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.
Municipal Corporation of Delhi Vs. Chela Ram and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-20-1984
Reported in: 1984(1)Crimes539; 25(1984)DLT282; 1984(6)DRJ339; 1984RLR56
R.N. Aggarwal, J.(1) This is an appeal by the Municipal Corporation of Delhi against the judgment dated 9-9-1975 of Shri O.P. Singla, Additional Sessions Judge, Delhi acquitting the respondents Madan Lal and Chela Ram of the charge under Section 7 read with Section 16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act.(2) Briefly stated the facts of the case are that on 28th July, 1970 Shri Khem Singh, D.S.P., C.B.I. (Public Witness -3) received a secret information that Madan Lal and his father Chela Ram dealing in adulterated articles of food. On that PW-3 organized a raiding party consisting of a number of Food Inspector and some independent witnesses and raided premises No. 145, Gali Nal Masjid Tabar Khan, Naya Bans alleged to be the godown of M/s. Chela Ram Madan Lal. Jagdish Chander claimed to be the servant of M/s. Chela Ram Madan Lal. He was asked to open the godown. Gunny bags containing amchoor. Chillies, haldi and dhania etc. were found in the godown. Food Inspector Prem Parkash (Pu...
New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Bharat Bhushan and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-20-1984
Reported in: II(1984)ACC20; [1986]60CompCas193(Delhi); 25(1984)DLT229; 1984(7)DRJ192; 1984RLR323
M.L. Jain, J. (1) In Rameshwar Prasad and others v. Shambehari Lal Jagannath and another, : [1964]3SCR549 , it was held that the provisions of Order 41 Rule 4 and Order 22 Civil Procedure Code deal with different stages of the appeal and provide for different contingencies Rule 4 of Order 41 applies to the stage when an appeal is filed. Order 22 operates during the pendency of an appeal and not at its institution. Moreover, as explained in State of Punjab v. Nathu Ram, : [1962]2SCR636 , Order 22 Rule 4 does not provide for the abatement of an appeal against the co-respondent of the deceased respondent and as such there can be no question of abatement of the appeal against him. To say that the appeal against the co-respondent abated is not a correct statement of law. The correct position is that looking to the nature of the relief sought in the appeal, if it can proceed against the surviving co-respondent, it may do so Order I Rule 9 enjoins that if the court can deal with the matter in...
Municipal Corporation of Delhi Vs. Jawala Prashad
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-19-1984
Reported in: 1985CriLJ1455; 1984(6)DRJ240
R.N. Aggarwal, J.(1) This is an appeal by the Municipal Corporation of Delhi against the judgment dated 30th July 1976 of Shri J.D.Kapoor, Metropolitan Magistrate, by which the learned Magistrate acquitted the respondent Jawala Parshad of the charge of selling adulterated 'Colour Channa Sweets'.(2) The facts briefly are that on 31st October 1975, Food Inspector R.S. Awasthi visited the sweet meat shop of the respondent at Siri Niwas Puri Market and purchased 1500 gms. of colour channa sweets on payment of price for the purpose of analysis. One part of the sample was sent to the Public Analyst who gave the opinion that the sample is adulterated due to the presence of coal tar dye which is not amongst the list of permitted coal tar dyes. The report of the Public Analyst is important and it reads as follows:- 'Butyro-Refractometer Reading at 40' C of the extracted fat from sweets 42.1 Reichert value of the extracted fat 31-24 Baudouin Test of the extracted fact-Negative Colour-Tartrazine ...
N.C. Gaur Vs. S.V. Mahindra
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-19-1984
Reported in: 1984(6)DRJ336
Sultan Singh, J.(1) This second appeal under Section 39 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (for short 'the Act') challenges the judgment and order dated 21st September 1983 of the Rent Control Tribunal confirming the order of the Additional Controller dated 20th July, 1983 directing the appellant-tenant to deposit all arrears of rent at Rs. 250.00 per month for the period from 1st September, 1981 within one month from the date of the order and to deposit future rent month by month by the 15th of the succeeding month.(2) Briefly the facts are that the appellant is a tenant under the respondent in a portion of the property at C-2D/45-A, Janakpuri New Delhi on a monthly rent of Rs. 250.00 beside electrets and water charges. The respondent-landlord is alleged to have served a notice of demand dated 22nd November, 1981 requiring the appellant to pay all rents due for the period from 1st January, 1981. The tenant remitted Rs. 1000.00 rent for the period from 1st January, 1981 to 30th April,...
Urmil Sood Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-19-1984
Reported in: 1984(6)DRJ333
Prakash Narain, C.J.(1) One Suresh Kumar Sood has been detained by virtue of an order dated March 30, 1983 passed by the Government of Maharashtra under Sub-section (1) of Section 3 of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 as the detaining authority was of the view that it was necessary to detain him for preventing him from smuggling goods. Grounds of detention also of the same date were duly served on Sood.(2) His wife is the petitioner before us. She challenges the detention and continued detention of her husband on diverse grounds. It is not necessary to notice all of them inasmuch as after some hearing learned counsel for the petitioner has primarily pressed only one point. The learned counsel has Urged that the continued detention of Sood is vitiated for violation of the provisions of Clauses (4) and (5) of Article 22 of the Constitution.(3) The relevant facts for consideration of this Submission are these. Sood made representations ...
Mohta Industries Ltd. Vs. Inspecting Assistant
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Decided on: Jan-18-1984
Reported in: (1984)8ITD14(Delhi)
1. The assessee is aggrieved against the IAC (Assessment's) order under Section 154 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('the Act') which was confirmed by the Commissioner (Appeals).2. The assessee is a limited company manufacturing steel ingots from steel scrap at its factory at Ludhiana. Its account year is ending 31-5-1974. It had installed (a) one 10 ton electric arc furnace on 11-8-1973, and (b) one 5 ton electric arc furnace on 4-3-1974. The controversy is regarding extra shift allowance (ESA) (Triple shift) on the latter 5 ton arc furnace, which worked for 89 clays in the account year under consideration. The assessee in the statement filed with the original return had claimed ESA for triple shift at 100 per cent on both the arc furnaces, at Rs. 7,44,983 which was equal to 100 per cent of the normal depreciation of Rs. 7,44,983 which was claimed at the rate of 10 per cent on the plant and machinery of Rs. 74,49,831. The assessee, however, later filed a revised return claiming depreciat...
Haji Jaffer Vs. Union of India and Others
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-18-1984
Reported in: 1986(24)ELT15(Del)
Prakash Narain, C.J.1. This judgment will dispose of two petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India moved by Haji Zaffer and Naseem Shah for issue of writs of habeas corpus or in the nature of habeas corpus in regard to their alleged illegal detention in the Central Jail, Tihar. 2. Both the petitioners, namely Haji Zaffer and Naseem Shah, claim to be Afghan nationals. They were detained by virtue of orders passed regarding each one of them on May 7, 1983 for their detention without trial by invoking Section 3(1) of the Conversation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974. They were both detained with a view to preventing them from acting in any manner prejudicial to the augmentation of foreign exchange and as the appropriate authority was of the view that it was necessary to make orders in regard to them under Section 3(1) of the aforesaid Act. Grounds of detention, also dated May, 7, 1983, in English and a translation in Urdu of the said grou...
Hazi Zafeer Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-18-1984
Reported in: [1984]80CompCas228(Delhi); 1984(1)Crimes886; 1984(7)DRJ1; 1984(24)ELT15(Del)
Prakash Narain, J.(1) This judgment will dispose of two petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India moved by Haji Zaffar and Naseem Shah for issue of writs of habeas corpus or in the nature of habeas corpus in regard to their alleged illegal detention in the Central Jail, Tihar. (2) Both the petitioners, namely, Haji Zaffar and Naseem Shah, claim to be Afghan nationals. They were detained by virtue of orders passed regarding each one of them on May 7, 1983 for their detention without trial by invoking Section 3(1) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974. They were both detained with a view to preventing them from acting in any manner prejudicial to the augmentation of foreign exchange and as the appropriate authority was of the view that it was necessary to make orders in regard to them under Section 3(1) of the aforesaid Act. Grounds of detention, also dated May 7, 1983, in English and a translation in Urdu of the said grou...
Shri Niwas Steels Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jan-17-1984
Reported in: (1984)(19)ELT233TriDel
1. By this application purporting to be under Sub-section (1) of Section 35G of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 (hereinafter Act), the appellants/applicants request that the statement of the case be drawn up and following three questions of law arising out of order No. B-661/1983, dated 22-7-1983, passed by the Tribunal be referred to High Court: (1) Whether Review Proceedings under Section 35A of the Central Excises and Salt Act as it stood at the relevant time could be invoked by the Collector of Central Excise at the instance of an assessee who had not availed of his right of appeal '"! (2) Whether the Collector of Central Excise was entitled to refuse to exercise the powers vested in him without assigning any reason for the same (3) Whether the refusal of the Collector to consider the review application under Section 35A did not amount to an order or decision against which an application could be preferred by the applicants under Section 36 of the Central Excises and Salt A...
Collector of Central Excise Vs. Trutuff Safety Glass Industries
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jan-17-1984
Reported in: (1984)(16)ELT555TriDel
1. This Review Notice now being treated as an appeal, was issued by the Central Government on 8th October, 1982, invoking provisions of Section 36(2) of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 as it then existed, calling upon the respondent herein to show cause as to why the order passed by the Central Board of Excise & Customs (hereinafter referred to as the Board) dated 16-4-1982 allowing their appeal against the order of the Collector of Central Excise, Meerut, be not set aside.2. The facts giving rise to these proceedings are to the effect that the respondent, a partnership firm under the name and style : M/s Trutuff Safety Glass Industries, Noida, Ghaziabad, manufactures wind screens, side screens, vents and back screens of toughened safety glass, and have been treating the same, during the relevant period (1-4-1979 to 4-3-1980), as falling under Tariff Item 68, but effected clearances without payment of Central Excise duty considering the goods as exempt from excise duty, by ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »