Delhi Court November 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.
Radhey Shyam Vs. Sunder Dass
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-07-1985
Reported in: 29(1986)DLT276
G.C. Jain, J.1. This second appeal under Section 39 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (for short 'the Act') is from the order of the learned Rent Control Tribunal, dated March 6, 1985.2. The dispute is in respect of a shop No. 5, in building No. 11 Sachdev Cloth Market, Rani Bagh, Delhi. In was let out to the appellant, the respondent Sunder Dass on February 1, 1973 on a monthly rent Rs. 100/-. On April 20, 1982, the landlord brought a petition (SIC) eviction of the tenant from the said shop under Clause (b) of the proviso Sub-section (1) of Section 14 of the Act. It was alleged that the tenant (SIC) sub-let, assigned or otherwise parted with the possession of the whole or part of the premises without obtaining the consent in writing of the landlord to one M/s. Bhayaji Tailors and the suit premises were occupied by the tailors.3. The tenant resisted the petition. It was averred that 'it is vehemently denied that the respondent sub-let, assigned or otherwise parted with possession of ...
B.M. Shah Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Nov-06-1985
Reported in: (1989)(43)ELT528TriDel
1. In this appeal, the appellants after the notice intimated waiver of personal hearing, and that the issue can be decided on merits on the basis of the documents furnished by them.2. We have, therefore, gone through the file with the assistance of Shri Gopinath, SDR. We find that the imported goods had been described in the Bill of Entry as "Parts of Machinery (Viz) non-metallic machine cloth cut to shape and size 2 1/2 yards long X 40" wide (2.286 m X 1 metre)". Same was the description in the Invoice, and this fact has been confirmed by the Supplier by letter dated October 1,1973, which was filed with the revision petition now appeal before us. It has been specifically mentioned in the aforesaid letter that the subject goods were : 'nylon machine cloth pieces of 2 1/2 yards length X 40 inches wide, are required for direct fitting to machines', adding that these pieces are 'supplied ready cut to size, so that no loss of production is experienced, as the pieces can be fitted directly...
Rampat and anr. Vs. State and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-06-1985
Reported in: 1986(1)Crimes1; 1986(10)DRJ76
Charanjit Talwar, J.(1) By this petition petitioners Rampat and Nafe Singh are challenging the legality of an order passed by the Executive Magistrate (Sub-divisional Magistrate) on 21st June, 1985. That was a composite order; first part is a preliminary order under section 145(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and the second directs attachment of the property. That second part presumably was passed under section 146(1) of the Code. (2) I have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length. (3) In the view which I am taking it is not necessary to deal with the legality of the preliminary order under section 145(1) as in the facts and circumstances of the case, particularly because of the rival claim of the partics, that part of the order cannot 'be said to be unwarranted. (4) The part of the order attaching the property reads as under :- 'In the interest of both the parties, to avoid any mis happening, the property in dispute is hereby attached.'(5) I may notice here that...
Purna Nand and anr. Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-06-1985
Reported in: 29(1986)DLT282; 1986(10)DRJ96
Charanjit Talwar, J. (1) These two petitions, Criminal Revisions 163 and 94, of 1985, have been filed seeking quashing of order dated 2nd May, 1985, of Mr. P.S. Sharma. Additional Sessions Judge, Delhi, whereby he directed that charges under Sections 17/18 read with Section 27 of the Drugs & Cosmetics Act, 1940 (hereinafter called 'the Act') be framed against the petitioners Puma Nand and Gian Parkash. I may note that Puma Nand is the father of Gian Parkash. (2) To appreciate the contention of Bawa Gurbachan Singh a few facts maybe noticed. The cognizance of the offence was taken by the learned Magistrate on a complaint filed by Mr. V.B. Bajpai, Drug Inspector, who is admittedly a public servant. Mr. Bajpai has been examined as Public Witness .I. According to that witness a raid was organized and conducted on 6th August, 1975, at about 1 a.m. at the house of the petitioners herein. S/Shri S.P. Luthra, Dr. Sharma and Surinder Mohan Narula were members of the raiding party. On search of ...
Collector of Central Excise Vs. E. Merck India (P) Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Nov-05-1985
Reported in: (1986)(6)LC200Tri(Delhi)
1. The present appeal arises out of Review proceedings under the erstwhile Section 36(2) of the Central Excises & Salt Act, 1944. The Government of India had issued a show cause notice under Section 36(2) of the Central Excises & Salt Act, 1944 seeking to review an order in appeal No. V-2 (14E) 2255/78, dated 14th August, 1981 passed by the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), Bombay in respect of M/s. E.Merck India (P) Ltd. In defence the assessee had objected to the Review proceedings. After coming into existence of the Tribunal the same stands transferred to the Tribunal under Section 35P of Central Excises & Salt Act, 1944 to be disposed of as an appeal.2. Briefly the facts of the case are that M/s. E. Merck India (P) Ltd. is having L.4 licence No. PPM/1/73 for the manufacture of Patent or Proprietary Medicines falling under TI No. 14 E of the Central Excise Tariff. Right from the inception, for obvious reasons, the manufacturers of medicines have been allowed duty f...
Bhikusa Papers Private Limited Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Nov-05-1985
Reported in: (1986)(6)LC673Tri(Delhi)
1. M/s. Bhikusa Papers Pvt. Ltd., P.B. No. 68, 53/54 M.G. Road, Nasik-422001 has filed a reference application under Section 35G of the Central Excises & Salt Act, 1944 and has required, this Tribunal to refer certain questions, said to be the questions of law and arising out of order No. 340/85 dated 30th day of April, 1985 vide Appeal No.ED(SB)T/A. No. 66/82-C passed by the Tribunal to the-Hon'ble High Court.2. Briefly the facts of the case are that M/s. Bhikusa Papers Pvt.Ltd., Nasik are engaged in the manufacture of packing and wrapping paper which, at the relevant time, fell under item No. 17(2) of the First Schedule to the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 (CET, for short). The dispute revolves round the eligibility of the said paper to the duty concession contained in Central Excise Notification No. 128/77 dated 18-6-1977. One of the conditions for eligibility is that the pulp, out of which such paper is manufactured, should contain more than 50% by weight of pulp made fro...
R.K. JaIn Vs. S.K. Mehta
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-05-1985
Reported in: 29(1986)DLT140; 1986(10)DRJ131
Sultan Singh, J.(1) This Revision under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure is directed against the order dated 22-10-1984 of the Subordinate Judge, 1st Class, Delhi refusing leave to defend and passing a decree for Rs. 12,567.65 with costs and future interest @ Rs. 1.20 percent per mensem against the petitioner-defendant.(2) Briefly these are the facts.(3) The plaintiff-respondent filed a suit under Order 37 of the Cods of Civil Procedure. He has alleged that the petitioner had taken a loan of Rs. 10.000.00 repayable with interest @ 1.20 per mensem; that the defendant issued two cheques (1) for Rs. 7,500.00 dated 19-1-1983 and (2) for Rs. 3,100.00 dated 1-2-1983 towards repayment of the loan in favor of the plaintiff; that the cheques presented to the bankers were returned with the remarks 'Refer to the drawer'. The plaintiff sent notice dated 25-2-1984 demanding the amount but getting no response he filed this suit. The defendant entered appearance. Application for summons for...
Ashok Kumar Sapra Vs. Union Bank of India
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-04-1985
Reported in: (1986)IILLJ223Del
1. This revision petition arises out of an application for interim injunction filed by the petitioner in a suit pending for trial before the learned Subordinate Judge 1 Class, to challenge certain penalties imposed against him by the defendant bank. After due enquiry the petitioner plaintiff was found guilty and the punishment given to him was reduction from scale III Officer in Middle Management grade to scale II which carries a lesser scale of pay and a further punishment of reduction of five steps in the lower grade. The petitioner's claim is that two major penalties could not be simultaneously imposed on him. The learned trial court found that there was substance in the matter and a prima facie case, so he granted the injunction as prayed.2. The bank appealed to the learned Additional Senior Sub Judge, who found that there were two charges against the petitioner and two punishments had been imposed. In any event, it was also held that there were remedies open to the plaintiff under...
State Vs. Kasturi Lal
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-04-1985
Reported in: 1986CriLJ1474; 29(1986)DLT273; 1986(10)DRJ91; 1986RLR141
G.R. Luthra, J.(1) The present criminal revision petition is directed against the order of discharge passed on March 18, 1983 by Shri V.K. Shall, Metropolitan Magistrate, New Delhi. It was the respondent who was discharged in respect of the alleged commission of offences punishable under section 7 read with Section 16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act). (2) Raj Pal Singh, a food inspector, in the department of Prevention of Food. Adulteration, Delhi Administration, visited on 27th April 1983 the premises of M/s. Imperial Dairy, H-32, Rajouri Garden, New Delhi. Kasturi Lal respondent was present at the said dairy and conducting the business. After disclosing his identity, R.P. Singh took sample of cow's milk. That milk was sent to the Public Analyst for analysis. A report of the Public Analyst was received that the milk was adulterated on account of deficiency for the non-fatty solids. At the request of Kasturi Lal respondent sample of milk w...
Atma Steels (P) Ltd. Vs. Harbir Singh
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-01-1985
Reported in: 29(1986)DLT456; 1986(10)DRJ216; 1986RLR73
J.D. Jain, J.(1) The controversy in this second appeal against order dated 8th August 1984 of the Rent Control Tribunal lies in a narrow compass ; the crucial question which falls for consideration bearing whether an order under Section 15(2) of the Delhi Rent Control Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') can be made in a petition for recovery of possession of the demised premises under a limited tenancy created under Section 21 of the Act.(2) The facts germane to the disposal of this appeal succinctly are that a limited tenancy for a period of three years with effect from 1st August 79 was created in respect of premises bearing No. E-25, defense Colony, New Delhi, pursuant to the permission granted by an Additional Rent Controller, Delhi, vide order dated 31st July 1979 under Section 21 of the Act. On the expiry of the period of tenancy the respondent-landlord moved an application through his General Attorney Mrs. Sushila Lochan Singh for being put back into possession of the dem...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »