Delhi Court January 1984 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.
S.J. Chowdhary Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-25-1984
Reported in: 1984CriLJ864; 1984(1)Crimes717; 25(1984)DLT254; 1984(6)DRJ251; 1984RLR245
Jagdish Chandra, J.(1) By means of this petition brought under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short the Code) the petitioner Col. S.J. Chowdhary has challenged the correctness of the order dated 20-12-83 of Sh. K.C. Lohia, Metropolitan Magistrate, New Delhi whereby the application dated 12-12-83 of the petitioner for being supplied copies of statements of prosecution witnesses and documents relied upon by the prosecution had been disallowed. (2) The petitioner was arrested in the case under Sections 120-B/302 I.P.C. and under Sections 3, 4 and 6 of the Explosive Substances Act. Challan was submitted in Court on 28-10-83 and the documents as required under Section 173 of the Code were furnished to the accused-petitioner but, it is alleged, on scrutiny of documents he found that most of the documents, statements and exhibits relied upon by the prosecution to prove the charge against him had not been furnished to him which necessitated the making of the aforesaid appli...
Andrew C. Schmidtz Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-25-1984
Reported in: 25(1984)DLT333
R.N. Aggarwal, J. (1) The Government of Maharashtra.on 18th March,1983 passed an order under Sub-section (1) of Sub-section 3 of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act 1974 (hereinafter for the sake of brevity called (The Act') for the detention of Mr. Andrew Cornelius Schmidtz, a U.S.A. national with a view to preventing him from smuggling goods. (2) By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India the legality and virus of the aforesaid order have been challenged. (3) Mr. Kapil Sibal, learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that there has been a violation of Section 8(e) of the Act, inasmuch as the Advisory Board did not submit its report to the detaining authority within Ii weeks from the date of detention of the petitioner. (4) The relevant facts for the appreciation of this contention are that the petitioner was detained by an order dated 18th March 1983. As required by law the Government made a reference to the Advi...
Hazari Lal Gauri Shankar Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jan-24-1984
Reported in: (1985)(19)ELT200TriDel
1. In this application under Section 82B of the Gold (Control) Act, 1968, read with Section 821 thereof, (hereinafter referred to as the Act), the Applicant requires the Tribunal to state a case to the Hon'ble High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, in regard to the following questions, said to be questions of law arising out of the Tribunal's orders dated 29-7-83, dismissing the Appeal filed by the Applicant originally before the Gold Control Administrator, [in terms of Sec. 80 of the Act, as it stood at the material time] but transferred to the Tribunal and heard as an Appeal, pursuant to Section 82K of the said Act:- "(i) Whether the Department had established by any legal evidence on record or proved that the new gold ornaments weighing 1029,400 grams in fact belong to the applicant firm and possessed by the applicant in contravention of the Gold (Control) Act, 1968 and Rules made thereunder ; (ii) Whether the Department had establishsd any conscious possession of new gold ornament...
Jagatjit Sugar Mills Co. Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jan-24-1984
Reported in: (1993)(66)ELT672TriDel
1. The appellants were sanctioned refund of Central Excise duty amounting to Rs. 1,88,080/- by the Assistant Collector. The refund was paid to them on 26-6-1973 through a credit entry in their Personal Ledger Account. The refund was on account of the partial exemption from duty on sugar in terms of Notification No. 203/72-C.E., dated 28-9-1972 (commonly known as incentive rebate on excess production of sugar).Subsequently, the Assistant Collector felt that the refund had been wrongly granted. He issued a show cause notice on 19-1-1977 calling upon the appellants as to why the said amount should not be recovered from them under Rule 10A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. The appellants contested the show cause notice, inter alia, on the ground that Rule 10 and not Rule 10A was applicable to the facts of the case and that the demand was time barred under Rule 10. The Assistant Collector held that Rule 10 applied to recoveries of erroneous refund but that this was a case of erroneous reb...
The Collector of Customs Vs. Modella Textile Industries Pvt.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jan-24-1984
Reported in: (1985)LC1025Tri(Delhi)
1. These two appeals arise out of a show cause notice under Section 131, Customs Act (as then in force) issued by the Central Government, proposing 1o revise the combined Order-in-Appeal No. S/40-24/77LC and S/40-25/77I.C., both dated 5.10.1977, of the Appellate Collector of Customs, Bombay. In accordance with the provisions of Section 131B (2), Customs Act, these proceedings have been transferred to the Tribunal to be dealt with as an appeal filed by the Collector of Customs, Bombay, to the Tribunal. Since the Order-in-Appeal is a combined one covering two appeals to the Appellate Collector, the appellant Collector was required to file a supplementary appeal, in accordance with the practice of the Tribunal, which has been numbered as appeal No.CD(SB)-1/84D. However, since the issues dealt with in both these appeals are common, they were heard together and a common Order is being passed.2. The substantive question involved in these appeals is whether the goods imported by the responde...
Sukhbir Singh Vs. Deputy Commissioner
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-24-1984
Reported in: [1985(50)FLR139]; 1984LabIC1513; 1984RLR282; 1984(1)SLJ512(Delhi)
S.B. Wad, J.(1) The petitioner Constable Driver in Delhi police was dismissed from service on 15.3.1982. A charge of stealing a brass utensil (Patila) was held to be proved against him. The enquiry was conducted u/s 21 of the Act. In this petition the petitioner has challenged his dismissal from service. The charge against the petitioner was (--) (2) A criminal complaint was lodged against the petitioner u/s 380, Indian Penal Code . However, the same was not pursued. The Deputy Comm. of police (C.K. Misra) decided that instead of proceeding in the criminal court a departmental enquiry should be conducted. [portion of his order is reproduced] (3) The prosecution examined 9 witnesses. The petitioner examined 3 witnesses in support of his case. His main plea was that the allegation was concocted and false. From the evidence it is clear that nobody had seen the petitioner actually removing the utensil from the mess. However, the prosecution witnesses as well as the defense witnesses had fo...
Ahmedabad Chemicals Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jan-23-1984
Reported in: (1984)(16)ELT560TriDel
1. Messrs Ahmedabad Chemicals Pvt. Ltd., Ahmedabad, have filed this Appeal dated 31st January, 1983 against the Order-in-Original No.10/MP/82 dated 11-1-1982 passed by the Collector of Central Excise, Baroda. The appellants are a private limited company owning a factory in Ahmedabad wherein they manufacture S.O. Dyes and Dye Intermediates, namely, Rhodamine and diethul-meta-amino phenol (DEMAP) falling under Tariff Item No. 14D and Tariff Item No. 68 of the Central Excise Tariff. The appellants have stated that they filed the necessary declaration for availing of exemptions from licensing control and also from payment of duty as required under Notifications Nos 111/78, dated 9-5-78,89/79, dated 1-3-79, No. 105/80 dated 19-6 80, No. 71/78, dated 1-3-78 and No. 80/80, dated 19-6-80, before the Central Excise Officers. On I6-9-8I some Central Excise Officers visited the appellants' factory and seized certain documents, including audited belance sheet for the year ending 31-3-80 along wit...
B.D. Chawla Vs. Union of India
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-23-1984
Reported in: 1984RLR421
B.N. Kripal, J.(1) In order to decide whether any of the disputes fall within the excepted matters or not, reference may be made to clause 63. The said clause reads: (.....) This clause can be divided into two parts. The first part states that all disputes and differences of any kind whatsoever which arise between the parties out of or in connection with the contract will be referred by the contractor to the Railway which shall give a decision within a reasonable time. The first part of clause 63 has to be read along with clause 64 which provides for all disputes being referred to arbitration except those which are excepted matters referred to in clause 63. The excepted matters, which are outside the pale of clause 64 are contained in the second part of clause 63. The excepted matters are those which are decisions for which provisions have been made in clauses 18, 22(5), 39, 45A, 55, 55-A(5), 61(2) and 62 XIII(B) (c)(b)ofthe General conditions of contract or the decisions which are pro...
Delhi Development Authority Vs. H. Dohil Construction Co.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-23-1984
Reported in: ILR1984Delhi710; 1984RLR585
Avadh Behari Rohtagi, J. (1) (ORAL) This is an appeal from the. decree of a learned single judge of this Court dated F 17-11-1982. The plaintiff-respondent M/s. H. Dohil Construction Co. Pvt. Ltd. (the purchaser) instated a suit turn specific performance against the Delhi Development Authority (DDA) appellant-defendant, on 28-9-1976. A plot of land measuring 677.24 sq. metres bearing No. Ii situated at Rajindra Place, District Centre, Pusa Road, New Delhi belonged to the DDA. The perpetual leasehold rights in the said plot were auctioned by them on 29-5-1972. The purchaser was the highest bidder. His bid was for Rs. 12,02,000. At the fall of the hammer he paid a sum of Rs. 3,00.500 to the DDA. Subsequently on 1-7-1972 the Dda conveyed the acceptance of the bid to the purchaser. The terms and conditions of the auction required the intending purchaser to deposit the balance price of 75 per cent within 120 days of the acceptance of the bid. This means that the purchaser was required to de...
Mohd. Rafiq Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-21-1984
Reported in: 1984(1)Crimes815; 1984(6)DRJ362
Malik Sharief-Ud-Din,, J. 1. Mohammad Ashqin and Mohammad Rafiq, appellants were found guilty under Section 395 read with Section 397 IPC by Shri S.R. Goel, Additional Sessions Judge, Delhi, and after convicting them he sentenced them to imprisonment for life by his order dated 29th September 1980. The appellants came to be prosecuted in pursuance of F.I.R. No. 632 dated 16-6-1978 recorded in police station Sadar Bazar, Delhi at the information received from Abdul Wahid. 2. Briefly stating the facts are that the complainant is residing at house No. 802, Bartan Market, Sadar Bazar, Delhi and accused Mohd. Rafiq, Ashqin and one 'Barbara who could not be apprehended were known to him. On 18th July 1978 at about 5.15 A.M. when Abdul Wahid was sleeping on the terrance his wife Akhtari Begum was sleeping in the room on the first floor of the house. The complainant is allegedly running a small industry in the ground floor. On the night of occurrence, Mohd. Rafiq armed with pistol and dagger c...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »