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.
Sushila Devi and ors. Vs. Municipal Corporation of Delhi
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-13-1984
Reported in: I(1985)ACC121; ILR1985Delhi746
Avadh Behari Rohatgi, J. (1) On 18/08/1964between 5 and 6 in the evening two brothers Suresh Chander(the deceased) and Ramesh Chander were going on a scooter from their office to their residence. They passed through AlipurRoad beyond Kashmere Gate. The deceased was driving the scooter and Ramesh was a pillion passenger. When they reached20, Alipur Road, known as Sant Permanand Blind Relief Mission Building, opposite Rai Sahib Bhola Ram Petrol Pump, a branch of the neem tree standing there fell on the deceased. His head was crushed. He was rushed to Irwin Hospital where he died the following morning at about 11 a.m. inspire of a surgical operation. A piece of wood was found in his brain.(2) The deceased left behind a widow, three minor sons and a minor daughter besides his mother. All six of them brought a suit for damages claiming Rs. 3,00,000 from the defendants,namely, (1) Municipal .Corporation of Delhi, (2) Union ofIndia, and (3) Delhi Administration. The suit was partially decreed...
Amar Nath Vs. Chhannu Mal Etc.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-13-1984
Reported in: 1985(8)DRJ266
N.N. Goswamy, J. (1) This second appeal by the defendant is directed against the order dated 16-12-1972 passed by the Additional District Judge, Delhi whereby ie framed two additional issues and remanded the suit for fresh trial. (2) The respondent-plaintiff had instituted a suit for recovery of Rs. 4700.00 on the basis of the pronote dated 1-1-1961 for Rs. 4000.00 and had claimed Rs. 700.00 as interest. The suit was resisted by the appellants. It was pleaded that the pronote was without consideration and the same was got executed under duress and threat of criminal prosecution. The facts as pleaded were that Banwari Lal who was the plaintiff's sister's husband and one Phool Chand were carrying on the business of jewellers in Chandni Chowk had entered into a bargain with Ram Sarup defendant No. 1 and Bane Khan for purchase of some gold of the value of Rs. 9000.00 on 30th December, 1960. Ram Sarup defendant No. 1 and Bane Khan sold gold of the value of Rs. 9000.00 to Banwari Lal and Pho...
Naresh Kumar Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-13-1984
Reported in: 27(1985)DLT240
J.D. Jain, J. (1) This revision petition is directed against notice dated 18th July, 1984 of a Metropolitan Magistrate whereunder he read out the substance of accusation to the petitioner requiring him to show-cause why he should not be tried for an offence under Section 93 read with Section 97 of the Delhi Police Act (for short 'the Act'). (2) The facts leading to this revision petition in brief are that on 28th June, 1984, Si Arvind Kumar of Police Station Kingsway Camp recorded in the daily diary 'A' at Seriall No. 10 that while he was present on patrol in his Illaqa at about 3-30 P.M. on that day, Smt. Shanti Devi r/o. B-38, Vijay Nagar, accosted him and told him that her younger son Naresh Kumar, viz. the present petitioner, was misbehaving with her and he did not permit her to boil milk in the kitchen on that morning. She further complained that the petitioner was using threatening language towards her some litigation was already pending between them regarding the property bequea...
Municipal Corporation of Delhi Vs. Delhi Cloth and General Mills Co. L ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-13-1984
Reported in: 27(1985)DLT335
Charanjit Talwar, J.(1) This is a petition by the Municipal Corporation of Delhi challenging the legality of the three-orders of the same date i.e. 1st April, 1971 passed by the Additional District Judge, Delhi whereby he accepted three appeals filed under section 169 of the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) by M/s. Delhi Cloth and General Mills Co. Ltd., respondent herein. The respondent owned properties bearing No. 8654-8979, 8989-9033 and 9035-9355/XVI situated at Karol Bagh, New Delhi. The Junior Assistant Assessor Collector vide his order dated 20th May, 1970 enhanced the annual rateable value of those properties from Rs. 58.490.00 to Rs. l,00>000.00 with effect from 1st April, 1968 M/s. Delhi Cloth and General Mills Co. Ltd. aggrieved by that order filed three appeals challenging the enhancement for the assessment years 1968-69, 1969-70 and 1970-71. The order of the Junior Assistant Assessor and Collector is on the record is copy Annexure ...
Naresh Chand JaIn Vs. Ram Bati
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-13-1984
Reported in: 1985(9)DRJ79
R.N. Aggarwal, J.(1) This is a tenant's appeal against the judgment of the Tribunal reversing the order of the Additional Rent Controller and passing an eviction order against tire tenant on the ground that the landlord required the premises bonafide for his personal occupation. (2) The landlady Smt. Ram Bati through her general attorney Shri Ram Sanehi filed an application under Section 14 of the Rent Control Act seeking eviction of the tenant Naresh Chand Jain on two grounds : (1) that the tenant had failed to pay the arrears of rent since 1-1-1974 and since this was the second default in the payment of arrears of rent the tenant is liable to eviction, and (2) that the landlady required the premises for her own residence and she had no other reasonably suitable accommodation. (3) The tenant resisted the petition. The tenant pleaded that the family of the landlady comprises of herself, her husband and one son and that she was in possession of four rooms, a verandah, latrine and bath r...
Anil Plastic Corporation Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Dec-12-1984
Reported in: (1985)LC537Tri(Delhi)
1. This is an appeal dated againgt an order of the Collector of Central Excise, Baroda, No. MP/7/82, dated 31-8-1982.2. The firm, M/s. Anil Plastic Corporation (APC) manufactures textile machinery components like pickers, lug straps, which are used in textile machines. It manufactures them from rigid plastic which it calls slabs or blocks and which the Central Excise calls sheets. The slabs/sheets are obtained from a high density high molecular weight polyethylene powder branded Hostalen GUR imported from Germany. The powder is pressed in a mould by cold press where heavy pressure is applied on the powder to get it to form the sheets/slabs of sizes 790/390 mm with thickness of about 30 mm.3. The problems arose because the Central Excise suspected that the machinery paris like pickers which the factory manufactures were made from rigid plastic sheets became in that case they would be liable to duty and would not be entitled to exemption under Notification No.6S/71-C.E., dated 29-5-197!...
R.N. Agarwal and Co. Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Dec-12-1984
Reported in: (1985)(22)ELT165TriDel
1. The appellants imported a consignment of spark-plugs and declared its C.I.F. value as Rs. 98,728/-. They claimed clearance of the goods against import licence No. 2030377, dated 5-4-1983. Two show cause notices were issued to the appellants on 4-1-1984 and 25-2-1984 asking them to show cause why the goods should not be confiscated and why penal action should not be taken against them under Section 112 of the Custom's Act. It was alleged in the first show cause notice that the licence produced for clearance of the goods was split-up stock and sale licence issued on 5-4-1983, in the name of M/s. S.M.S. Enterprises for import of spares and machinery instruments. The licence-holder issued a Letter of Authority (LA) in favour of the importers, the appellants, on 10-41983. The Customs further alleged that the facility of issue of L.A. in respect of licences issued for stock and sale was withdrawn and in the Policy of April to March, 1984 and as such the licence produced did not appear to...
Metal Forgings Pvt. Ltd. and Another Vs. Union of India and Others
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-12-1984
Reported in: 1987(11)ECC231
S.S. Chadha, J.1. The petitioner seeks an appropriate writ, order or direction declaring that the forged products of iron and steel, manufactured by the petitioner company, are liable to duty of the central excise, under item 26AA(ia) of the First Schedule to the Central Excise and Salt Act, 1944 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) only and not under Item 68 thereof or both. The consequential relief claimed is for a writ of prohibition against the respondents from levying, demanding and/or collecting duty of central excise on forged products of iron and steel manufactured by the petitioner under Item 68 of the First Schedule to the Act. 2. The facts and circumstances giving rise to the present petition are stated in para 4 of the writ petition in these words. The petitioner company is licensed under the Industrial (Development and Regulation) Act of 1951 and is registered with the Ferrous Industrial Directorate of the Directorate General of Technical Development, Ministry of Industrie...
Bhoop Singh Vs. Union of India
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-12-1984
Reported in: 28(1985)DLT240
Avadh Behari Rohatgi, J.(1) These are two appeals from the orders of the Additional District Judge. Both the appeals relate to village Badli where the appellants claim enhancement of compensation. First we state the facts of Rfa 200 of 1983. (2) In this case notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act 1894 (the Act) was issued on 24.10.1961. In due course the Land Acquisition Collector made the award. He divided the land into garden land and blocks A, B and C and fixed Rs. 2500.00 for garden land. Rs. 2000.00 for block A, Rs. 1600.00 for block B and Rs. 1200.00 for block C per bigha respectively. (3) On a reference under Section 18 of the Act the Additional District Judge raised the market value. For garden land he fixed the market value at Rs. 3000.00 , for block A land Rs. 2500.00 , for block B, Rs. 2000.00 and for block C land Rs. 1500.00 per bigha. The appellants in this appeal claim further enchancement. They claim that the market value of their land be fixed at Rs. 8...
V.M. Colour Company Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Dec-11-1984
Reported in: (1985)LC297Tri(Delhi)
1. The facts in this proceeding transferred to and heard by the Tribunal, pursuant to Section 35P of the Central Excises. and Salt Act, 1944 (the Act, for short) are briefly: (a) the Appellant holds a L-4 Licence to manufacture paints coming within item 14 of the first schedule to the Act and the manufacture was, at all times material, exempt from payment of excise duty in terms of Notification No. 116/74 dated 27.7.1974 upto an aggregate value of Rs. 2,00,000/-. (b) alleging contravention of the Rules 173-B, 173-E, 173-(G)(i) and 173-G(ii) of Central Excise Rules, 1944 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules), a notice dated 16.12.1976 was issued requiring the Appellant to show cause why central excise duty amounting to Rs. 14517.20 (9465.40 basic plus 5501.80 auxiliary) on 8647 Litres RM paints, 7789 KG stiff paint 3300 Litres varnish should not be demanded from the Appellant under Rule 10 of the Rules and why a penalty under Rule 173(Q) of the Rules should not be imposed. Reliance fo...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »