is directed against the judgment dated April 15, 1978 passed by the Rent Control Tribunal, Delhi, whereby his appeal against the eviction order was dismissed.2. The respondent-landlord filed a petition for eviction against the appellant on the grounds covered by Clauses (a), (b), (d) and (h) of the proviso to Sub-section (1) of Section 14 of the Delhi Rent Control Act. In paragraph 18(a) of the Eviction Petition, it was alleged :'(i) That the respondent has neither paid nor tendered whole of the arrears of rent with effect from 20th August, 1968 and a sum of Rs. 4960.00 is due uptil 31st January, 1972 which the respondent has not paid inspire of notice of demand dated the 17th April, 1971 duly served on 24th April, 1971.(ii) That the respondent has after the 9th day of June, 1952 sublet, assigned or otherwise parted with the possession of the premises to other persons without obtaining the consent in writing of the petitioner or her p...
Pradhan Singh Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Mar-16-1983
Reported in: (1983)LC490DTri(Delhi)
1. This matter originally was a revision petition which has been transferred to the Appellate Tribunal and is taken up as an appeal for consideration.2. On behalf of the Appellant, the learned Counsel reiterated the points raised in the appeal and stressed that there is no evidence against the Appellant beyond the statement of Shri Gurbachan Singh, in which he mentioned that the seized watches were intended for the Appellant. He submitted that even this statement was later retraced.Therefore, it is of no value at all to the Department. He further submitted that as a follow-up of the seizure of the watches, the Appellant's house was searched and no incriminating documents were recovered therefrom. The learned Counsel submitted that in respect of the statement of the co-accused on which the Department seeks to rely on, there are judicial pronouncements according to which unless there is other corroborative evidence, one cannot be convicted on the sole confession of such co-accused. He c...
S.C. JaIn Vs. Union of India
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-16-1983
Reported in: AIR1983Delhi367; (1983)37CTR(Del)97; 23(1983)DLT467; 1983(5)DRJ161; [1983]143ITR607(Delhi); 1983RLR401
Sachar, J.1. The question for decision in this pertain is whether clause (ccc) inserted in sub-s. (1)(in the proviso) of s. 60 of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter called as 'the Code') by means of s. 35 of the Punjab Relief of Indebtedness Act, 1934, as amended by Punjab Amendment Act XII of 1940, and Punjab Amendment Act VI of 1942, as extended to the State of Delhi, stands repealed after the passing of the Amendment Act, 104 of 1976, amending the Code, especially in the light of s. 97(1) of Amendment Act, 1976, which reads as under : '97. (1) Any amendment made, or any provision inserted in the principal Act by a State Legislature or a High Court before the commencement of this Act shall, except in so far as such amendment or provision is consistent with the provision of the principal Act as amended by this Act, stand repealed.' 2. The Punjab of Indebtedness Act, 1934 (hereinafter called as '1934 Act'), received the sanction of the Governor-General on April 5, 1935. It was ex...
Shri Arjun Das Kabari Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Mar-15-1983
Reported in: (1983)LC563DTri(Delhi)
1. In this Revision application to the Government of India, transferred to the Tribunal and heard by us as an Appeal, pursuant to Section 131-B of the Customs Act, 1962, the allegations, in a brief compass, were (a) on 8-1-1980, seizure was effected of 1144 pcs. of various types of old and used clothes, without any markings on them, together with 40 pcs. of zip fasteners on the ground that they were all of foreign origin and hence, reasonably believed to have been smuggled ; (b) the Appellant's statement was recorded and a Panchnama prepared and he was made to sign both although he was illiterate and the contents thereof were not read over and admitted by him to be correct ; (c) he, nevertheless, stated that the old clothes were purchased from petty dealers and there was no record of such sales such as bills, etc.; (d) the fact, however, remained that the old clothes bore no markings to indicate their foreign origin ; (e) nevertheless, it was averred in the show-cause notice that the ...
Gian Chand Vs. Union of India and Others
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-15-1983
Reported in: 1983CriLJ1059; 1983(1)Crimes1000; ILR1983Delhi552
B.N. Kirpal, J. 1. This judgment will dispose of Criminal Writ Nos. 75 and 122 of 1981 and Civil Writ Nos. 2582/1 and 537 of 1982. In these petitions the challenge is to the validity of the Court-Martial Proceedings which were taken against the petitioners which resulted in orders being passed against them whereby the petitioners were reduced in rank, sentenced to rigorous imprisonment and ordered to be dismissed from service. 2. The petitioner belong to the Intelligence Corps and on 24th February, 1979 were posted to 480 Infantry and Field Security Company which at the time, was being commanded by Major S. R. Yadav and was stationed at Kota. 3. On 24th February, 1979 an incident took place which culminated in the Court-Martial proceedings being taken against the petitioners. Without going into the details of the incident, it appears that all the petitioners were in an army one ton truck and were coming to the Unit area. It is admitted that the petitioners were coming back to the Unit ...
inderjit Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-15-1983
Reported in: 24(1983)DLT152A
H.L. Anand, J. 1. The petitioner who is a young student of 18 years is standing trial for an offence under Section 302/34 IPG. The victim died on account of injuries sustained in a fight between two groups of students when they were out to play hockey in the morning at 5.30 a.m. The F.I.R. does not give the names or particulars of any of the accused persons. The petitioner was arrested 6 days after the F.I.R. The victim did not leave any dyingdeclaration. It is said that the only part attributed by the prosecution story to the petitioner is, holding up the victim, and the use of any instrument is not attributed to the petitioner. It is further urged that having regard to the totality of circumstances, there could not have been any intention to kill. The investigation has since concluded. Part of the prosecution evidence has also been recorded. Having regard to all the circumstances, the accused would be released on bail on furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs. 5000/- with one sure...
Gulam Mohd. Jerrah Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Mar-11-1983
Reported in: (1983)(12)ELT647TriDel
1. This is a Revision application against the order of the Appellate Collector of Customs, New Delhi, transferred to the Tribunal pursuant to Section 131B of the Customs Act, 1962 and heard by us as an appeal accordingly.2. It would appear that an order confiscating two gold biscuits, alleged to have been seized from the Appellant, under Section 111 of the Customs Act and levying a personal penalty of Rs. 500/- in terms of Section 112 of the Act had been made by the Adjudicating Officer on or about 20th May, 1978 in this case. The Appellant preferred an appeal to the Appellate Collector and, admittedly, prayed for dispensing with the mandatory requirement in Section 129 of the Customs Act, 1962, of prior deposit of the penalty in a sum of Rs 500/- in the grounds of appeal itself.3. The Appellate Collector, however, dismissed the appeal for failure to deposit the penalty in terms of Section 129 of the Customs Act, 1962, after a notice that was issued to the Appellant, was received back...
P.K. Goel Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Mar-11-1983
Reported in: (1983)LC492DTri(Delhi)
1. The appeal was heard today. The learned Counsel for the Appellant argued that his client was denied a reasonable opportunity to be heard before the Assistant Collector. He further submitted that on 2-1-1979 he delivered a letter to the Assistant Collector in person, seeking extension of time for his reply to the show cause notice. No extension was granted. It was not even mentioned in the order of adjudication.Although the request for extension was adverted to in the grounds of appeal before the Appellate Collector, she appears to have confused it with an earlier letter dated 7-9-1978 for inspection of records.2. The learned Counsel pointed out that under Section 124 no order can be passed without giving the party a reasonable opportunity for personal hearing. He, himself, asked for extension of time for reply to show cause notice and in the circumstances, it cannot be that the right to be heard in person has been given up.3. The Departmental Representative submitted that the show ...
Dipti Singh Vs. Dr. Prem Narayan
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-11-1983
Reported in: 1983(5)DRJ89; 1983RLR453; 1983(2)SLJ245(Delhi)
A.B. Rohatgi, J.1. This petition raises a short question. The petitioner joined the post of a Technical Assistant in the Indian Agricultural Statistics Research Institute (I.C.A.R.) New Delhi on 12.9.197). There was an advertisement for the post. hE applied. He was selected. An appointment letter dated 26.7.1979 was issued to him, though he actually joined on12.9.1979. On 20.8.1982 his services were terminated on the ground that he is not a fit person to be retained in the service of the Institute as he believes in Anand Margi 'ideology'. The petitioner brought this writ petition on 25.1.1983 challenging the order of termination on a variety of grounds.2. Mr. C.K. Mahajan on behalf of the Institute has shown me the note of the Assistant Administrative Officer dated 17.8.1982 suggesting to the Director that the services of the petitioner be terminated with immediate effect. It is not disputed that this order is the foundation of the impugned action.3. From this note it appears that the ...
Murti Devi Vs. Dev Raj Soni
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-11-1983
Reported in: 24(1983)DLT391
N.N. Goswamy, J. 1. This matter has been referred to this Court by the Rent Control Tribunal with the recommendation that the respondent namely Dev Raj Soni be dealt with for committing the contempt of the Court. From the facts it appears that the respondent was a tenant in the premises which belonged to Smt. Murti Devi, the petitioner herein. She filed an eviction petition sometimes in 1974 against the respondent. During the course of trial before the Addl. Rent Controller, the parties entered into a settlement and the following order was passed :-'In view of the compromise and admission of the respondent of the ground of bona fide personal requirement of the petitioner, the petition for eviction is allowed in terms of Ex. C-1, which do form part of the order in respect of the disputed premises being entire ground floor of R-659, New Rajinder Nagar, New Delhi. The respondent is granted time to vacate till 1-4-1979.'2. It appears that in spite of the aforesaid order the respondent did ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- 7
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »