Delhi Court October 1985 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.
Andhra Pradesh Paper Mills Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Oct-16-1985
Reported in: (1986)(23)ELT242TriDel
1. This is an appeal against Order No. 137/82(G) dated 20-4-1982 passed by the Appellate Collector of Central Excise, Madras.2. The facts of the case, in brief, are that the Department of Industrial Development, Ministry of Industry, Government of India, issued on 27-10-1980 an order, in exercise of the powers conferred by Section 9(1) of the Industries (Development and Regulation) Act, 1951.The order specified certain classes of paper and paperboard etc.included in heading No. 24 of the First Schedule to the aforesaid Act and imposed a duty of excise at the rate of l/8th per cent ad valorem to be levied and collected as a cess for the purpose of the said Act.The order, which was gazetted on 27-10-1980, laid down that the impost would come into force with effect from the 1st November, 1980.Simultaneously with the aforesaid order, the Central Government published the draft of the "Pulp, Paper, Paperboard and Newsprint Manufactures Cess Rules, 1980" on 27-10-1980, inviting objections an...
Sohan Singh Vs. Surat Singh
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-16-1985
Reported in: 1986RLR108
J.D. Jain, J.(1) It may be stated at the outset that the original summons issued to the petitioner is not available on the record of the trial Court. So, the crucial question for both the courts below was whether the testimony of the petitioner as Aw 1 and his son Saran Jeet Singh, who was the only other witness examined by him to the effect that the petitioner was never served with the summons in the suit should be believed as against the judicial order dated 11.7.74 recording that deft. No. 3 had been served with the summons but was not present. On a consideration of the evidence on record both the courts below have given concurrent finding that petitioner No. 1 had been duly served as recorded in the aforesaid order. It may be noticed here that there is also a note in the sheet just below the order dated 4.5.74 showing that defts. 1, 2 and 4 had not been served whereas deft. No. 3 had been served personally. The learned counsel for the petitioner has, thereforee, canvassed with cons...
Rajender Kumar Vs. Rakesh and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-16-1985
Reported in: 1986(1)Crimes730; 29(1986)DLT163
G.R. Luthra, J.1. By this order two petitions, Criminal Misc. (Main) 752 of 1985 and Criminal Misc. (Main) 937 of 1985 are being decided. Both these petitions arise out of the same case, because Criminal Misc. (Main) 937/85 is of Neelu alias Lainda for grant of bail. The other petition No. 752/85 is of one Rajinder Kumar for cancellation of bails of Rakesh alias Chhotu and Jagdish Pershad Arya who are co-accused of Neelu in sessions case now pending before Shri S.R. Goel, Additional Sessions Judge, Shahdara, Delhi.2. The case relates to the murder of one Bharat Bhushan and attempt to murder of Vipin by gun shots. The complainant party consists of Rajesh, Vipin, Satish Kumar, Rajinder and Ravinder.3. The accused are Ashwani Kumar, his brother Sanjay Kumar their father Jagdish Pershad Arya, Neelu alias Lainda and Rakesh alias Chhotu.4. The first information report No. 225 of 1985 of police station Krishna Nagar was recorded on the statement of Rajesh Kumar. The version of the prosecution...
Ram Nath Sharma Vs. Kundan Kaur
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-15-1985
Reported in: 1986(10)DRJ28
Charanjit Talwar, J.(1) This is a petition by the landlord Rain Nath Sharma challenging the order dated 27th February, 1984, passed by the Additional Rent Controller, Delhi, (hereinafter called 'the Controller'), whereby the petition of the landlord seeking eviction of the tenant-respondent herein under Section 14(1)(c) read with Section 25-B of the Delhi Rent Control Act (hereinafter called 'the Act') was dismissed. (2) A number of contentions have been raised in the petition. It is, however, not necessary to deal with all of them as, in my view, the case requires to be remanded to the Court of the Controller for re-adjudication on the point whether the daughter-in-law of the landlord is residing with him at Delhi. Admittedly, for about three years during the pendency of the eviction petition one of the sons of the landlord, namely. Major S. S. Agnihotri, was posted in Delhi. He had also appeared in the witness box as A.W. 2. After the parties had led evidence the tenant-respondent he...
Rajbir Singh Vs. L.D. Gupta and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-11-1985
Reported in: AIR1986Delhi206; ILR1987Delhi401
Yogeshwar Dayal, J.(1) This order will dispose of C.M. (M) No. 92 of 1985 and C.M. (M) No. 201 of 1985, which have been filed by Rajbir Singh and Mange Ram respectively under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. (2) PETITIONER. Rajbir Singh and respondent No. 2 Mange Ram were two candidates out of the seven at the election for the office of Pardhan of Gaon Sabha Bharthal of village Bharthal. Petitioner, Rajbir Singh was declared elected having secured 384 votes as against 383 polled in favor of Manga Ram, respondent No. 2. (3) Mange Ram filed an Election Petition under the provisions of Rule 57 of the Delhi Panchayat Raj Rules (hereinafter referred to as the Rules) challenging the election of Rajbir Singh. It was inter alias challenged by Mange Ram that Rajbir Singh has not secured the majority of valid votes and it was in fact Mange Ram who had secured majority of valid votes in the aforesaid election and thereforee Mange Rain is entitled to be declared as Pardhan of Gaon Sabha. ...
Anita Mahajan and ors. Vs. Delhi Administration and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-11-1985
Reported in: AIR1986Delhi214; 29(1986)DLT113
Malik Sharief-Ud-Din, J. 1. This petition raises a very short issue though of fundamental importance to the petitioners. It is not disputed that respondent No. 4, Central Council of Homoeopathy is a statutory authority competent to frame regulations about the courses and period of practical training to be undertaking the subjects of examinations and the standards of proficiency therein to be obtained etc. and as such had issued notifications No. 7-1/83/CCH dated 11th May 1983 incorporating the Homoeopathy (Degree Course) Regulations, 1983 published in the Government of India Gazette, Extra Ordinary, part III, Section 4, of 11th May 1983.2. The petitioners are undergoing the Bachelor of Homoeopathy Medicine and Surgery (hereinafter referred as 'BHMS') Degree course at the College, respondent No. 2, Nehru Homoeopathic Medical College and Hospital (hereinafter to be called NHMC). Four examinations are held for passions BHMS-first after 18 months course of study and the second, third and f...
Delhi Administration and ors. Vs. Om Prakash Verma and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-11-1985
Reported in: 29(1986)DLT344
D.K. Kapur, J.(1) These three Letters Patent Appeals (Nos. 69 of 1984, 75 of 1984 and 77 of 1984) have been heard along with L.P A. Nos. 1 and 7 of 1980, in which a separate judgment has been delivered today. As held in the judgment in L P.A. No. 1 of 1980, the effect of the two circulars of 1950 and 1954 is to revise the pay scales of Physical Training Instructors The circular of 1950 can be reproduced here again with advantage. We may say that it is part of a long document revising pay scales for a number of different posts. But. we are only concerned with Physical Training Instructors, which is entry No. 4 in the document. The proposed new scales of pay are as, follows : 345 'Sr.No. Post Proposed Scale Minimum qualifications Remarks 4. Physical Training Instructors 120-8-EB-10-300 Graduate with Diploma in Physical Training. Future minimum from 1-4.1950. 100-5-150-EB-8-190-10-250. Intermediate with Certificate in Physical Training. Temporary relaxation for existing employees. 80-5-12...
Pradeep Kumar Vs. Ranjit Kaur
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-11-1985
Reported in: 29(1986)DLT390
G.C. Jain, J.(1) Smt. Ranjit Kaur, the landlady obtained eviction order against S/Shri V.K. Malhotra and Pardeep Kumar, the present appellants, on October 19, 1982. Appeal filed against the order had been dismissed by the Tribunal and second appeal by this Court on 19th December, 1984. While execution proceedings were going on the present appellants filed objections stating that a new tenancy has been created in their favor. Under the new agreement a sum of Rs. 5,000.00 as security and other sum of Rs. 4.500.00 as advance rent for six months were paid. (2) In those proceedings the appellant filed application for staying the execution till the disposal of his objections. Learned Additional Rent Controller refused to stay the proceedings. Appeal filed against the said order was dismissed by the Tribunal. (3) Mr. Andley, learned counsel, contended that the landlady has executed an agreement and a receipt showing the new tenancy and, thereforee, the appellant had a prima facie case. (4) I ...
inder Kaur and Another Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-10-1985
Reported in: 1986CriLJ743; 1986(2)Crimes83; 30(1986)DLT245
Aggarwal, J. (agreeing with Sachar, J.)1. On a difference of opinion between Rajindar Sachar, J. (as his Lordship then was) and Malik Sharief-Ud-Din, J. this appeal has come to me for my opinion under S. 392 of the Criminal P.C. 2. Appellant I Inder Kaur and appellant 2 Harbans Kaur were tried and found guilty by an Additional Sessions Judge of the offence under S. 302 read with S. 34 of the Penal Code and sentenced to imprisonment for life. 3. The charge against the accused was that they had on 18th October, 1978 at about 2.30 p.m. in the Barsati floor of their house No. E6, Jangpura extension, after pouring kerosene oil on Hardeep Kaur set her ablaze and thereby caused her death. She died on 2nd November, 1978. 4. Sachar J. and Sharief-Ud-Din J., though for different reasons, agreed that the case against the appellant Inder Kaur is not proved and her appeal was allowed and she was acquitted. However, regarding the appellant 2 Harbans Kaur Sachar J. is of the opinion that the case aga...
Durga Traders Vs. Union of India
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-10-1985
Reported in: 1986RLR138
Rajindar Sachar, J.(1) This writ petition seeks writ of mandamus directing railway to give matching delivery against a consignment of coal booked by the petitioners, and which was instead diverted by the railways. (2) The petitioners booked a consignment of coal with the railways. It was booked on 23.1.83 from Jogigopha Station to Chandigarh, The consignment was admittedly not delivered to the petitioners. The matter was taken up by the petitioner with the Railways. On 14.7.83 the Area Supdt., Ambala Cantt., Northern Railway informed the Station Supdt, Chandigarh that the petitioners had approached the Area Office for getting matching delivery of the coal against Bcxt which still had not reached its destination, which request was agreed to, but it was noted, that since no Bcxt, was available it asked the party to take matching delivery of the wagons when available. Evidently, nothing seems to have been done because the petitioner followed it up with further reminder on 4.2.1984, to the...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »