Delhi Court February 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.
K.T. Advani, New Delhi Vs. the State, New Delhi
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-13-1984
Reported in: [1986]60CompCas603(Delhi); 1987(11)ECC124; 1987(30)ELT390(Del)
ORDER1. These petitions Cr. M(M) 205/83, Cr. M(M) 251/83 with Cr. 504/83 and Cr. M(M) 622/83 by K. T. Advani and Cr. M(M) 1054/83 Cr. 2056/83 Cr. M. 2113/ 83 and Cr. M. 2120/83 by Rajinder Singh Grover, under S. 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, raised common questions of considerable importance, and of some difficulty, with regard to the rights, privileges and of procedural safeguards for a person, who has been granted bail in a case involving violation of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, pending investigation/ enquiry by the authorities under the Act into his conduct, and dealings, even through a formal complaint of the offence, if at all, is still to be filed. The proceedings against these two persons are distinct and independent but the petitions are being dealt with by a common order as the controversies are common. 2. Both the petitioners were granted anticipatory bail by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, after he was satisfied that, according to the authorities under th...
Punjab Fruit Co. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, New Delhi
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-13-1984
Reported in: [1984]149ITR42(Delhi)
Wadhwa, J.1. The question of law which has been referred for decision is as follows : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the firm was not entitled to the claim of registration ?' 2. M/s. Punjab Fruits Co., the firm, was a partnership firm and was constituted by a deed of partnership dated June 12, 1968. The firm, however, commenced its business with effect from June 6, 1968. It had 6 partners. Their names and shares in the profit and loss of the business were as under : 1. Shri Brij Lal 10%2. Shri Chhajju Mal S/o Sh. Munshi Lal 20%3. Shri Om Prakash S/o Sh. Desh Raj 25%4. Shri Suresh Kumar S/o Sh. Chhajju Mal 10%5. Shri Prem Kumar 20%6. Shri Om Prakash S/o Sh. Hari Chand 15%For the assessment year 1970-71 (the year under consideration) of which the previous year was June 6, 1968, to June 30, 1969, the firm earned profit and in its books divided the same as per the terms of the partnership deed among all the 6 partners. In...
Sohan Bir Singh Vs. State and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-13-1984
Reported in: 1984(1)Crimes889; 26(1984)DLT5
Jagdish Chandra, J. (1) Car bearing registration No. DHC-5479 belonging to one S. P. Suri was stolen. Car bearing registration No. UTX-1579 was, however, recovered from the possession of accused-petitioner Sohan Bir Singh and was taken into possession vide recovery memo dated 7.3.1980 from a workshop in Modi Nagar where it was lying for overhauling. This recovery had been effected on the basis of disclosure statement alleged to have been made on 6.3.1980 by co-accused Ram Kishan & Kishan who stated before the police while in custody that the car stolen from Jorbagh was being plied by petitioner Sohan Bir Singh after putting thereupon a fictitious registration No. UTX-1579. (2) The petitioner Sohan Bir Sing was discharged on 25.2.1982 on the ground that the car recovered bore a number different from the one which was alleged to have been stolen and further that no one cared to prove that the numbers were changed. The following are the particulars of the car recovered from the petitioner...
S. Hardayal Singh Mehta and anr. Vs. Nirmala Devi and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-13-1984
Reported in: AIR1984Delhi350; 28(1985)DLT255; 1984RLR502
D.P. Wadhwa, J. (1) This is an appeal against an order of the learned single judge restraining the appellants from running a guest house in premises No. 1373, Kashmere Gate, Delhi, till the disposal of the suit. The question in the present case assumes importance with the mushroom growth of guest houses/lodging house in Delhi. (2) The plaintiff-respondent Smt. Nirmala Devi claims to be owner of property bearing Nos. 1371 and 1372 in Kashmere Gate, Delhi. She is residing there with her family on the first floor since 1959. Her family consists of her four sons, three daughters-in-law and their children. Her married daughter also visits her occasionally. The adjoining flat No. 1373 is owned by defendants Nos. 1 to 5. There is a common staircase to both these flats. Both these flat owners lay their claim to the ownership of the staircase but admit the right of user of each other. I, thereforee, take it that the staircase is common. When one climbs up the stairs the flat of Nirmala Devi is ...
K.T. Advani Vs. the State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-13-1984
Reported in: 1985CriLJ1325
ORDERH.L. Anand, J.1. These petitions Cr. M(M) 205/83, Cr. M(M) 251/83 with Cr. 504/83 and Cr. M(M) 622/83 by K. T. Advani and Cr. M(M) 1054/83 Cr. 2056/83 Cr. M. 2113/83 and Cr. M. 2120/83 by Rajinder Singh Graver, under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, raised common questions of considerable importance, and of some difficulty, with regard to the rights, privileges and of procedural safeguards for a person,* who has been granted bail in a case involving violation of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, pending investigation/enquiry by the authorities under the Act into his conduct, f and dealings, even through a formal complaint of the offence, if at all, is still to be filed. The proceedings against these two persons are distinct and independent but the petitions are being dealt with by a common order as the controversies are common.2. Both the petitioners were granted anticipatory bail by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, after he was satisfied that, according to the a...
R.M. Kalia and anr. Vs. Union of India and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-12-1984
Reported in: 1985CriLJ1514; 1985(8)DRJ186
Malik Sharif-Ud-Din, J. (1) The Public Analyst examined a sample of 'Flavoured Cornflour' as Cornflour simplicitor. This was because the Food inspector did not send the printed colour cartons with the food stuff. The result was, the public analyst declared the sample adulterated as it was found to be containing colour, flavour and common salt which a sample of cornflour under Rule A. 18.08 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules was not expected to contain. The result was a complaint under Section 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and conviction. The petitioner No. 1, Mr. R.M. Kalia, was sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for one year and to the payment of fine of Rs. 5000.00 in default of payment of which, he was required to undergo further 6 months rigorous imprisonment, while the petitioner No. 2, firm M/s. Wakefield Products Company, was fined a sum of Rs. 20,000.00 . This was reduced to 6 months rigorous imprisonment, and in default of payment of fine to 3 month...
Korula Rubber Co. Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Feb-10-1984
Reported in: (1987)(32)ELT216TriDel
1. At the outset, the learned Advocate invited our attention to show cause notice dated the 4th August, 1976 issued by the Asstt. Collector of Central Excise, Bombay X Dn., which ultimately led to the present proceedings. It was contended that in the said show cause notice there is no mention that the appellants were affixing brand names of other parties to the goods being manufactured by them and as to why the selling price of the parties for whom the branded goods were being manufactured should not be deemed to be the correct assessable value under the Central Excises and Salt Act instead of the prices declared by the appellants in their price lists filed before the lower authorities. She further submitted that this point was abundantly brought out in their revision application which is being treated as an appeal vide paragraph 11. The following sentences occurring in the said paragraph are reproduced below for proper appreciation of the contention made :- "...In the said order the ...
Shri Manmohan Sachdeva Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-09-1984
Reported in: [1986]158ITR12(Delhi)
D.K. Kapur, J. 1. For the assessment year 1969-70, the following question has been referred to us under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the salary received by Shri Manmohan to the extent of Rs. 9,600 was assessable in the hands of the assessed-family ?' 2. The facts of the case are that the assessed is a Hindu undivided family and the karta is a partner in a firm, M/s. Sant Ram Nikka Mal. The learned counsel has brought to our notice that the question of salary and whether it is to be taxed in the individual hands of the karta or in the hands of the Hindu undivided family of which he is the karta have been decided by us in another reference, being ITR No. 101 of 1972 on July 16, 1980 [Brij Mohan (HUF) v. CIT : [1986]158ITR14(Delhi) (infra)] but, in that case, the question relating to the salary of Brij Mohan, brother of Manmohan, was involved. It is pointed out that this dec...
Girdhari Lal Vs. Bhanoo Vora
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-09-1984
Reported in: 1984RLR485
S.B. Wad, J.(1) Plaintiff had let out ground floor of his house to Deft. for running Printing Press. He himself was living on 1st floor. Deft. was working Press beyond prescribed hours and claiming this as a nuisance, landlord complained to Mcd and the Police. When they showed no response, he filed a suit for injunction which was dismissed by trial Court and 1st App. Ct. He then appealed to H. Ct. It was held.] : (2) The important question of law arising for decision in this second appeal is where an activity is prohibited by a statute or a license under the statute or where the activity can be carried out only on satisfaction of certain conditions laid down by a statute, what is the standard of proof necessary when nuisance is caused because of the breach of the statutory conditions Normally in case of private nuisance actual damage is required to be proved. This is, however, only a rule of caution or prudence. The remedy by way of injunction, being an equitable remedy, can be granted...
Mir Singh and ors. Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-09-1984
Reported in: 1984(6)DRJ351
Malik Sharief-Ud-Din, J. 1. Shri P.L. Singla, Additional Sessions Judge, Delhi found the appellants guilty under Section 325/34 IPC as well as under Section 325/34 IPC. The conclusions arrived at by him were that theappellants had caused grievous hurt on the right wrist of Kanhaiya Lal PW1 and had also caused hurt on Batto and Chanderwati PWs. 3 and 4. They were also convicted under Section 325/34 IPC for causing hurt to Kanhaiya Lal and Chanderwati PWs. 1 to 4. After finding the accused guilty and convicting them for the aforesaid offences Charnel and Ajit Singh appellants who were found to be under 21 years age and first offenders were ordered to be released on probation of good conduct on their entering into a bond in the sum of Rs. 5,000/- with one surety each in the similar amount to appear arid receive the sentence when called upon during the period of one year and in the meantime to keep peace and be of good behavior. Appellant Mir Singh was refused the benefit of PROBATION OF O...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 7
- 8
- 9
- Next ›
- Last »