Delhi Court November 1985 Judgments
Home Cases Delhi 1985 Page 3 of about 51 results (0.032 seconds)State (Delhi Administration) Vs. Lal Bahadur @ Lal Babu
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 29(1986)DLT242; 1986(10)DRJ135
G.R. Luthra, J. (1) The present petition is for cancellation of bail granted to Lal Bahadur alias Lal Babu respondent who, according to the prosecution, had committed offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 427, 436, 380, 302, 201 read with Section 149 IPC. The version of the prosecution is that Bakshi Rajinder Singh was residing in house No. RZ-1/295, Geetanjali Park, West Sagarpur Delhi along with his wife Smt. Harjeet Kaur, two daughters and one son. On 31st October, 1984, Bakshi Sardul Singh, father of Bakshi Rajinder Singh, came from Yamuna Nagar and stayed with his son Bakshi Rajinder Singh.(2) On 31st October, 1984 unfortunate assassination of late Prime Minister of India Smt. Indira Gandhi took place. Thereafter disturbances followed. The present case, according to the prosecution, had arisen out of the said disturbances consisting of arson lotting, robberies and murders.(3) The prosecution was set in motion on 9th November 1984 by lodging of a report by Smt. Harjeet Kaur....
Tag this Judgment!Kishan Lal Vs. the State
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 30(1986)DLT263
R.N. Aggarwal, J. (1) Kishan Lal, the appellant herein, along with his brother Ram Lal and one Gulshan Kumar, was charged with the offences of conspiracy and murder of Mohan Lal. They were further charged with the offence of attempt to murder Vinod Kumar (Public Witness 2) and Satish Kumar (Public Witness 6). Kishan Lal was further separately charged and tried under the Arms Act for being in unlawful possession of a revolver. (2) The trial Judge found Kishan Lal guilty of the offence of intentionally murdering Mohan Lal and sentenced him to imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs. 5,000.00 and in default to undergo simple imprisonment for one year. He was also found guilty of the offence of attempting to murder Vinod Kumar and Satish Kumar and was sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for 7 years and a fine of Rs. 2,000.00 and in default simple imprisonment for six months. The substantive sentences of imprisonment were ordered to run concurrently. As regards the charge under the Arms Act t...
Tag this Judgment!Kaptan's Enterprises and Anr. Vs. Union of India
Court: Delhi
Reported in: AIR1986Delhi221
S. Ranganathan, J.(1) The first petitioner 'Kaptan's Enterprises' is a partnership firm of which the second petitioner is a partner. It carries on business in import and export of various raw materials and their distribution and sale in India. It has filed this writ petition seeking directions to the first two respondents, the Customs authorities in India, to permit the petitioner firm to import 8000 M.T. of 'Stearin Fatty Acid' for the purchase of which it is said to have entered into a contract with the third respondent an English company, on 7-10-1983. To understand the controversy between the parties it is necessary to set out certain relevant publications and notifications oSt the Government of India which set out the import policy of the Government at the relevant time. (2) The import of goods into India is governed by the provisions of the Imports & Exports (Control) Act, 1947. In terms of this statute, the Government, every financial year, announces its import policy (which is ...
Tag this Judgment!Prabhati Lal Vs. Gurmukh Singh
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 29(1986)DLT342
Sultan Singh, J.(1) -PRABHATI Lal Petitioner filed a suit for Rs. 10,744.00 under Order 37 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short 'the Code') on the basis of a pronote alleged to have been executed by Gurmukh Singh, defendant. The trial court issued summons under Order 37 of the Code to the defendant and adjourned the suit to 12th October, 1984. From the record it appears that the defendant was served on 25th July, 1984. On 12th October, 1984 neither the plaintiff nor the defendant appeared before the trial court and the suit was dismissed for default of appearance. The plaintiff filed an application under Order 9, Rule 4 of the Code for restoration of the suit. He has alleged that he engaged a counsel Shri Mohinder Singh, Advocate and he was held up in some other matter in Patiala House that there was no motive for him to remain absent on 12th October, 1984 and that no prejudice would be caused to the defendant. An affidavit of Mohinder Singh, Advocate, counsel for the plaintiff wa...
Tag this Judgment!Purshotam Singh Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 29(1986)DLT280; 1986(10)DRJ78
G.R. Luthra, J. (1) The present appeal is directed against the order dated July 18, 1985 of Shri P.S. Sharma. Addl. Sessions Judge, Delhi. The appellant was tried before the said court in respect of the commission of an offence punishable under Section 307 read with Section 34 I P.C. by use of a revolver. The learned Addl. Sessions Judge acquitted the appellant but passed an order that the revolver in this case shall stand confiscated to the State. The petitioner feels aggrieved against the order of the confiscation of the revolver. (2) The provision regarding confiscation of a weapon or any arm is contained in Section 32 of the Arms Act, which reads as under : 'When any person is convicted under this Act of any offence committed by him in respect of any arms or ammunition, it shall be in the discretion of the convicting court further to direct that the whole or any portion of such arms or ammunition and any vessel, vehicle or other means of conveyance and any receptacle or thing conta...
Tag this Judgment!Salek Chand JaIn Vs. Vinesh Chand Seth
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 29(1986)DLT155; 1986RLR17
G.C. Jain, J.1. This is a second appeal by the landlord from the order of the Rent Control Tribunal dated December 24, 1981. The tenant has (sic) filed cross-objections (C.M. No. 1547 of 1982). This order shall disposed the appeal as well as the cross-objections.2. The dispute is in respect of premises comprising of two room kitchen, bath and latrine and a store on the first floor of House No. 5-A(sic) Ansari Road, Darya Ganj, Delhi. The tenant took the same on rent in the year 1958. The agreed rent was Rs. 100/- per month according to the tenant and Rs. 110/- per month according to the landlord. It was after on increased to Rs. 115/- per month.3. On August 7, 1976 the landlord brought a petition for the recovery of possession of the said premises on the grounds of sub-letting, miss-user and personal bonafide requirement, i.e. under Clauses (b), (c) and (e) of the proviso to Sub Section (1) of Section 14 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as `the Act'). The te...
Tag this Judgment!Tajinder Singh Rana Vs. State (Delhi Administration)
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 29(1986)DLT339
G.R. Lathra, J.(1) The present petition is for giant of bail to the present petitioner Tajinder Singh Raca. He is accused of commission of offences punishable under sections 354, 376, 384, 420, 506 and 509 Indian Penal Code Fir No. 660 of 1985 of police station defense Colony was registered on October 15, 1985 against the petitioner on the basis of a written complaint of Ms.Shirley George (hereinafter referred to as the complainant). That written report is addressed to Sho, defense Colony police station and was filed on October 15,1985 itself. (2) Briefly speaking the report of the complainant was as follows. She was residing at International Polytechnic for Women in South Extension Part 1. A few months before the report, the started residing at E-7, South Extension, Part I, New Delhi. In the month of February 1985 she met the petitioner Tajinder Singh Rana. She and petitioner became friends. The petitioner offered her a job in his business known as Maharana Electronics situated in Waz...
Tag this Judgment!A.R. Mehta Vs. Delhi Administration
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 29(1986)DLT284; 1986(10)DRJ79
G.R. Luthra, J. (1) The present petition is directed against an order dated September 10,1985 of Shri G.P. Mittal, Metropolitan Magistrate, Delhi, inter alia, directing the presence of the present petitioners to face the accusation 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) For the purpose of securing the presence of the petitioner, the learned magistrate directed the issuance of warrants of arrest bailable in the sum of Rs. 2000.00 . (3) The prosecution was started on the filing of a complaint by Shri S.K. Verma, Senior Prosecutor, Department of Prevention of Food Adulteration, Delhi. A copy of that complaint has been attached with the present petition as Annexure 'A'. The allegations, as contained in the petition, are briefly as follows. (4) On 25th November 1982 at about 1.45 p.m. Shri S K Nagpal, Food Inspector purchased a sample of Soya Milk Powd...
Tag this Judgment!Collector of Central Excise Vs. Black Diamond Beverage Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1986)(7)ECC4
1. Before the appeal was called, we observed that the appeal having been filed beyond the period of limitation, the appellant Collector had also moved an application for condonation of delay. This application has been given No. ED(SB)/COD/398/84A. The record of the Registry shows that the appeal as well as the application for condonation of delay were received in the Registry on 27-12-1984. Since it was observed that a considerable delay beyond the period of limitation was involved, we considered it expedient and in the interests of justice to first dispose of the application for condonation before taking up the appeal itself. In fact, we are surprised as to why the Registry did not first list the condonation application and instead listed the main appeal itself. The material date for the purpose of the application is that the order appealed against was passed by the Collector (Appeals) Central Excise, Calcutta on 12-7-1984. Shri Bhattacharya, the learned advocate for' the respondents...
Tag this Judgment!Shiva Paper Mills Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1987)(27)ELT319TriDel
1. By the impugned order, the Additional Collector of Central Excise, Meerut, confiscated 310 bundles of writing and printing paper weighing 18,600 Kg and 1062 packets of writing and printing paper wrapped in wrapping paper weighing 5049 Kg., with a redemption fine of Rs. 10,000/- and he also imposed penalty of Rs. 10,000/- on the appellants under Rule 173Q of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. The aforesaid goods were seized by the Central Excise Officers on 1-11-1983 when they visited the factory on that day, as they found that the abovementioned goods were not entered in the R.G1 register. Being aggrieved by the impugned order, the appellants have filed the present appeal which is before me.2. I have heard Shri S.S. Mehra, learned consultant for the appellants and Shri Shishir Kumar, learned SDR for the respondent.3. Shri Mehra, has argued that the seized goods, namely, 310 bundles and 1062 packets paper, weighing 23649.5 Kg in all did not reach the stage of R.G.I and as such the same...
Tag this Judgment!