Delhi Court April 1983 Judgments
Home Cases Delhi 1983 Page 9 of about 102 results (0.022 seconds)Bhur Singh Vs. G.C. JaIn and anr.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: AIR1984Delhi5; 24(1983)DLT122; 1983(5)DRJ273; 1983RLR443
H.L. Anand, J.(1) Whether the tenant is disentitled by virtue of his past conduct to the relief of quashing of the order of the Competent Authority granting permission to the landlord to institute eviction proceedings, which is otherwise patently bad and liable to be quashed, is the only question that this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution raises.(2) Landlord sought leave of the Competent Authority to institute proceedings to evict the tenant. Eviction was sought on the ground of bona fide personal need of the landlord and default in pa.yment of rent. Leave was sought to be justified on the ground that the requirements of Section 19 of the Slum (Improvement & Clearance) Act, 1956 were satisfied. Application was resisted by the tenant on the ground that, having regard to his financial status and the extent of the family, he would not be able to make alternative accommodation. The Competent Authority granted leave to file appropriate proceedings without devoting attention to...
Tag this Judgment!Kamavaram Veeranna Vs. Union of India (Uoi) Etc.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1983CriLJ1284
ORDERM.L. Jain, J.1. On 15-7-1967, the Inspector of Central Excise, Gulbarga checked the petitioner Veeranna a licensed goldsmith (since then dead) and recovered from his person four Kadagas of gold weighing 40 tolas worth Rs. 7,000/-. His books of accounts were also seized on 21-11-1967. Veeranna deposed that the said Kadagas were got manufactured eight to ten years back by his father and that they were kept as heirloom. But be needed money and brought the Kadagas from Raichur to Gulbarga for sale. Since he could not sell them at the price which the Sarafs offered him, he was carrying them back home, when he was intercepted.2. A notice was issued to him on 27-11-1967 stating that the petitioner had contravened the Rules 126-G (1), 126-H (1), 126-H(2) (b)and 126-1 (2)(g) of the defense of India Rules, 1962 and directed him to show cause why a penalty under Rule 126-L (16) of the said Rules be not imposed and why the said gold be not confiscated under Rule 126-M.3. On 11-12-1967 decease...
Tag this Judgment!Dy. Director General of Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1983)LC967DTri(Delhi)
2. In this case, the appellants seek the benefit of concessional rate of duty under Item 73(2) of the Indian Customs Tariff in respect of electronic valves etc. imported by them under Bill of Entry GSI No- 419 dated 25-7-1975. In support of their claim, they have produced a certificate from the Deputy Director General of Meteorology (Instrument Production) which states that the subject goods are components for -Radar, that they are essential for the working of the Radar and that they have been given special design, characteristic and quality for that purpose which would not be essential for their use for any other purpose. The certificate states further that no other valve can be substituted in their place because of the fact that the Radar circuits are designed taking into account the special design and the characteristic of the valve. The appellants added during the hearing that the Radar in question was not a mere wireless reception instrument and that it performed the function of ...
Tag this Judgment!ishwar Dayal JaIn Vs. Union of India Etc.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: AIR1983Delhi330; 1984(6)DRJ210; 1983RLR474
S.B. Wad, J. (1) That Government cannot suddenly become aware that the trade is very profitable and the profit should go to state agencies and co-operatives. Export policy announced every year provides guidelines of comparatively abiding nature. Ad-hoc grant of quota/license or changeability should have a definite direction of National interest of improving trade and to earn more Foreign Exchange. In the instant case due to lac of rational intelligible policy and improper exercise of discretion, the petitioner was deprived of his profits on his firms contracts. with foreign payers. The action qua the petitioner was arbitrary and has to be set aside....
Tag this Judgment!Arjun Vs. the State
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 24(1983)DLT65
G.C. Jain, J.(1) The petitioner Arjun son of Shri Sohan Lal, has filed this petition under Section 439 Cr. P.O. for admitting him to bail for an offence under Section 302 IPG. registered under F.I.R. No. 403 dated December 13, 1982 Police Station, Kalyanpuri, Delhi. The bail is sought mainly on the ground that the petitioner was a child, as defined under the Children Act, 1960. Mr. D.R. Sethi concedes that the petitioner had not attained the age of 16 years, at the -time of the committing of the alleged offence and he was in the Children Home. Thus there is no dispute for purposes of this bail application, at least that the petitioner was a child. Under Section 18 of the Children Act, 1960 when any person accused of a bailable or non-bailable offence and apparently a child if arrested or detained or appears or is brought before a Children's Court, such person shall notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, or in any other law for the time being in forc...
Tag this Judgment!Pal Alias Nand Lal Vs. State (Delhi Administration)
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 23(1983)DLT484
G.C. Jain, J.(1) On June 10, 1976, at about 5.30 p.m., the petitioner, Nand Lal, was driving a D.T.C. bus, bearing registration number Dhp 2367. A two-wheeler scooter, No. Dls 8292, was going ahead of the bus. On reaching Safdarjung Crossing, the scooter as well as the bus took a turn towards their left. After covering a distance of five or (r)cven yards from the crossing the bus hit the scooter from behind. The driver as well as the pillion rider of the scooter fell on the road and were crushed under the front left wheel of the bus. One of them died on the spot and the other died in the Safdarjung Hospital the same night. The occurrence took place due to rash and negligent driving of the petitioner. (2) The petitioner was tried for offences under Sections 279 and 304 of the Indian Penal Code and convicted by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, New Delhi, vide order dated January 14, 1981. He was awarded rigorous imprisonment for three months and a fine of Rs. 500/. and in default to ...
Tag this Judgment!Swaroop Singh and anr. Vs. Kulwinder Kaur
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 23(1983)DLT511
G.C. Jain, J.(1) By this petition the petitioners, Swaroop Singh and Ishwar Singh, assails the legality of the order dated December 7, 1981 passed by the Metropolitan Magistrate, Delhi, taking cognizance of an offence under Section 494 read with.Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code and summoning the accused, namely, the petitioners and others. (2) Smt. Kulwinder Kaur, respondent herein, filed a complaint under Sections 494 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code. It was averred that she was married to Kulwinder Singh (respondent No. 1 in the complaint) on November 11, 1978 according to Hindu (Sikh) rites at Delhi. The marriage was consummated and they lived together as husband and wife at Delhi up to January 1979 when Kulwinder Singh left of Dubai. He returned to Delhi in September 1981, did not meet the petitioner and, on the Other hand, in conspiracy with the present petitioners, married Smt. Babli on November 8, 1981. She was informed of this fact when she came back from Punjab where she...
Tag this Judgment!Deep Chand Vs. Labour Court, Delhi
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1983(5)DRJ83; 1983(2)SLJ529(Delhi)
G.C. Jain, J.(1) This writ petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, is directed against the order of the Labour Court Delhi dated November 20,1970.(2) Deep Chand, Petitioner, is admittedly in the employment of Municipal Corporation of Delhi, respondent No. 2, as a Chowkidar. In the year 1969, he filed an application under section 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 for computation of certain benefits. He claimed a sum of Rs.71,929.00 -Rs. 800.00 towards arrears of pay, Rs. 129.00 on account of washing allowance, Rs. 1,000'- cost of liveries and Rs. 70,000- overtime allowance for the period January 1,1954 to February 27, 1969. The claim for overtime allowance, which only is subject matter of dispute in this petition was based on the averments that his normal duty hours were eight hours per day or forty-eight hours per week and he was entitled to weekly rests and eighteen Gazetted holidays per year. He, however, had been performing duty for twenty-four hours a d...
Tag this Judgment!Bhori Lal Vs. Additional Rent Controller, Delhi
Court: Delhi
Reported in: AIR1983Delhi418; 1983(5)DRJ340; 1983RLR498
S.B. Wad, J.(1) These two petitions arise out of the allegations of procuring an ex parte eviction order by landlord Bhori Lal against his tenant Kishori Lal by alleged forgeries and other malpractices in the court of Iii Additional Rent Controller, Delhi. A few days back I had an occasion to examine the mal-practices in one of the Government Departments. That was a case of Nihal Singh v. Union of India, (Civil Writ Petition No. 187 of 1977). The mirror is now turned in words on the judicial institution. In a vibrant democracy all institutions must face a mirror, particularly, the judicial institution. It is because the citizens trust this institution for its objective, impartial and independent decision-making. The Courts of Rent Controller, a Sub-Judge and a Magistrate are courts of first instance. A citizen is required to rush to these courts more frequently than the superior courts to seek justice. These are the first courts of facts. From the point of view of administration of jus...
Tag this Judgment!J.S. Arora Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1984(6)DRJ211
S.B. Wad, J.1. The petitioner was working as an Income Tax Officer at Amritsar, when on 2nd June, 1981, he was served with the statement of imputations of misconduct for commencing a proceeding under Rule 16 of the C.C.S. (C.C.A) Rules 1965. It was alleged that from 14-12-1978 to 18-12-1978, while on tour, he along with Jagdish Mittar, I.T.O. used Car No. 7112-JKP. belonging to M/s. Jammu General Stores, Jammu, with its Driver. The said firm was being assessed by him at that time. The charge was that he failed to maintain absolute devotion to duty thereby contravening the provisions of Rule 3(1)(i) of the Central Civil Services Conduct Rules, 1964. On 30-10-1981 a D.P.C. for promotion to the post of Assistant Commissioner considered him for promotion but the result was kept in a sealed cover. The petitioner's contention is that he was actually selected by the D.P.C. On 20th January, 1982 he filed a Writ Petition in this Court as large number of I.T.Os. junior to him were being promoted...
Tag this Judgment!