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.
Rajinder Prashad Vs. Mahesh and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-08-1984
Reported in: 1984(2)Crimes101; 26(1984)DLT53; 1984(7)DRJ97
H.L. Anand, J. (1) This petition under Section 439(2) read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, by one Rajinder Prashad, we seeking cancellation of bail granted by the Additional Sessions Judge, by his order of October Ii, 1983 to Mahesh and his two brothers, Ashok and Ramesh in case Fir No. 299/83 under Sections 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code, arising out of the death, following burns caused by acid, of Saria Devi, wife of the petitioner, on the night between September 6-7, 1983 does not call for any innovative approach to the well settled rule regarding grant of bail and wellknown principles for its cancellation, but the investigation branch of the local police comes out completely battered as, in an otherwise hotly contested proceeding in this court, between the two families who have fairly longstanding hostility, there was her agreement that the investigation was partial to one or the other of the parties, and if the investigation has since not concluded, it should ...
Risal Singh Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-08-1984
Reported in: ILR1984Delhi830
Avadh Behari Rohatgi, J. (1) Rsuant to a notification dated 24-10-61 issued under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (the Act) the Union of India, respondent compulsorily acquired the land in village Hashtsal. Notification under section 6 of the Act was issued on 16-4-66. In due course the Land Acquisition Collector made the award (Award No. 1959). He offered compensation to the appellant, the owner of the land, at certain rates, according to the situation and quality of the land which he divided into 4 Blocks -A, B, C and D. The appellant did not accept his award. He asked for a reference. On reference under section 18 of the Act the learned additional district judge enhanced the compensation. From the following table will appear at a glance the prices fixed by the Collector and the leaned judge: ___________________________________________________________________________ Blocks Price offered by the L.A.C. Price fixed by the additional district judge. _________________________...
Hamdard Dawakhana (Wakf), Delhi Vs. Labour Court, Delhi and Another
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-07-1984
Reported in: (1985)ILLJ57Del; (1985)ILLJ57Del
1. The management of Hamdard Dawakhana (Wakf), Delhi, has filed this petition under Arts. 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India for the issue of a writ of certiorari quashing the award of the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Delhi (Respondent No. 1) in L.C.I.D. No. 82 of 1975 dated 4th June, 1976 (annexure 'A'), holding that the termination of the services of the workman, Vishwa Nath (respondent No. 2) was illegal and unjustified; that he is entitled to be reinstated with full back wages and continuity of service. 2. Briefly, the facts are that the workman (respondent No. 2) was employed as a section in-charge with the petitioner-establishment in its Dawakhana at Lal Kuan, Delhi. The management is governed under the Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act and it has Standing Orders duly certified by the Competent Authority which have been in force since 27th April, 1971 (annexure 'B'). The workman, on 4th May, 1974, (annexure 'C'), applied for casual leave from 6th to 8th May, 1...
Ramrati Vs. Ram Kishan and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-07-1984
Reported in: 1984(1)Crimes1022; 26(1984)DLT47
H.L. Anand, J. (1) Having regard to the settled law relating to grant Of bail, and principles for its cancellation, there is no justification to cancel bails in the facts and circumstances of the present case. The unfortunate incident of double murder was a sequel to a minor quarrel between two families' who have apparently been living a peaceful life in the village. (The families have no background of previous hostility.) (The accused person admittedly have clean antecedents and one of them, Jagan, is a graduate. There are no allegations that the accused are likely to abscond. Accused persons have been on bail since the middle of 1983 and have been regularly attending proceedings in the trial courts) There is no motion for cancellation by the administration. There are no independent eye-witnesses of the incident. The alleged eye-witnesses are members of the aggrieved family. There is, thereforee, no danger of tampering with evidence either. Moreover, important eye-witnesses have alrea...
Municipal Corporation of Delhi Vs. Ishwar Singh and State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-07-1984
Reported in: 1984(3)Crimes498; 26(1984)DLT79; 1984(7)DRJ93; 1984RLR319
H.L. Anand, J.(1) Until a complaint or a report of the commission of an offence had been filed by an appropriate authority, no court was competent to proceed in a matter with regard to the impounding of an animal and that the only way in which the impounded animal could be released was as envisaged by the proviso to Sub-section (1) of Section 418. (2) The provisions of Sections 451 to 459 of the Code of Criminal Procedure could not be invoked in the case of impounding, under the Corporation Act because neither the Court was seized of a complaint nor had the property been produced before the court. Section 457 was also not attracted. (3) There is, thereforee, no escape from the conclusion that the impugned order of the learned Magistrate was wholly without jurisdiction and the impounded animals in the circumstances could be released only by the municipal authorities concerned under Section 418 on payment of certain charges, including folding charges. (4) FACTS-IN-BRIEF Two buffaloes bel...
Ashok Kumar Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-07-1984
Reported in: 26(1984)DLT82; 1984RLR686
H.L. Anand, J. (1) These petitions. Cr. M(M) 652/83, by Ashok Kumar, under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, and Cr. R. 150/83, by Sunil Gupta and another, under Section 397 read with Section 401 of the Criminal Procedure Code, arise out of a contest between the petitioners for the temporary custody of an imported Vcr during the pendency of prosecution arising out of Fir No. 79/83 dodged by Ashok Kumar alleging theft to to his Vcr of which he suspected, according to the Fir, Sunil Gupta s/o Suresh Paul Gupta. Ashok Kumar resides in House No. J-59, Rajauri Garden and Sunil Gupta and his father reside in J-60, Rajauri Garden and are, thereforee, the next-door neighbours. Pursuant to the investigation, the Vcr was recovered from the house of Sunil Gupta. Ashok Kumar sought its temporary custody from the court of the learned Metropolitan Magistrate and by an order of April 27, 1983, the learned Magistrate, on a perusal of the police report, directed that the same be given on s...
Shiv Dutt Salwan Vs. State (Delhi Administration)
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-04-1984
Reported in: 1984(2)Crimes91; 26(1984)DLT260; 1984RLR330
Jagdish Chandra, J.(1) This petition under S. 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 put up by the petitioner S.D. Salwan prays for the quashing of Fir No. 17 of 19il as also the consequent prosecution launched by the state against him through Police Station Rajinder Nagar under S. 506 Ipc in case State v. S.D. Salwan pending in the court of Shri Nepal Singh, Metropolitan Magistrate, Delhi. (2) The perusal of the First Information Report No. 17 dated 8-1-1981 shows the complaint having been made on 7-1-1981 by one C.L. Chawla, General Secretary of Salwan Public School Teachers Association. The allegations are contained in paragraph 5 of the said complaint which reads as follows: 'THE injured employee lying in a precarious state of health in Sir Ganga Ram Hospital also feels insecure because people (family members) attending to him have also been threatened. They have been asked to change their statement to the police or face dire consequences. We request provision of police securi...
Bombay Switchgears, Mahalakshmi Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: May-03-1984
Reported in: (1985)(22)ELT611TriDel
1. These are two appeals against the combined order dated 3-9-1983 passed by the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), Bombay, in respect of two appeals to him by the appellants. Since both the matters are interconnected and relate to the same issue, they are dealt with in this common order.2. The short point for consideration in these appeals is whether the "Landholders manufactured by the appellants are covered by Item 61 of the Central Excise Tariff. The description of Item 61 reads as follows :- It has been held by the Collector (Appeals) that lamp-holders are in the nature of sockets (which are specified in Item 61) and as such they would be covered under that item. As against this, it is the contention of the appellants that lampholders are not known in trade parlance as sockets, and that in accordance with the principle that goods should be classified according to their popular meaning, or the meaning attached by those who deal with them, that is, in the commercial sense, they...
Delhi Development Authority Vs. Amarjit Singh
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-03-1984
Reported in: 1985CriLJ154; 1984(7)DRJ12; 1984RLR375
Malik Sharief-Ud-Din, J.1. The respondent Amarjit Singh, S/o Inder Singh Kohli r/o. A-3 Kailash Colony, New Delhi was prosecuted under S. 29 sub-section (2) read with S. 14, Delhi Development Act, 1957 before Shri M. L. Sahni, Metropolitan Magistrate who by his order dt. 30-1-82 acquitted him. 2. The facts which led to his prosecution are that the respondent as the owner of the building bearing No. A-38, Kailash Colony, New Delhi on 9-10-78 was found having permitted non-conforming use of the building by allowing running of some units of Ready-made Garments in contravention of Master Plan for Delhi and Zonal Development Plan of Zone F-2 according to which the building in question could not be used for purposes other than the residential purpose. 3. On consideration of the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties we may make it clear that we are not examining this case on merits. Mrs. Usha Kumar learned counsel for the appellant has raised two preliminary points. In the first pl...
State (Delhi Administration) Vs. Sube Singh
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-03-1984
Reported in: 1984(7)DRJ185; ILR1984Delhi376
Sharief-Ud-Din, J.1. This acquittal appeal is directed against the order dt. 4-5-83 of Shri M. K. Chawla, the then Addl. Sessions Judge, Delhi by which he acquitted the accused under S. 91/93/97, Delhi Police Act. It may be noted that earlier to this Shri Prem Kumar, Metropolitan Magistrate by his order dt. 3-4-81 had found the respondent guilty under S. 91/93/97, Delhi Police Act and after convicting him had sentenced him to payment of Rs. 100/- as fine in default of which the respondent was required to undergo simple imprisonment for 7 days. The learned Additional Sessions Judge heard a revision application against this order and acquitted the respondent. 2. Sube Singh respondent who is a constable serving under the Delhi Police came to be prosecuted on a complaint instituted by Mr. Vijay Kumar, then S.H.O., Police Station defense Colony. The allegation against him was that on the night intervening 20th/21st of February 1980 the respondent was found under the influence of liquor and ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 10
- Next ›
- Last »