Delhi Court May 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.
Jaspal Singh Gill Vs. the State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-03-1984
Reported in: 26(1984)DLT109; 1984RLR327
Jagdish Chandra, J.(1) This order shall dispose of the bail application of petitioner/assured Jaspal Singh Gill who is being prosecuted for offences Secs. 3, 5 and 9 of the Official Secrets Act, 1923 as also under S. 126-B of the Indian Penal Code. The only incriminating matter against him is the alleged disclosure statement dated 18.II.1983 of co-accused Lt. Col.(Retd) Jasbir Singh and the consequent recovery of a defense Telephone Directory from office room of the office-cum-residence of the petitioner located at 82, Sunder Nagar, New Delhi as a result of the house search. The disclosure statement of co-accused Lt. Col. (Retd.) Jasbir Singh detailed in Annexure 'B' reads as follows : 'I have been passing on the secret vital information pertaining to defense and in process of that I had passed on defense Telephone Directory along with other defense documents in lieu of which, I can got money from Jaspal Singh Gill, which I can get recovered.'(2) As many as 23 items were seized during ...
Surinder Singh Vs. Sohan Singh
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-03-1984
Reported in: 1984RLR366
J.D. Jain, J. (1) This case has an unfortunate history. It epitomizes the sad plight and suffering of a litigant resulting from an appellate order passed in a rather perfunctory manner and not strictly in conformity with law. (2) Succinctly the facts germane to the decision of this revision petition are that the parties are real brothers. Way back in 1975 the respondent instituted a suit against the petitioner/defendant for mandatory injunction directing the petitioner to quit and remove himself and his family and belongings from a portion of the ground floor of House No. XVI/4839, Gali No 44 Rehgarpura, Karolbagh, which was in his occupation as a licensee. The suit was contested by the petitioner inter alia, on the ground that be was a co-owner of the said house Along with his brother. This plea found favor with the learned Sub. Judge who dismissed the suit on merits wide judgment date dated 17,8.77. Feeling aggrieved the respondent filed an appeal in court of Senior-Sub-Judge. Howeve...
State Vs. Rajinder Singh
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-02-1984
Reported in: 1984RLR415
R.N. Agarwal, J.(1) On a careful consideration of the entire evidence we find that the prosecution case that the accused Rajinder Singh had come along with Sham Lal in ambassador car Dhb 9175 to house No. D-88 and two canisters alleged to be containing charas were taken out from the car and Rajinder Singh was nabbed while he was holding a loaded pistol in his hand is established beyond any doubt. [S. 3, Arms Act is then reproduced.] (2) From a reading of the proviso (to S. 3, Arms Act) it is clear that a person may without himself holding a license, carry any firearm or ammunition in the presence or under the written authority of the holder of the license for repair or for renewal of the license or for use by such holder. The evidence is that K.K. Sharma had given the pistol and the cartridges to Rajinder Singh for taking it for repairs to Moradabad and then to bring it back after repairs. The pistol and pistol & cartridges are alleged to have been given to Rajinder Singh on 7.12.77. R...
R.C. Gupta Vs. Roshan Lal
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-02-1984
Reported in: 26(1984)DLT287
N.N. Goswamy, J.(1) This judgment will also dispose of C.R. No. 208 of 983 as both these cases were consolidated by the Additional Rent Controller and were disposed of by a common judgment. (2) The petitioner-landlord filed a petition for eviction under sections 4(1)(b) and 14(1)(e) read with section 95-B of the Delhi Rent Control Act for ;eviction of the respondent. A similar petition under section 14(l)(e) was filed n the second case on the same grounds. It was alleged in the petition that the (3) The petitions were contested by the tenants. It was pleaded in the written-statement that the petitioner had much more accommodation available to him than the one mentioned by him and his requirements were not bona fide. It was further pleaded that the requirements given by the petitioner are Fanciful and whimsical. According to the respondents the petitioner had i family of himself and his wife and his son was not living with him. The petitioner only wanted to sell the house after getting ...
industrial Cables (India) Ltd. Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: May-01-1984
Reported in: (1991)LC465Tri(Delhi)
1. This is a Revision Application dated 24-3-1980 against order-in-appeal No. S/49-1168/79, dated 6-12-1969 passed by the Appellate Collector of Customs, Bombay which has been transferred by the Govt. of India to the Tribunal for disposal under Section 131B(2) of the Customs Act, 1962.2. The appellants imported 3 Cases Plastic Cable Insulating Line under Bill of Entry No. 127, dated 9-4-1979 and claimed concessional assessment under Notfn. No. 40-Cus., dated 1-3-1978 as amended by Notification No. 109-Cus., dated 19-5-1978. By his order dated 3-7-1979, the Assistant Collector of Customs held that the goods mainly consist of items like Plastic Extruder above 150 mm Screwdia, pay off system, Liner Capston measuring machine, spark tester and take joint system etc. all imported as one complete line of equipment for the manufacture of insulated cables and the goods are, therefore, not a mere extruder but a Complete Cable Manufacturing unit of which the Extruder is a part. Notification No. ...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Rita Malhotra
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-01-1984
Reported in: [1985]154ITR550(Delhi)
Kapur, J.1. We have examined the order of the Tribunal and the order refusing an application under s. 256(1) of the I.T. Act. The question proposed by the Department was as follows : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was correct in law : (i) in holding that penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act was not exigible, and (ii) in cancelling the penalty of Rs. 4,400 levied by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner under section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ?' 2. This question is in ITC No. 84 of 1978. The same or similar questions are involved in the other four cases (ITCs. Nos. 85 to 88 of 1978) relating to four other assessment years. 3. The Tribunal has stated that no question of law arises on the facts of the case. What happened was that the assessed had claimed a deduction from income-tax in money-lending business in respect of the premises in which she was carrying on money-lending business. She also h...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- Next ›