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.
Delhi Electric Supply Undertaking Vs. G.P. Satsangi
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-02-1983
Reported in: [1985(51)FLR260]; (1984)ILLJ438Del
Sachar, J.1. This is a batch of letters Patent Appeals and Civil Writ Petitions. Apart from certain special facts in each case which we shall mention later on, the common point which arises in all these appeals and writ petitions relates to whether an employee of Delhi Municipal Corporation working on DESU side if suspended pending a departmental enquiry or during the pendency of investigation or enquiry on criminal charges is entitled to be paid full wages as urged by the workman respondent or only the subsistence allowance, as claimed by the appellant Management. We shall take the facts from L.P.A. 107 of 1977. 2. The respondent workman remained under suspension from 9th June, 1970 to 31st December, 1974. He thereafter moved the Labour Court under S. 33(C)(2) of Industrial Disputes Act claiming the full wages for the period he was under suspension. The Delhi Municipal Corporation resisted plea amongst others on the ground that only subsistence allowance was payable in terms of Regula...
Balik Ram Vs. the State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-02-1983
Reported in: 1983CriLJ1438; 24(1983)DLT142; 1983(5)DRJ12
M.L. Jain, J.1. This is an appeal against the judgment of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, dated 27-1-1981 and order dated 30-1-1981 by which he convicted the appellant under Section 397 IPC and sentenced him to imprisonment for seven years. I have heard the learned amices curiae and the learned Addl. Public Prosecutor and seen the record.2. An FIR 348/79 dated 8-9-1979 was lodged by one Rajinder Kumar in the Chanakya Puri Police Station that during the night intervening 7th and 8th September, 1979 his three wheeler scooter DHR 9272 was hired by two persons from Chandni Chowk for Govindpuri at about 12-30 a.m. At Govindpuri they asked him to take them to Officers Flats on Sardar Patel Marg, where the two occupants at the point of knife snatched from him a wrist watch and Rs. 36/- and ran away with his scooter. After investigation the police found that the accused were Balak Rain and Sunil Kumar. What was the result of that case is not known. But a mention of these facts is necess...
Lila Wati Dev Vs. Mohinder Kumar Juneja
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-02-1983
Reported in: 23(1983)DLT335
G.C. Jain, J. 1. This revision under proviso to Clause 8 of S. 25B oi the Delhi Rent Act, 1958 (for short the Act), is directed against the order dated July 19, 1980 passed by Shri Shiv Charan Kain, Additional Rent Controller, Delhi. 2. On April 16, 1977 Sarvashri Mohinder Kumar Juneja, Romesh Kumar Joneja and Pran Nath Joneja, respondents herein, brought an application claiming eviction of the petitioner Smt. Lila Wati Dev under proviso (e) to Sub-section 1 of Section 14 read with Section 25B of the Act. It was averred that the respondents-landlords were owners of the premises in dispute. The same had been let out for residential purposes and were bona fide required by them for their occupation as residence for themselves and members of their family and they were not in possession of any reasonably suitable accommodation. It was explained that all the three petitioners were married. Romesh Kumar and Pran Nath Joneja had two children and one child respectively. Mohinder Kumar Juneja an...
Municipal Corporation of Delhi and anr. Vs. Rajinder Mohan and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-02-1983
Reported in: 23(1983)DLT398
D.K. Kapur, J. 1. This appeal was listed along with F.A.O. (O.S.) No. 20 of 1980, and arises from the same proceedings, namely, the interim injunction granted in Suit No. 1109 of 1977. The facts of the case have been set out at some length in the judgment of the learned Single Judge deciding the petition under Order 39, Rule 2A of the Code of Civil Procedure read with Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, whereby Shri Khem Chand, Director of Enquiries, Municipal Corporation of Delhi, was held guilty of Contempt of Court and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 3,000/-.2. Shortly stated, the learned Single Judge (Prithvi Raj J.) vacated the ex-parte injunction by a judgment dated 23rd May, 1978. This judgment was the same which was under appeal in F.A.O. (O.S.) No. 20 of 1978, before a Division Bench, which has been listed along with this case and has now become infructuous. On the same date, I.A. No. 2096/78 was filed prayingthat the operation of the order vacating the injunction b...
Delta Spokes Mfg Co. Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Mar-01-1983
Reported in: (1983)LC549DTri(Delhi)
1. The question involved in this appeal is whether spokes, nipples and washers were liable to duty of excise under Item 68 of the Central Excise Tariff, as held by the Department, or they were exempt from payment of duty under Item 35 of the said Tariff, as urged by the appellants. For facility of reference, the two Tariff items are reproduced below: - 2. The case was argued before us on 1-3-1983. On behalf of the appellants, Shri Jain stated that spokes, nipples and washers manufactured by the appellants were essential parts of cycles and were, therefore, correctly classifiable under Item 35. He stated that the word "namely" occurring in Item 35 was not restrictive but only illustrative. He added that when in 1982 the Government omitted Item 35 from the Tariff and thereby all cycle parts became classifiable under Item 68, the Government simultaneously exempted cycles and parts thereof by amending the exemption Notification No. 55/75-CE relating to Item 68 goods. This shows, argued Sh...
Peilu Ram Vs. Municipal Corporation of Delhi
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-01-1983
Reported in: 28(1985)DLT143
D.K. Kapur, J. 1. On a notice to show cause why the petition should not be admitted and on considering the reply to the same, Rule D.B , was issued and arguments were heard. The question before the Court is a very short one. The petitioner joined the service of the Delhi Municipal Corporation in 1950 on probation as a driver and became permanent in 1952. When the Municipal Corporation of Delhi was constituted, he became an employee of the Corporation and has continued to be employed as a truck driver in the office of the C.S.E. Department, City Zone of the Corporation. According to the petition, the petitioner is to retire from service when he attains the age of 60 years because F.R. 56(b) applies to him as he is a 'workman'. The petitioner will attain the age of 60 years on 30th April, 1984, but he has been retired with effect from 30th April, 1982, as per office order Annexure 'A'. Before 30thApril, 1982, the petitioner wrote to the Commissioner of the Corporation claiming that he wa...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›