Delhi Court September 1985 Judgments
Home Cases Delhi 1985 Page 3 of about 65 results (0.021 seconds)Vishnu Swarup Vs. the State (Delhi Administration)
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1986CriLJ1166; 1986(10)DRJ180
G.R. Luthra, J. (1) The present petition, filed under Section 397 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, is directed against the judgment of Shri K..B. Andley, Additional Sessions Judge, Delhi dismissing an appeal against the judgment dated 21st December, 1984 of Metropolitan Magistrate, Delhi and upholding the conviction of the petitioner under Sections 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') and sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay a fine of Rs. 4,000.00 in default of payment of which, to undergo further simple imprisonment for four months. (2) The petitioner is running a kiryana shop under the name and style of M/s. Vishnu Kiryana Store at 1435, Ganeshpura, Tri Nagar, Delhi. His godown is located nearby in premises No. 1433/98, where he used to store spices etc. According to the respondent on 26th May 1980 at about 3.30 p.m. P.K. Vats, Food Inspector lifted sample of chillies powder from the shop of the p...
Tag this Judgment!A.P. Sarthi Vs. Delhi Administration
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1989(2)Crimes144; 1986(10)DRJ291
G.R. Luthra, J. (1) The present petition is for grant of bail to A. P. Sarthi, petitioner, who according to the prosecution, along with a number of co-accused committed offences punishable under Sections 3, 5 and 9 of the Official Secrets Act read with Section 120B IPC. (2) S.L. Maneklal Industries Pvt. Ltd. has its head office at Bombay and branch office at 10, Hailey Road, New Delhi. Yogesh T. Maneklal was managing director of the said company while Coomer Narain was manager in charge of the Delhi office. The aforesaid . company was having dealings and collaboration with different firms in Germany, France, Poland, etc. (3) The case of the prosecution briefly is as follows. The foreigners wanted to exploit the assistance they were rendering to the running of the Company and wanted to obtain secret information with respect to policy of the Government of India concerning industrial finances, foreign collaboration, foreign investments as well as the one relating to defense of the country...
Tag this Judgment!Sunita Bhutani Vs. Sat Pal
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 28(1985)DLT472
Charanjit Talwar, J.(1) By this petition Smt. Sunita Bhutani has challenged the legality and correctness of the order passed on 5th May, 1984, by an Additional Sessions Judge, Delhi, whereby the monthly maintenance of Rs. 300.00 awarded to her from the date of the application, i.e , 29th January, 1982, was modified to the following extent. The amount of maintenance was reduced to Rs. 250.00 per month and it was directed that it be paid from the date of the order of the Magistrate, I.e., 6th January, 1984, and not from the date of the application. (2) The learned Additional Sessions Judge has upheld the conclusion of the learned Magistrate who decided the petition under section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. He affirmed the finding that the petitioner-wife had been thrown out of her matrimonial house and that there was a definite threat to her. The further finding that it was on account of the unruly behavior of the husband-respondent herein, that the petitioner was forced to le...
Tag this Judgment!Ram Kumar Vs. Virender Kumar and ors.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1986(1)ARBLR341(Delhi); 29(1986)DLT17
G.C. Jain, J.1. This is a tenant's appeal from the order of the learned Rent Control Tribunal dated February 18, 1982. It was filed on July 6, 1985. It being barred by time the appellants has also filed an application (CM 1908/85) for condensation of delay.2. The dispute is in respect of a shop No. WZ 67 (New No. 2252) Raja Park, Shakur Basti, Delhi. It was let out to the appellant by Sohan Lal (since deceased) on June 5, 1964. On December 13, 1976 the landlord brought an application for recovery of the possession of the said shop under Clauses (a) (c), (f) and (j) of the proviso to Sub-section (1) of Section 14 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (for short 'the Act').3. The petition was resisted. In these proceedings an order under Section 15(1) of 'the Act' made on October 26, 1977 directing the tenant to pay or deposit the arrears of rent at the rate of Rs. 35/- per month with effect from July 1, 1974 within one month of the order and also to continue to pay or deposit the figure r...
Tag this Judgment!Gulzar Singh and anr. Vs. Chand Gupta
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 29(1986)DLT50; 1986(10)DRJ234; 1985RLR611
G.C. Jain, J.(1) This is a second appeal from the order of the Tribunal dated July 18,1981 dismissing the appeal of the appellants against the order of the Addl. Controller dated December 1, 1978 directing their eviction from the shop in dispute. (2) On January 12,1976 Siri Chand Gupta, respondent/landlord brought a petition for recovery of possession of the shop No. Wz 258/4. Subhash Bazar, Nangal Raya, New Jail Road. New Delhi on the averments that the said shop had been let out by him to Gulzar Singh (appellant No. 1) on a monthly rent of Rs. 80.00 in May, 1968 and he had sub let, assigned or otherwise parted with the possession of the shop to Avtar Singh (appellant No. 2) without his consent in writing It was also averred that the tenant had not paid the arrears of rent due from December 1, 1972 in spite of notice of demand. (3) The petition was resisted by the appellants. Main pleas raised were that the shop had been let out to both of them. They were real brothers and living and ...
Tag this Judgment!Shri Ganesh Dyeing and Textile Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1985)(5)LC2500Tri(Delhi)
1. In this case, a huge lot of art silk fabrics cleared by the appellants and described in the accompaying statutory gate passes as viscose X viscose were seized at Surat in the reasonable belief that they contained synthetic (non-cellulosic) yarn. On chemical test, the fabrics were found to be of nylon X viscose composition which made them liable to higher tariff values and consequently higher amount of central excise duty. In the follow-up action, a small part (87 pieces) out of the same lot of goods and carrying the same brand name "Roop Rani" were seized at the premises of a dealer at Ahmedabad also. On stock-taking, certain shortages and other irregularities were noticed in the appellants' factory. On adjudication of all the violations noticed, the Collector confiscated the fabrics involved, giving option for their release on payment of redemption fine, demanded difference in duty which was found to be payable and further imposed a penalty of rupees one lakh on the appellants und...
Tag this Judgment!Municipal Corporation of Delhi Vs. Ram Dass and anr.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 35(1988)DLT96
Charanjit Talwar, J.(1) As common question of law arises in all these appeals this judgment disposes of all of them. (2) The appeals have been filed by the Municipal Corporation of Delhi. It is the admitted case of the parties that these appeals were filed after the expiry of 60 days from the date of the respective impugned orders. The understanding, it appears, of the Municipal Corporation of Delhi at the relevant time was that the period for filing the appeals against the orders of acquittal is six months. It is further admitted that the offence in each of the cases was committed prior to 1st April 1976. The first question which arises in these appeals is whether they were filed within time. This very question arose for consideration in Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. S.K. Jain and others, : 27(1985)DLT52 . After analysing the case law on this point, a Division Bench held that the period of limitation for filing an appeal by the Municipal Corporation of Delhi in cases where the off...
Tag this Judgment!Dharma and ors. Vs. Roop Ram
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 28(1985)DLT35; 1985(9)DRJ273
G.C. Jain, J. (1) This petition by the tenants is directed against the order dated May 20, 1983 made by the Additional Rent Controller, directing their eviction from the premises in dispute. (2) The dispute is in respect of a room in House No. 4777, Gali No. 46, Hardhian Singh Road, Karol Bagh, New Delhi. This room was let out to Tara Chand (predecessor-in-interest of the present petitioners) long back on a monthly rent of Rs. 251-. The respondent landlord sought an eviction of the petitioners from the said room under clause (e) of the proviso to sub-Section (1) of Section 14 of the Delhi Rent Control act (for short the Act). (3) The petitioners admitted the relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. It was also admitted that the respondent was the owner of the property in dispute. The other requirement, namely that the landlord had no other reasonably though disputed in the written statement was not disputed before me at the time of arguments. (4) Learned counsel for the...
Tag this Judgment!Gupta Trading Co. and Others Vs. Delhi Administration and Others
Court: Delhi
Reported in: [1986]62STC7(Delhi)
ORDERKhanna, J.1. The controversy raised in this writ petition is whether a dealer who has got himself registered under the Delhi Sales Tax Act, 1975, and had been issued forms ST-1 for effecting purchases without the payment of sales tax can be deprived of his unqualified right to obtain further such forms on the allegations that certain irregularities had been found in the sales which the dealer committed, though they are denied by the dealer and are subject-matter of appeals 2. The brief background is that the petitioner-firm got itself registered under the Delhi Sales Tax Act, w.e.f. 21st September, 1978. The Sales Tax Officer was then satisfied that the firm had effected purchases of Rs. 1,547 up to that date, and had sold goods worth Rs. 1,054. The dealer had then filed surety for Rs. 10,000 each under the local and Central Acts from another registered dealer in order to secure the revenue (sic). A number of ST-1 forms were then obtained by the petitioner from the sales tax depar...
Tag this Judgment!Vinod Kumar JaIn Vs. J.P. Sharma Etc.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1986CriLJ884; 1986(1)Crimes676; 1985RLR597
Malik Shrief-ud-Din (1) Earlier on 8.2.85, I passed an order quashing a complaint u/s 120-B Indian Penal Code and S. 5 of the Imports and Exports (Control) Act of 1947. This was done in Cr. R. No. 26 of 1982 Pyare Lal Aggarwal v. J.P. Sharma etc. Cr. Misc. (M) 1266/84 (Vinod Kumar Jain etc. v. J.P. Sharma and Crl. M (M) 145/84 (Arun Kumar Ramniklal Mehta etc. v. J.P. Sharma In this judgment certain observations were made which seems to have offended and hurt the State which has now come up with this petition praying that some of the remarks and observations made may be expunged from the judgment. Subsequent to this petition another petition Cr.M(M) No. 1231/85 was also moved in which one more sentence was sought to be expunged. This sentence appears at page 35 of the judgment and reads : 'What followed in the words of Mr. Singh, learned counsel in two petitions was detention and the present prosecution.' In this amended petition it was stated that if the words 'State cannot be tolerate...
Tag this Judgment!