Delhi Court June 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.
Viniyoga International and Another Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jun-11-1984
Reported in: 1985(20)ELT23(Del)
H.L. Anand, J.1. At what stage of the proceedings, on a complaint by a public servant of an offence, which has been duly investigated by the Police, under the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure, is the accused entitled to copies of statements recorded u/s 161 of the Code, and of documents, sought to be used at the trial is the only question that calls for decision in this petition u/s 482 of the Code. 2. Petitioners are facing prosecution for offences u/s 120B read with Sections 420/468/471 IPC, and u/s 5 of the Imports and Exports Control Act, 1947, on a complaint filed by the Deputy Chief Controller of Imports and Exports. The offences, alleged against the petitioners, though duly investigated by the Central Bureau of Investigation in accordance with the provisions of the Code did not, however, culminate in a report u/s 173 of the Code, as an investigation by the Police would normally do, because cognizance of an offence u/s 5 of the Imports and Exports Control Act could no...
Pushpalata Vs. Shaligram and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jun-11-1984
Reported in: 1984(3)Crimes336; 26(1984)DLT273
Puranik, J.(1) By this petition under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the petitioner seeks to invoke the inherit powers of this Court to quash the proceedings initiated by her husband-respondent No. 1, under section 97 of Criminal Procedure Code before Judicial Magistrate, First Class, 5th Court, Akola. Brief facts leading to the present petition may be stated as follows :- 'THE respondent No. 1-Shaligram, was married to the petitioner in 1970 at Pune. A child by name Sunil was born to the couple in February 1971 at Pune. Thereafter, the petitioner was carrying for the second time, but during the period of pregnancy, the relations between the husband and wife had strained and it is alleged by the present petitioner that she was driven out by the husband in September 1972. She was thereafter residing with her parents at Bombay, when the second child-Anil was born on 1-6-1973. According to the petitioner, she has no source of income and she and her new born child Anil were...
Lily Gupta Vs. State and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jun-11-1984
Reported in: 26(1984)DLT112
H.L. Anand, J.(1) By this petition, under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, Smt. Lily Gupta, widow of late Shri Arun Gupta, seeks cancellation of bail, granted by this Court to H.S. Suri, respondent no. 2, who Along with his wife, Manjeet Kaur, is charged with the murder of Arun Gupta. (2) F.I.R. 259/82 was registered, at the instance of the petitioner, at police station Farash Bazar, on the night between August 26, and 27, 1982. The report was a sequel to the mysterious disappearance of Arun Gupta, a young industrialist. H.S. Suri; respondent a consulting engineer, who also owns a factory, was known to the deceased, and they have bad business dealings. According to the Fir, the petitioner, who went to the factory of the deceased, Along with a servant, and a driver, in search of the deceased, when did not turn up until 11.30 p.m., per chance found respondent no. 2 driving the car, belonging to the deceased, and who on being enquired, told the petitioner that Arun left for ...
K.K. Afora Vs. State and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jun-11-1984
Reported in: 1984(2)Crimes104; 1984(7)DRJ327
H.L. Anand, J.(1) This is yet another case in which a purely civil dispute between the parties was taken to a criminal court under Section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure because of an alleged precipitate action by one of the parties to oust another, otherwise than in due course of law, to by pass the cumbersome and prolix civil process.(2) The premises in dispute has admittedly been in the occupation of once Ram Sarup during the last many years as a tenant and/or a licensee under the Custodian of Evacuee property. Ram Sarup was apparently residing and possibly also carrying on business in the premises. Baij Nath, father of respondent No. 2, claims to have purchased the property, of which the premises in dispute forms a part, from the Rehabilitation Department and contends that the Department had directed Ram Sarup to attorn to him. It is, however, claimed that Ram Sarup nevertheless never paid the arrears of rent to Baij Nath. Baij Nath, however, admittedly took no step to evict...
Satish Chand Gupta Vs. Sarvesh Chand Gupta and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jun-11-1984
Reported in: AIR1984Delhi409; 26(1984)DLT186; 1984(7)DRJ134
M.L. Jain, J. (1) In order to understand the controversy let me give the pedigree of the parties : Bengali Mal wife Vidyawati Harish Chand Tara Chand Gopi Chand Wife Wife Wife Gunwati Gian Wati Kamla Rani I I I Sons Sons Sons Satish Servesh Rakesh & Suresh Suhas Yogesh Sumesh Sukhesh Subhash (2) Lala Bengali Mal had vast properties. He disrupted his joint Hindu family in 1935 and the same year converted his firm Lachman Das Ram Chand into a company and registered it under the Companies Act. Coparceners became shareholders. Bengali Mal died on 24-7-37. The company was thereafter dissolved and the assets were partitioned among the shareholders under an instrument of partition executed on 28-11-1941. In accordance with this deed, life estate was conferred on Vidyawati Widow of Bengali Mal in certain properties and it was provided that on her death l/3rd on Gian Wati and her sons and l/3rd on Kamla Rani and her sons. It is significant that sons of Bengali Mal have been deprived of their sh...
Lotan Yadav Vs. State (Delhi Administration)
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jun-09-1984
Reported in: 1985CriLJ484; 1984(2)Crimes226; 26(1984)DLT282
Jagdish Chandra, J.(1) This criminal appeal filed by convict/appellant Lotan Yadav is directed against his conviction and Sentence whereby he was convicted under Ss. 395/34 Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo R.I. for a period of three years and also to pay fine in the sum of Rs. 100.00 and to undergo further R.I. for tw6 months in default of payment of fine. The aforesaid judgment of conviction and the order of sentence were both passed on 20-2-1980 by Shri S.M. Aggarwal, Additional Sessions Judge. The initial charges against appellant had been framed under sections 395 read with S. 398 Indian Penal Code . which we had pleaded not guilty. He was, however, acquitted of the charge under S. 398 Indian Penal Code . (2) The first information report in this case was lodged by one Chhotey Lal who gave a detailed account of the commission of the dacoity at the kiln of Devendra & Company in village Matiala within the jurisdiction of Police Station Janakpuri. The prosecution case, in bri...
Aravind Chemical Industries Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jun-08-1984
Reported in: (1984)(18)ELT386TriDel
1. The captioned appeal was initially filed as a Revision Application to the Central Government which, under Section 131-B of the Customs Act, 1962, has come as transferred proceedings to this Tribunal for disposal as if it were an appeal filed before it.2. The simple question involved in the present dispute is whether the chemical Gamma Picoline imported by the appellants for the manufacture of Isonicotinic Acid was eligible for the benefit of exemption from additional (countervailing) duty in terms of Central Excise Notification No. 55/75 as a drug intermediate. This claim was not accepted by the lower authorities and hence the present appeal.3. Shri S.N. Chari submitted on behalf of the appellants that the imported substance was used by them in the manufacture of Isonicotinic Acid which was a drug intermediate. This intermediate was sold by them to M/s. Pfizers India Ltd., a drug manufacturer, who in turn used the intermediate in the manufacture of Isonicotinic acid hydrazide (INH)...
Lotus Inks Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jun-08-1984
Reported in: (1984)(18)ELT387TriDel
1. The captioned appeal was initially filed as a Revision Application before the Central Government which, in terms of Section 131-B of the Customs Act, 1962, has come as transferred proceedings to this Tribunal for disposal as if it were an appeal presented before it.2. The appellants imported a consigment of "Alkali Blue Flushing" which was charged by the Madras Customs authorities to additional (countervailing) customs duty with reference to Item No. 14-D of the Central Excise Tariff Schedule (CET). The appellants contended before the Assistant Collector that the product was not usable in any dyeing process since it was insoluble in water for application to the material to be dyed. The product was applied through the medium of oil and, therefore, dyeing as in the case of dyestuffs would not be possible. On this basis, they contended that the product was correctly classifiable under Item No. 14-I(i)(ii) of the CET. This claim did not find favour with the Assistant Collector. The app...
Budhwar Cold Storage Vs. Income-tax Officer
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Decided on: Jun-08-1984
Reported in: (1984)10ITD357(Delhi)
1. The assessee is aggrieved of the order dated 14-3-1983 of the learned Commissioner (Appeals).2. The assessee, Budhwar Cold Storage, Ujhani, Budaun is an unregistered firm. The assessee claimed investment allowance of Rs. 66,148 under Section 32A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('the Act') at the rate of 25 per cent on machinery and plant worth Rs. 2,64,554. The assessee claimed before the ITO that the cold storage involved manufacturing. However, the ITO held that the cold storage only involved processing and not manufacture or production of an article or thing Therefore, the claim of investment allowance was disallowed.Since the industrial undertaking, in question, is situated in a backward district, deduction under Section 80HH of the Act was also claimed by the assessee. The assessee did not file the prescribed audit report in Form No. 10C, as required under Section 80HH(5), read with Rule 18B of the Income-tax Rules, 1962 ('the Rules') and, therefore, the claim was rejected by the ...
Tavellen Amarjit Singh and ors. Vs. General Marketing and Manufacturin ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jun-08-1984
Reported in: 26(1984)DLT464
M.L. Jain, J. (1) Mrs. Birender Amarjit Singh is the owner of premises, a single storeyed house No. 3 South End Lane, New Delhi. These premises were leased to M/s Blackwood Hodge Equipment limited. Ltd., w.e.f. 2-9-1963 for the residence of its directors or employees and the lease continued under her letter dated 5-71968. On 8-4-1970, the Blackwood Hodge changed its name as M/s General Marketing & : (herein the Company). On 25-3-1971 she made a gift of half share in the property in favor of her two daughters Travellen and Uday and son Inder Vijay Singh. (2) Mrs. Singh wanted to construct a multistoreyed building for residential flats on the aforesaid premises. She did not resort to the procedure for obtaining possession of the premises under the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 ; sub-section (l)(g) and sub-section (8) of section 14 and section 20 and in stead entered into an agreement with the Company on 23-7-1971. The features of the said agreement relevant for the present purpose were:- ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »