Delhi Court January 1986 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.
Ram Kumar and Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-15-1986
Reported in: ILR1987Delhi480
Aggarwal, J.(1) Karambir Singh son of Balbir Singh aged about 20, years and Ram Kumar son of Chhotu aged about 17-112 years (ago found by the Additional Sessions Judge to be 18 years as on 9th May 1980 on the basis of the medical report) residence of village Tajpur were tried on the charges under sections 376 and 302 of the Indian Penal Code in the Court of Shri G. S. Dakha, Additional Sessions Judge. The charges against them were that on the night of 28th-29th April 1980 at about 10 p.m. they had in the house of Tara Chand raped Kumari Kamlesh, daughter of Tara Chand, and thereafter murdered her. The Additional Sessions Judge found both the accused guilty of the offences charged with and sentenced each one of them to life imprisonment on the charge under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and to rigorous imprisonment for 7 years on the charge under section 376 of the Indian Penal Code. Dissatisfied with their convictions and sentences both the accused have come in appeal. The compla...
Collector of Central Excise Vs. Mizar Govinda Annappa Pai and Sons
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jan-14-1986
Reported in: (1986)(9)ECC176
1. In this proceeding, initiated pursuant to a notice to show cause issued in terms of Section 36(2) of the Central Excises and Salt. Act, 1944 (hereinafter, the Act for short) as it read at the relevant time, transferred to and heard by the Tribunal as if it were an appeal by virtue of the provisions of Section 35-P of the Act, a question of the bar of limitation for the issue of the notice itself had been raised by Shri Mitral, Advocate, for the respondent and heard by us as a.preliminary issue on 30-8-1985 and again on 22-11-1985.2. The facts relevant for the appreciation of the question as to whether the notice, ostensibly, under Section 36(2) of the Act, was barred by limitation, are-- a) the Appellate Collector decided an appeal by the respondent against an order of adjudication dated 15-12-1978 in favour of the respondent on 20-3-1980; b) the aforesaid notice to show cause was admittedly issued on 5-1-1981.3. Section 36(2) of the Act at the relevant time and Section 11-A in so ...
Annasaheb Bapu Bhagate Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jan-14-1986
Reported in: (1986)LC503Tri(Delhi)
1. The appellant is Shri Annasaheb Bapu Bhagate. A show cause notice had been issued to him and three other persons with reference to the 4 powerlooms acquired by each of them and installed in Village Nandani.In a survey conducted by the officers of the Textile Commissioner, Bombay it had been discovered that the textile permits on the basis of which the licences had been initially issued to the owners of the powerlooms at Ichalkaranji (from whom the appellant and three others had acquired the powerlooms) was fake and forged.2. Thereupon show cause notice had been issued to the said four persons and on receipt of their reply adjudication proceedings had followed. By his order dated 7-12-1980 the Asstt. Collector of Central Excise, Kolhapur rejected the contentions of the appellant and the other three.He confirmed the duty demanded under the show cause notices. The appeals preferred by the said four persons against the said order was dismissed by the Collector of Central Excise (Appeal...
Paisa Fund Glass Works Vs. Collector of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jan-14-1986
Reported in: (1989)(44)ELT683TriDel
1. M/s. Paisa Fund Glass Works, Talegaon Dabhade, Distt. Pune had filed a revision application to the Additional Secretary, Government of India, Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue, New Delhi being aggrieved from order in revision F.No. V.23A(30) 117/TB/78/275, dated 23-3-1981 passed by the Collector of Central Excise and Customs, Pune.After coming into existence of the Tribunal the said revision application stands transferred to the Tribunal under Section 35P of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944.2. Briefly the facts of the case are that the appellant is a manufacturer of glass and glassware. The appellant had filed classification list No. 55/79 effective from 1-3-1979 and No. 74/79 effective from 12-12-1979 classifying their goods viz. Lenses which are used in Railway, Navy and Road Traffic Signals under Tariff Item 68 of the Central Excise Tariff for approval to the concerned Range Supdt.The Superintendent held that the said lenses were correctly classifiable under Tarif...
Dalmia Dairy Industries Ltd. Vs. Income-tax Officer
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Decided on: Jan-14-1986
Reported in: (1986)19ITD61(Delhi)
1. These are two appeals filed by the assessee and one cross-objection filed by the department. They arise out of the order dated 31-10-1984 of the learned Commissioner (Appeals) as rectified by the subsequent order dated 22-2-1985 under Section 154 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('the Act').2. The assessee is Dalmia Dairy Industries Limited, a limited company.Its status is that of a resident and ordinarily resident. The assessee-company ceased to be the subsidiary company of Dalmia Cement (Bharat) Limited with effect from 31-1-1975. It has a factory at Bharatpur where milk powder and ghee is manufactured. It has an export unit known as Dalmia Udyog and a mining unit known as Dalmia Cement Industries. The assessee has branches and depots at Delhi, Ghaziabad, Indore, Chandigarh, Digma, Ambala, Gauhati, Bombay, Calcutta, etc. Its business consists of the production of skimmed milk powder, butter and ghee as also the export of ready-made garments. It also exported ghee, hand tools and blade...
Mangat Ram Vs. the State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-14-1986
Reported in: 30(1986)DLT23
G.R. Luthra, J.(1) The present appeal is directed against a judgment dated December 22, 1984 of Shir Mahesh Chandra, Additional Sessions Judge, New Delhi convicting the appellant for commission of offences punishable under sections 366 and 376 Indian Penal Code and his order dated January 4, 1983 sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years and to pay a fine of Rs. 200.00 in default of payment of which to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for six months for the offence punishable under section 366 Ipc and further sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years and to pay a fine of Rs. 200.00 in default of payment of which to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months for the offence punishable under section 376 IPC. The sentences of imprisonment were directed to run concurrently. (2) Miss Roshni Devi (Public Witness 1) is a daughter of Mattu Ram (Public Witness 3). She was living with her parents in house No. Rzc 14, Sagarpur West, New Delhi. The...
Sohan Lal Vs. Krishan Chander Ramesh Chander and Bros. and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-13-1986
Reported in: 1986(2)ARBLR261(Delhi); ILR1986Delhi346
G.R. Luthra, J.(1) THE present petition under sections 5 and 11 of the Indian Arbitration Act is either turn revoking the authority of the arbitrator or removing him and for superseding the arbitration.(2) ON an application under section 20 of the Arbitration Act filed by M/s. Krishan Chander Ramesh Chander & Bros. (respondent No. 1), Avadh Behari J. vide order dated August 24, 1981 referred the dispute between the petitioner and respondent No. 1 to an arbitrator to be appointed by Delhi Hindustan Mercantile Association, (hereinafter referred to as the Association). The said association appointed Shri Mohan Lal, respondent No. 3 as the arbitrator.(3) THE allegations of the petitioner are that Shri Mohan Lal, arbitrator is partial and biased towards the petitioner and that, thereforee, either permission be given under section 5 of the Arbitration Act to revoke his authority or he should be removed under section 11 of the Arbitration Act and the arbitration be superseded. The petition is...
Ram Lal and ors. Vs. Parvinder Singh and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-13-1986
Reported in: 1986(10)DRJ188
H.C. Goel, J.(1) Parvinder Singh Monga, respondent No. I, had filed a complaint on July 27, 1977under Sections 406/420/468/471/120B Indian Penal Code in the court of the Metropolitan Magistrate, New Delhi, against six persons including the petitioners, Ram Lal and Subhash Jain, partners of All India Travel Services, Janpath, New Delhi. In that complaint all the six accused persons were summoned by the learned Magistrate by his order date December 16, 1977 for the offence punishable under Section 406/34 IPC. The petitioners preferred a criminal revision petition against the order summoning them in that complaint. S.S. Jolly and 0.P. Trehan two of the other accused also filed a separate criminal revision petition for quashing the order of summoning and the complaint as filed against them. Yogeshwar Dayal, Judge by his order date July 30, 1979 allowed both the revision petitions and the proceedings against four of the six accused were quashed. Parvinder Singh Monga complainant, respondent...
The Punjab Paint Colour and Varnish Works Vs. Union of India (Uoi)
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-13-1986
Reported in: 1986(1)ARBLR216(Delhi); 29(1986)DLT269
H.C. Goel, J.1. This is a petition under Sections 8 and 20 of the Arbitration Act with the prayer that the arbitration agreement as entered into between the parties may be filed in this Court and the matters in dispute as formulated in Clauses (a) to (f) of para 16 of the petition may be referred to arbitrator as per the arbitration agreement as entered into between the parties. The respondent/Union of India in reply did not raise any objection to the reference of disputes as contained in Clauses (a) to (d) of para 16 of the petition. They however, disputed that the alleged matters in dispute as contained in Clauses (e) and (f) of para 16 of the petition do not arise under the contract and were not referable to arbitration.2. On the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed:1. Whether the matters in dispute as contained in Clauses (e) & (f) of para 16 of the petition are covered by the arbitration clause and are also liable to be referred to arbitration? 2. Relief. Fi...
Anant Kumari Vs. Prem Pal Chatrath and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-13-1986
Reported in: 29(1986)DLT255
G.C. Jain, J.1. This second appeal is directed against the judgment of the Rent Control Tribunal dated August 23, 1974.2. The dispute is in respect of first floor of property No. 543, New Rajinder Nagar, New Delhi. On February 26, 1969 the applicant Smt. Anant Kumari brought a petition for eviction of the respondents Prem Pal Chatrath and Mahesh Chatrath from the said premises on the allegation that the premises had been let out by her to Prem Pal Chatrath on a monthly rent of Rs. 65/- per month in 1965. He had sub-let, assigned or otherwise parted with possession of the premises in dispute to Mahesh Chatrath. It was also and was not living in the premises for the last more than 10 months.3. The petition was resisted by the respondents. It was alleged that both of them were brothers and co=tenants in the premises. In the alternative it was pleaded that Mahesh Chatrath-respondent No. 2, was living in he premises as member of family the of Prem Pal Chatrath and was dependant on him for r...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 7
- 8
- 9
- Next ›
- Last »