Delhi Court December 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.
Dr. Asha Rawal Vs. Basant Lal and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-20-1984
Reported in: 1985CriLJ1026
ORDERMalik Sharief-ud-Din, J.1. This petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr. P.C. for quashing order dt. 18th May 1983 passed by Shri Rajesh Kumar, Metropolitan Magistrate, Shahadra, Delhi, and for quashing the complaint filed by respondent 1 and proceedings pending on the said complaint before Shri Sat Pal Metropolitan Magistrate, Shahadra, Delhi.2. It may be noticed that this Cr. Misc. (M) petition was originally moved by petitioner Dr. Asha Rawal who is working as the Medical Coordinator of M/s. Marie Slopes Society Clinic (hereinafter for short known as Society) affiliated to Population Services, a charitable institution based in U. K. with population and family welfare programmes. One of the objects of the Society is to educate about the adherence to the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act, 1971 (hereinafter known as MTP Act). The other three petitioners, Bal Kishan Sharma, Naresh Kumar Sharma and Rajeev Kumar Sharma, father and brothers of one Smt. Tripta Sharma, were perm...
Dwarka Prasad Gupta Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Dec-19-1984
Reported in: (1985)(5)LC2503Tri(Delhi)
1. This is a revision petition filed before the Government of India which on transfer is being treated as an appeal. The appeal is directed against the orders dated 3.4.82 of the Appellate Collector, New Delhi.2. The Assistant Collector of Customs, New Delhi by his order dated 29.4.81 confiscated 63.600 grams of gold under Section 71 of the Gold (Control) Act 1968, with an option to M/s. Bharat Jewellery House to redeem the same on payment of redemption fine of Rs. 1,500. A personal penalty of Rs. 1,500 was imposed on the appellant for contravention of the Sections 8, 31, 33 and 55 of the Gold (Control) Act, 1968 and Rules 11 and 134 of the Gold Control (Forms, Fees and Miscellaneous Matters) Rules, 1968. The Appellate Collector reduced the personal penalty from Rs. 1500 to Rs. 500. The appellant is a gold dealer, having his business under the name and style M/s. Bharat Jewellery House at 257, Sabzi Mandi, Delhi. On 22.8.80 the appellant who is a partner in the firm was present when t...
Shiv Chanter Bhan Vs. Vasdev
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-19-1984
Reported in: 1985(8)DRJ183
Yogeshwar Dayal, J.(1) This revision petition was directed against the order of 3rd Additional Rent Controller, Delhi dated 22nd February, 1983 whereby learned Additional Rent Controller passed an order for eviction against the petitioner under clause (e) to the proviso to Sub-section (1) of Section 14 of the Delhi Rent Control Act. (2) The case of the respondent-landlord was that the family of the landlord consists of himself, his wife, two sons aged 23 years and 17 years, three daughters aged 20 years, 18 years and 15 years and a daughter-in-law and a grand son. The son of the petitioner aged 17 years and two daughters aged 18 years and 15 years are studying in B.A., Higher Secondary and 7th class respectively and the whole family of the petitioner landlord has been residing with him in the following accommodation out of the property in dispute : (1) one drawing room and a bath room on the ground floor, (2) one room one store room and a tin shed kitchen on the first floor and (3) one...
V.K. Malhotra and anr. Vs. Ranjit Kaur
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-19-1984
Reported in: 30(1986)DLT133; 1986RLR533
Yogeshwar Dayal, J. (1) This second appeal is directed against the concurrent judgments of the learned IIIrd Additional Rent Controller, Delhi, and the Rent Control TribUnal.Delhi posing an order of eviction against the applicants/tenant under the provisions of clause (h) to the proviso to subsection (1) of Section 14 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). (2) The landlady, Smt. Ranjit Kaur, had filed an eviction application against Shari V.K. Malhotra (residing in America) and Shri Pardeep Kumar Malhotra, brother of Shri V.K. Malhotra, respondent No. I under the provisions of clauses (b),(d) and (h) of sub-section (l) of section 14 of the Act. (3) The case of the landlady was that the ground floor of property No. A-172, defense Colony, New Delhi was let out to Shri V. K. Malhotra and the tenant has sub-let or otherwise parted with possession of the whole of the premises without written consent to his brother, respondent No. 2. The eviction was also...
Surendra Nath Vs. Indra Devi Dhawan
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-19-1984
Reported in: 1985(8)DRJ197; 1985RLR117
Yogeshwar Dayal, J.(1) A compromise order was passed by learned Additional Controller, Delhi on 21st December, 1973 which contemplated the appellant to deposit rent from 1st September, 1973 up to date in the bank account of the respondent with State Bank of India, Hauz Qazi, Delhi within one month from the date of that order, failing which it will result in eviction of the appellant. (2) The appellant, according to the respondent failed to comply with the order and consequently the respondent filed an execution application on or about 5/'6th February, 1974 which came up before the learned Rent Controller on 6th February, 1984, alleging inter alias that the appellant did not deposit the amount contemplated within one month from the date of the order. (3) The appellant on receipt of the notice of the execution application filed objections to the execution application and it was pleaded that the amount was deposited. It was also pleaded that the order of eviction was nullity in the circum...
Ashok Chandra Aggarwala Vs. Delhi Administrative and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-19-1984
Reported in: ILR1985Delhi796; 1985RLR432
Charanjit Talwar, J. (1) The petitioner, Shri Ashok Chandra Aggarwala, seeks issuance of a writ of mandamus to the Delhi Administration to substitute his name in place of the name of his late father in the sub-lease executed between hisfather, the President of India and the Supreme Court Bar Cooperative House Building Society Ltd. (hereinafter called 'the Society').(2) Admitted facts are that the petitioner's father Shri C. B.Aggarwala, a Senior Advocate of the Supreme Court, was a member of the Society. The Society is covered by the Delhi Co-operative Societies Act, 1972, (hereinafter called 'the Act')and the Delhi Co-operative Societies Rules, 1973 (hereinafter called 'the Rules') as well as by the bye-laws framed by the Society. Shri C. B. Aggarwala was allotted plot bearing No. A-25, Niti Bagh, New Delhi, by the Society. For the purpose of transfer of his share he had nominated the petitioner herein inaccordance with Rule 35 of the Rules. Shri C. B. Aggarwala died on 13/06/1973.(3)...
Anil Starch Products Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Dec-18-1984
Reported in: (1985)LC592Tri(Delhi)
1. In this Shri application, purporting to have been made under Section 35G(1) of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944, M/s. Anil Starch Products Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as "the applicants") had required us to refer to the High Court the questions as in the Annexure to this order, which are stated to be questions of law arising out of the Tribunal's Miscellaneous Order No. 104/84-D, dated 23-8-1984 [Miscellaneous Application ED(SB) 55/84-D].2. In order to appreciate the position, the sequence of events has to be stated. The applicants had filed a revision application to the Central Government against Order-in-Appeal No. 1688/80 dated, 24-10-1980 passed by the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), Bombay, in which he had upheld the Order No. CL, No. IE/2/78, dated 26-6-1978/18-10-1979 of the Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Division III, Ahmedabad, holding that the "Wet Dextrose" produced by the applicants was excisable and classifiable under item IE of the Central Excis...
Coca-cola Export Corporation Vs. S.C. Tewari, Ito, Central Circle-i, N ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-18-1984
Reported in: [1986]158ITR439(Delhi)
Sachar, J.1. All these petitions were heard together and they will be disposed of by this order as they raise the same point excepting for an extra point in C.W. No. 308 of 1979 which we shall discuss separately. 2. These petitions have arisen out of notices issued under section 148 of the Income-tax Act. C.W. No. 308 of 1979 deals with a notice issued for reassessment for the year 1970-71 and for the deduction allowed for the provision for gratuity to be paid to the employees. C.W. No. 377 of 1979 is directed against an ex parte assessment made for the year 1970-71. C.W. No. 1566 of 1982 and C. W. No. 1568 of 1982 challenge the notices for reassessment issued for the assessment years 1967-68, 1968-69 and 1969-70. 3. Petitioner No. 1, Coca Cola Export Corporation, is a company incorporated in the United States of America and having its branch office in New Delhi. The petitioner is a wholly owned subsidiary of the Coca Cola company which is also incorporated in the USA (referred to as...
Sunil Batra Vs. Commissioner of Police, Delhi
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-18-1984
Reported in: 1984(3)Crimes771; ILR1985Delhi694
Sachar, J.(1) The proceeding in this case were initiated on receipt of an application from jail pointing out-that a large number of persons are unjustifiably arrested by the Police apparently under Section 107 Criminal Procedure Code without complying with the provisions of law and that they are kept in jail without being offered the facility of being released on bail. It was also stated that none of these persons were supplied the reasons for which apparently the proceedings were being taken against them. We then issued notice to the Delhi Administration.(2) In the reply filed the stand taken was that the procedure laid down under Section 111 and 114 Criminal Procedure Code was being followed. It was denied that any arrest was being made by procedure other than that permitted by law.(3) A further affidavit was filed by the applicant dated 2 5/11/1983 in which another objection was taken that the prisoners who are committed to jail custody under Section 114 Cr. Pc are not supplied the ...
Ranjit Vs. Union of India
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-18-1984
Reported in: 1985RLR303
Avadh Behari, J.(1) This is an application u/s 30 of the Land Acquisition (Amendment) Act, 1984. By our order dated 29 8.84 we fixed the market value of the land of the applicant at the rate of Rs. 12,000.00 per bigha. In addition we awarded him solarium @ 15% and interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of dispossession till payment and costs. (2) Now the applicant says that he is entitled to further benefits as conferred by the Amendment Act. The Amendment Act received the assent of the President on 24.9.84 and became the law of the land. It amended S. 28(2) and provided that in addition to the market value the court shall in every case award a sum of 30% on the market value of the land in consideration of the compulsory nature of the acquisition. Previously the law was that solarium was to be awarded @ 15% which we did by our order dated 29.8.84. (3) The other benefit conferred on the land owner whose land is taken by the Collector is provided by S. 28 as amended. Earlier the rate of intere...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »