Delhi Court October 1985 Judgments
Home Cases Delhi 1985 Page 6 of about 57 results (0.013 seconds)Mahipalpur Co-operative Society Ltd. Etc. Vs. Prabhati and ors.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: I(1986)ACC76; AIR1986Delhi94; 29(1986)DLT223; 1986RLR102
Sultan Singh, J. (1) Ramlal son of Narain Singh, aged 40 years resident of J. J. Colony, Tigri, Khanpur, New Delhi met with a fatal accident on the afternoon of 21st October, 1979 near Khanpur-Delhi Road Turn at Mehrauli Badarpur Road, New Delhi. Smt. Prabhati, widow respondent No. 1, Smt. Chandri Devi, mother-respondent No. 3; Shankar Lal, son and Smt. Bhori Devi, daughter from his first wife, respondents 2 and 4, Mona Devi. Manohar Devi, Ghota Devi, Prem Nath and Dina Nath, minor children-respondents 5 to 9 filed an Application under Section 110-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 claiming compensation Rs. 1,80,000 on account of fatal injury sustained by Ram Lal. The respondents in their claim petition have alleged that Ram LaL The respondents in their claim petition have alleged that Ram Lal met with fatal accident on 21st October, 1979 at about 3 P.M.; the driver of the Bus No. 2322 hit the deceased who was standing with his friend Bangru Lal at the road berm (kaccha); the deceased w...
Tag this Judgment!Sudesh Chopra and ors. Vs. State of Haryana and ors.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: I(1986)ACC110; 29(1986)DLT213
S.B. Wad, J.1. This is the claimants' appeal for enhancement (sic) compensation granted by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Delhi, (sic)5-8-1972. The claimants have claimed Rs. 2,50,000/- towards compensation but the Tribunal has awarded only Rs. 25,916/-. Shri Raj Kanwar Singh Chopra died in a road accident on 18-7-1968. At the time of the accident (sic) was working as a Police Wireless Van No. PNW-3883 on duty from Hissar to Delhi. The vehicle was being driven at a great speed and in a rash and negligent manner. The driver of the vehicle lost control over the vehicle and suddenly swerved his vehicle towards the wrong side of the road and violently struck against a tree. The vehicle in question belonged to Haryana State. The State of Haryana has filed the cross-objections only to the extent that no credit was given by the Tribunal for the payment of Rs. 3,500/- made from the Police Fund and Rs. 2,900/- paid towards the gratuity to the claimants by the State of Haryana. The liabilit...
Tag this Judgment!Amar Nath Vaish Vs. Mewa Devi
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1986(10)DRJ17
Sunanda Bhandare, J.(1) This revision petition is directed against the judgment dated 7.11.1983 of the Additional Rent Controller, Delhi whereby the learned Additional Rent Controller accepted the bona fide necessity of the respondent landlady and ordered eviction of the petitioner under Section 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act. The facts of the case, as set out in brief, are as follows:- (2) The petitioner had taken on rent first floor premises of House No. 29/5, Shakti Nagar, Delhi consisting of three rooms, close verandah, kitchen, bath, latrine from the respondent landlady. The respondent landlady filed an eviction petition under Section 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act before the Additional Rent Controller for eviction of the petitioner on the ground that the said premises were required by her for her bona fide personal use. In the petition, the respondent contended that her family consisted of herself, her two sons, two daughters-in-law, one grand son, three married d...
Tag this Judgment!Collector of Central Excise Vs. Doaba Cooperative Sugar Mills
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1985)(5)LC2485Tri(Delhi)
1.In this appeal, the department seeks to have the demand for central excise duty of Rs. 24,527.97 restored. The Collector (Appeals) has set aside this demand on the ground of time-bar.2.On hearing both sides, we find that the relevant facts, chronologically, are as under :(i) January 1977 to The respondents exported some April 1977 sugar out of the excess produced quantity.(ii) 23-6-79 Refund of duty (commonly known as incentive rebate) in(iii) 31-8-82 Show cause notice-cum-demand issued by the department on Since clearances for export are documented in statutory records (Form A.R.-4A, Gate Passes and monthly R.T. 12 returns) copies of which are required to be supplied regularly to the department, the fact of export and the quantities exported can reasonably be presumed to be within the knowledge of the department. Yet, if in 1979 the department chose to grant the refund even in respect of such of the excess produced sugar as had been exported in 1977, it can only be called an errone...
Tag this Judgment!Mohd. Aslam Vs. Delhi Administration and Others
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1986(3)Crimes342; 29(1986)DLT437; 1986(10)DRJ11; 1985RLR592
ORDER1. This writ petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution has been filed by the petitioner for quashing the impugned notice dt. 8th May 1981 issued by Additional Deputy Commissioner of Police (Central), respondent 2 herein, to show-cause why the petitioner be not externed from the limits of the Union Territory of Delhi. The said notice purports to have been issued under S. 50 read with S. 47 of the Delhi Police Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). 2. The allegations leveled against the petitioner in the said notice are as under : 'That since 24-1-65 you are engaged in the commission of illegal acts and offences against body or property involving force or violence and that your activities or movements in the limits of the Union Territory of Delhi are causing alarm, danger or harm to the person or property. That it has been made to appear to me that you have been continuing your criminal activities and have engaged yourself in the commission of offences against body or proper...
Tag this Judgment!Peter Samuel Wallace Vs. Assistant Director of Enforcement
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 28(1985)DLT458; 1986(10)DRJ268
G.R. Lathra, J. (1) Both these petitions are being decided together because both of them involve only one question of law as to whether Section 56 of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as 'Fera') is ultra virus Article 14 of the Constitution of India. Both these petitions were filed by the same petitioner and are against the respondent Assistant Director of Enforcement, New Delhi and judgment is being written in Criminal Misc. (Main) 713 of 1984. The petitioner is regional manager for India and Middle East of a foreign company known as 'M/s European Research and Supply Corporation'. He is residing at A-1/37, Safdarjung Enclave, New Delhi. His office is at Kamal Theatre building, Safdarjung Enclave, New Delhi. (2) On May 17, 1984 acting under Section 37 of Fera, the officers -of the Enforcement Directorate carried out searches of the residence as well as office of the petitioner. It is alleged by the Enforcement Directorate that several incriminating docu...
Tag this Judgment!Collector of Central Excise Vs. T.i. Millers Ltd. and T.i. Diamond
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1991)(33)LC759Tri(Delhi)
1. In these two cases, the Government of India sought to review the Orders-in-Appeal No. 99/82 and 100/82 dated 15.3.1982 passed by the Appellate Collector of Central Excise, Madras, by an issue of review show cause notice dated 8.9.1982 to M/s T I. Millers Ltd., Madras and T.I. Diamond Chain Ltd., Madras. These have since been transferred to this Tribunal for disposal as appeals.2. The facts of the case are that M/s. T.I. Millers Ltd. manufacture cycle lumps and M/s. T. I. Diamond Chain make automotive chains Both these goods are assessable under Item 68 CET. They initially filed price lists for the sale of the goods through (heir distributors, namely, M/s. T.I. & M, Sales Ltd., M/s. Charmvel Agencies and M/s.Ambadi Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. quoting their price to the distributors as assessable value. However, subsequently following a Madras High Court decision in a valuation case, they required that the price charged by them from buyers at the factory gate should be accepted as the ...
Tag this Judgment!