Delhi Court September 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.
Dharambir Vs. Bimlesh Kumari
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-12-1984
Reported in: 1985(8)DRJ26
N.N. Goswamy, J.(1) This appeal by the husband is directed against the consolidated order dated 6-1-1982 passed on applications under Sections 25 and 27 of the Hindu Marriage Act. (2) The marriage between the parties was dissolved by a decree of divorce passed on 2-11-1978 in case No. 203 of 1978. Thereafter the respondent filed an application under Section 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act (hereinafter called the Act) for permanent alimony and maintenance. It was alleged in the application that the respondent did not have any independent source of income while the appellant was working in Punjab National Bank and was earning about Rs. 400.00 per month. Besides his income he was living with his parents in their house. It was stated that the respondent had not remarried and had not been guilty of any misconduct which dis-entitled her to receive maintenance from the appellant. It was also alleged that the items of dowry given in the marriage were not returned - to the respondent. The petition...
Jaswant Kaur and ors. Vs. Manjit Singh and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-12-1984
Reported in: AIR1985Delhi159; ILR1985Delhi87
Aggarwal, J.(1) The delicate question that arises for decision in this appeal is as to who out of the two contending parties should be given the custody of the male child named Raghubir Singh nick: named 'Happy' aged 10 years. The contest is between the maternal grand parents and the father. The. trial Judge has given the custody to the father. The maternal grand parents have come in appeal.(2) The respondent herein Manjit Singh Marwaha was married to Harjit Kaur (daughter of the appellants) on 15th August 1973, The couple was blessed with a son on 16th August 1974. The parties separated on 17th August 1975. There is no clear evidence regarding the causes of the rapture in the married life of the couple. The father filed a petition for restitution of the conjugal rights and according to him on the assurance given by the father of the wife that he would send Harjit Kaur he withdrew that petition but the wife did not return to the marital home. The respondent (husband) filed & petition f...
Bansidhar Ramgopal Vs. Director, Enforcement Dirtt., M.F., G.O.i.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-10-1984
Reported in: 1989(42)ELT581(Del)
Charanjit Talwar, J. 1. M/s. Bansidhar Ramgopal petitioner in Civil Writ No. 590 of 1971 and M/s. Bansidhar Biharilal petitioner in Civil Writ No. 591 of 1971, have challenged the two show cause notices issued to them on 10th October, 1969, for contravention of the provisions of Section 12(2) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1947, (hereinafter called the '1947 Act') read with Central Government Notification No. 6(8)-EF II/52, dated 22nd April, 1952. The said notices in both the cases are in identical terms and a copy thereof has been annexed as Annexure 'E' to each of the Writ petitions. They were issued by Shri M. G. Wagh, Director, Enforcement Directorate, Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue & Insurance, Government of India. The petitioners have further impugned the decision taken by the said Director vide letter of 8th June, 1970 (copy Annexure 'F') to hold adjudication proceedings as contemplated under Section 23D of 1947 Act. This decision was taken after considering...
Collector of Central Excise Vs. Richardson and Cruddas Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Sep-06-1984
Reported in: (1985)(19)ELT117TriDel
1. The appeal has been filed by the Department (Collector of Central Excise, Madras) against the order of the Central Board of Excise, New Delhi, in Order in-Appeal No. 262 to 268 of 1982 dated 11-8-82. The respondents (M/s. Richardson & Cruddas Ltd., Madras) are licensees in respect of manufacturing of Tariff Item No. 29A. On 15-4-81, they were found manufacturing brine tanks with enclosure cabinets for refrigerating units. The refrigerating units were located in the adjoining premises. According to the Department, the manufacturing operation brought into existence cabinets which are classifiable under Tariff Item 29A(3). As the respondents had not maintained any account for the production of these items, they were seized under the provisions of the Central Excise Rules. A show cause notice followed and the Collector of Central Excise, in his order dated 28-4-82, held that the "cabinets" manufactured by the respondents were parts of refrigerating and airconditioning appliances fa...
Hindustan Lever Ltd. Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Sep-05-1984
Reported in: (1989)(44)ELT495TriDel
1. The revision petition preferred by M/s. Hindustan Lever Ltd. to the Government of India against the order of the Appellate Collector of Customs, Bombay dated 19-1-1979 on transfer to this Tribunal under Section 131-B of the Customs Act is being disposed of as an appeal under this order.2. Shipping Bill dated 10-2-1976 had been presented by the appellants, Hindustan Lever Ltd. to the Superintendent of Customs, Porbandar who had cleared the bill on 11-2-1976 after collecting the necessary charges, no duty being payable on the commodity (Groundnut Kernels) that day. The entry outwards of the vessel was on 12-2-1976. Under Notification No. 8/F No. 347/1/76-TRU, dated 12-2-1976 duty @ Rs. 800/- per tonne had been imposed on this commodity. On 4-3-1977 the Superintendent of Customs, Porbandar sent a letter to the appellants mentioning the above fact and advised the appellants to pay the duty of Rs. 80,000/- on the goods exported. Under reply dated 21-3-1977 the appellants denied liabilit...
Prabhat Bhushan Bhatnagar Vs. Mridula
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-05-1984
Reported in: 1985(8)DRJ60
N.N. Goswamy, J.(1) This appeal by the husband is directed against the judgment and decree dated 10-11-1983 passed by the learned Addl. District Judge whereby his petition under Section 12(1)(c) and Section 13(1)(ia) and (ii) of the Hindu Marriage Act was dismissed. (2) It is alleged in the petition that the parties were married at Delhi on 23-11-1980 according to Hindu rites. Before the marriage the negotiations from the side of the respondent were initiated through one Jai Singh who was working in the Punjab National Bank, Delhi and was friend of the brother of the respondent. The said Jai Singh represented to the petitioner, that he used to visit his brother Vijay Bhushan Bhatnagar employed in Punjab National Bank and that he, was a good friend of Shri Virinder Roy posted in as Deputy Commissioner of Police in Delhi. During such negotiations the appellant was required to be interviewed by the said Virinder Roy and he along with the respondent represented to the appellant that she ha...
Apparel Trends and anr. Vs. Krishna Dandona and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-05-1984
Reported in: AIR1985Delhi106; 1984(7)DRJ255; 1984RLR672
R.N. Aggarwal, J.(1) This second appeal by the tenant M/s. Apparel Trends against the order of the Rent Control Tribunal has arisen in the following circumstances.(2) The tenant took on rent the ground floor and the basement of the industrial premises bearing No. A-21/13, Naraina Industrial Area, Phase Ii, from its owner Shri Som Nath Daiidona by a deed of license dated 21st July 1976. (Shri Dandona has died and he is now represented by his legal heirs). The essential terms of the license are : 'WHEREAS the licensor Shri Som Nath Dandona and the Licensee M/s. Apparel Trends are desirous of giving and taking, being allowed privilege of using ground floor and basement of Industry Building at No A-21/13, Naraina Industrial Area, Phase Ii, New Delhi, and the licensee has approached the Licensor for the grant of requisite license, subject to payment of license fee of Rs. 6000.00 (Rupees six thousand only) per month, for carrying on the trade of making handloom and ready-made garments. Where...
J.S. Sidhu Vs. Union of India and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-04-1984
Reported in: ILR1986Delhi658
Charanjitalwar, J. (1) The petitioner, Capt. J. S. Sidhu, who has been promoted as a Major during the pendency of the petition has challenged the order of General Officer Commanding, 23 Mountain Division convening a Summary General Court-Martial which court after trial sentenced him to forfeiture of five years' past service for the purposes of the promotion as well as turn the purposes of pension and 'increased part'. The findings and sentence of the Summary General Court-Martial were duly forwarded by the convening officer to the higher authority namely, General Officer Commanding, Iv Corps for confirmation. However, by order dated the 13th March, 1973, that authority recommended that those findings be confirmed by a superior authority. The superior authority i.e., the General Officer Commanding. Eastern Command, while confirming the conviction by the Summary General Court-Martial, reduced the sentence from five years forfeiture of past service to that of two years.(2) The petition da...
B.L. Sharma Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-04-1984
Reported in: 1985(8)DRJ51
N.N. Goswamy, J.(1) The short question for determination in this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution is whether the period of officiating promotion could be extended beyond the maximum period provided by the Rules/Standing Orders (2) The petitioner was appointed as Assistant Store-keeper w.e.f. 2-4-1962 with the erstwhile Delhi Transport Undertaking. The service conditions were governed by the Standing orders and the regulations framed under the Delhi Road Transport Authority Act, 1950 called as D.R.T.A. (Conditions of Appointment and Service) Regulations 1952. Procedure for recruitment to various posts was laid down in Regulation No. 5. In addition to the said procedure, under clause 5, the respondent had issued certain standing orders for recruitment and promotions. In the present case, the relevant memorandum is No. ADMI-2 (127)/58-Vol. IlI dated January 12, 1959. The relevant portions of the said memorandum/standing orders is, as under: 'THE following policy decisions ar...
inder Prasad Vs. Union of India
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-04-1984
Reported in: AIR1985Delhi304; 1985RLR147
Avadh Behari, J.(1) These are 2 Cross appeals from the order of Additional D.J. Dt.23.12.78. (2) Pursuant to notification of 6.3.67, u/s 4 of Land Acquisition Act (the Act) the Union of India, respondent acquired building No. 20, Tilak Marg, New Delhi owned by the appellant. In due course the Land Acquisition Collector made the award. He awarded compensation at Rs. 100.00 per sq. yard for the land. For the super-structure standing on the land he awarded Rs. 62,270.00. For trees he gave Rs. 606.00. (3) On reference u/s 18 of the Act the learned Additional D.J: enhanced the compensation. For the land he awarded to the owner Rs. 150.00 per Sq. yd. instead of Rs. 100.00. For super-structure he awarded Rs. 99. 270.00. This meant an increase of Rs. 37,000.00 over and above what the Collector had awarded to the land owner for the super structure. The learned judge held that out of the compensation so awarded half will go to Capt. Mahabir Prasad Memory Trust and half to the appellant, Inder Pe...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »