Delhi Court January 1985 Judgments
Home Cases Delhi 1985 Page 7 of about 93 results (0.021 seconds)State Vs. Umesh Bhatia Etc.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1985RLR153
G.R. Luthra (1) The present revision petition is directed against an order dated 16.9.80 of a Metropolitan Magistrate, Delhi discharging the respondents, in respect of offences punishable u/s 392 and 394 read with S. 34 Indian Penal Code alleged to have been committed by them. (2) A report u/s 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was sent against the aforesaid respondents. The facts, as narrated by the police, are as follows (3) On 14.7.77, a Quawali party headed by a lady was giving performance at Hotel Moti Mahal, Darya Gang, to entertain the people who happened to be taking dinner. Nichhater Singh (the complainant) and his two companions, namely, Mohan Singh and Prem Kumar were taking dinner. At that time, the complainant was armed with a revolver loaded with six cartridges which was tied by means of a belt to his waist. There were 8 other live cartridges of the revolver in the space meant for them which was attached to the belt. The respondents along with one Anand Vardhan Aggarwa...
Tag this Judgment!Nisha Tea Company and ors. Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 27(1985)DLT276
G.R. Luthra, J.(1) The present petition is directed against an order dated May 21, 1982 of Shri M.L. Sahni Metropolitan Magistrate, Delhi directing the framing of a charge against the petitioners in respect of commission of an offence punishable under Section 7 read with Section 16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) (2) Petitioner No. 2 to 4, Mohan Lal, Surinder Kumar Aggarwal and Ram Partap Aggarwal are carrying on business as partners of a tea company under the' name and style of M/s. Nisha Tea Company, petitioner No. 1. On July 21, 1980 at about 2.15 p.m. Prem Nath Khatri, Food Inspector took a sample of tea sold by M/s. Nisha Tea Company. The sample of tea was sold to the said Food Inspector by Mohan Lal, petitioner No. 2. On analysis by the Public Analyst, the said sample was found to be adulterated due to presence of iron filings, out of which one was of the size of 2.4mm. thereforee, a complaint dated November 1, 1980 was filed ...
Tag this Judgment!Nisha Tea Co. and ors. Vs. the State
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1985CriLJ1188
ORDERG.R. Luthra, J.1. The present petition is directed against an order dt May 21,1982 of Shri M. L. Sahni, Metropolitan Magistrate, Delhi directing the framing of a charge against the petitioners in respect of commission of an offence punishable under Section 7 read with Section 16 ' of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act').2. Petitioners Nos. 2 to 4, Mohan Lal, Surinder Kumar Aggarwal and Ram Partap Aggarwal are carrying on business as partners of a tea company under the name and style of M/s. Nisha Tea Company, petitioner No. L On July 21, 1980 at about 2-15 p.m. Prem Nath Khatti, Food Inspector took a sample of tea sold by M/s. Nisha Tea Company. The sample of tea was sold to the said Food Inspector by Mohan Lal, petitioner No. 2. On analysis by the Public Analyst, the said sample was found to be adulterated due to presence of iron filings, out of which one was of the size of 2.4. mm. thereforee, a complaint dated November 1, 1980 was...
Tag this Judgment!Shri Ambica Khandsari Udyog Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1985)(21)ELT281TriDel
1. This appeal to the Tribunal is directed against an order passed by Collector (Appeals), Central Excise, New Delhi, On 25-8-1982. The issue involved falls within a very narrow compass; namely, as to whether the refund claim filed by the appellants in respect to duties paid on 4-2-1978, and 25-2-1978, and given to the Superintendent of the Central Excise, Hardwar, on 31-7-1978, could be considered to be barred by time for the reason that it came to the Assistant Collector on 26-8-1978.2. The Assistant Collector rejected the claim on the ground, holding that the claim reached him after the expiry of the period of six months as I stipulated by Rule 11. The Appeal to the Appellate Collector was also dismissed, who confirmed the Assistant Collector's view.3. The appellants, in the Appeal before us, plead that refund claim, which was addressed by them to the Assistant Collector, had been accepted by the Jurisdictional Superintendent on behalf of the Assistant Collector, as he formed part ...
Tag this Judgment!Sagar Chand Phool Chand JaIn Vs. Santosh Guptas and Others
Court: Delhi
Reported in: [1987]62CompCas55(Delhi)
Wad, J.1. The deceased Manohar Lal Gupta, was a contractor and general order supplier. He was also running a tea shop. He was travailing in a car bearing No. DLJ-3675. The car was driven by respondent No. 1, Kartar Singh, in the claimant's petition, in the course of his employment with M/s. Sagar Chand phool Chand Jain, respondent No. 2. The car was going from Najafgarh towards the village Nivads. Manohar Lal Gupta was sitting on the rear seat. Two other persons, Shri Tek Chand and Shri. Preet, were sitting on the front seat with the driver, respondent No.1. It is found by the Tribunal that the driver was driving at a very high speed and in a reckless manner and while approaching Karol bridge hit into the drums on the left side of the road. The driver could not control the vehicle, and, thereforee, hit against a tree on the other side. The passengers were seriously injured. Manohar Lal Gupta and other injured were taken to Najafgarh Public Health Center, where Dr. A.D. Diutta declared ...
Tag this Judgment!Prem Chand Sharma Vs. State (Delhi Admn.) and Another
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1985CriLJ374; 1985(1)Crimes1060; 1985(8)DRJ236; 1985RLR142
ORDER1. This petition, in fact, is yet at admission stage but it figured at No. 1 in the list of regular cases. This has, perhaps, happened because on 23-8-84 when Mr. L. D. Adlakha Advocate appeared for respondent 2 the court directed the case to be listed for hearing in the second week of October 1984. In any case, it is now admitted. Since a notice was given to the other party and appearance was put in on 23-8-84. I am deciding the matter after hearing the counsel for the petitioner. 2. This petition calls for examination of the scope of S. 456, Cr.P.C. and the ambit of that power. However, for proper appreciation, I find it necessary to make a reference to brief facts. 3. The petitioner is the owner of premises No. 267 Kucha Ghasi Ram, Delhi. He filed eviction proceedings before the Addl. Rent Controller Delhi in which a decree was passed and the Addl. Rent Controller issued warrant of eviction directing that any person bound by the decree may be dispossessed and the possession res...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax, New Delhi Vs. Mahalaxmi Sugar Mills Co. Lt ...
Court: Delhi
Reported in: [1987]165ITR97(Delhi)
D.K. Kapur, J.1. Though this application prays for reference of three questions, we find that question No. 3 has already been referred by the Tribunal under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The remaining two question were not referred. As far as question No. 1 is concerned, it is the question whether the sole selling agency commission should be allowed as an expense. We agree with the Tribunal that this is a question of fact and the Tribunal itself has allowed this commission on the basis that the same has been allowed for several earlier years. No question of law, thereforee arises. As far as the second question is concerned, it is as to whether there was an under valuation of the closing stock. The facts given in the Tribunal's order show that the stock was valued at Rs. 135.55 per quintal, because that was the effective rate from July 1, 1972, as per the Government of India Notification dated June 15, 1972. On the other hand, the rate on June 30, 1972, was Rs. 145 per qui...
Tag this Judgment!Raja Ram and ors. Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1985(8)DRJ233
Malik Sharief-Ud-Din, J.(1) The grievance of the petitioner is that he is being wrongly prosecuted under Section 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 in case No. 57/82 titled State v. Raja Ram, pending in the court of Shri M.L. Sahni, Metropolitan Magistrate, (Now Mr. V.K. Shali, M.M. New Delhi). (2) During the pendency of the case the petitioner moved a petition under Section 245 Cr.P.C. praying for his discharge. The learned Magistrate, however, declined the prayer by his order dated 3-9-82. The petitioner has, thereforee, come up under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking the quashing of those proceedings after setting aside the impugned order dated 3-9-82 and to his consequent discharge. (3) The admitted facts are that the food inspector Gian Chand took sample of Anardana powder on 21-10-81 at 3 P.M. from the premises of petitioner No. 2 which is a partnership concern situated at Kamla Nagar. On analysis it was found to contain permitted colour (panacea 4 R. Coal tar dye) w...
Tag this Judgment!Gore Lal Vs. Santosh
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 27(1985)DLT304
D.R. Khanna, J. (1) ADMIT.(2) Custody of minor children when the matrimonial home has broken, gives rise to poignant situations. Naturally both the parents want to retain the children because of their attachment with them. The children also develop affinities and their emotional aspect can also not be lightly ignored. However, where children are of tender ages, the emotional attachment may be the result of being in the company of one parent or the other for the time being. The same would not essentially reflect lack of affinity to the other parent as time factor plays its part, and a parent who has not the custody of the child, is not likely to be looked at with that attachment as the parent with whom the child happens to be for the time being. The court has still to look to the overall welfare of the child.(3) The parties in the present case were married in the year 1963, and the wife started residing with the husband from 1972 after what is called the 'Gauna' ceremony. There have bee...
Tag this Judgment!Collector of Customs Vs. U. Foam (P) Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1985)(21)ELT277TriDel
1. The facts giving rise to this appeal are that M/s U. Foam (P) Ltd. (hereinafter called the respondent) imported a number of consignments of 'Polyols' during the period 15-11-1976 to 28-1-1978 which were assessed to customs duty under Heading 39.01/06 considering them to be 'Resins'. But later on the customs authorities found that the Polyols imported by the respondents were not resins. Thereafter, the respondents filed a refund claim directly to the Central Board of Excise and Customs for sanction of the refund of excess customs duty paid by them on account of the wrong classification and assessment of Polyols as Resins which was received on 1-12-1977. The copy of the same was also sent to the concerned Assistant Collector for information. The Board did not entertain the refund claim filed by the respondents and advised the respondents to file the refund application to the concerned Assistant. Collector. The Assistant Collector of Customs (Refund) treated the refund claim applicati...
Tag this Judgment!