Delhi Court February 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.
State Vs. Dinesh Kumar
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-14-1986
Reported in: 1986CriLJ1527; 1986(11)DRJ1
Malik Sharief-ud-din, J. (1) This appeal is again it the acquittal recorded by Additional Sessions Judge, Delhi, on 8-5-85 in favor of the respondent under Section 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act (for short Pfa Act). Earlier, learned Metropolitan Magistrate by his order dated 12-6-84 had found the respondent guilty and had sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for one year and a fine of Rs. 5000.00 In default of payment of the fine, the respondent had to undergo simple imprisonment for five months.(2) The field staff Delhi Administration on 14-10-82 at 2.30 p.m. had lifted a sample of 'Suji' from the premises of M/s. Aggarwal Provisions Store, B-69/1, Main Market, Bhajan Pura, Delhi. The sample was sold by Dinesh Kumar respondent to Public Witness 3 Gian Chand, Food Inspector. After sampling the Suji according to the rules, the sample thereof was sent to the Public Analyst who on analysis found the sample containing 26 living and dead insects.(3) The acquittal was mainl...
Savitri Balchandani Vs. Mulchand Balchandani
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-14-1986
Reported in: AIR1987Delhi52; 1986(11)DRJ297
Mahinder Narain, J.(1) This is a wife's appeal against the order passed by Shri Rc Jain, District Judge, Delhi on 23rd March, 1984. The Additional District Judge has dissolved the marriage between the parties by granting divorce under Section 13(1)(ia) and (ib) of the Hindu Marriage Act (hereinafter called 'the Act'). The Additional District Judge has left the parties to bear their own costs.(2) The marriage between the parties was performed according to the Hindu rites at Ajmer, Rajasthan on 17-8-1949.(3) A son, named Kalyan was born to the parties on 21-9-51.(4) It is stated in the petition filed by the respondent-husband that in the year 1951. he was sponsored by the University of Bombay to go to London. Before going to London, he requested the wife to accompany him to London, but she refused to do so. It was stated that the husband returned, after his visit to London, at the end of October, 1953 and on his return, he found the behavior of the wife to be cruel and not submissive ; a...
Shri Sat Pal Vs. Collector of Customs and Central
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Feb-13-1986
Reported in: (1987)(10)LC520Tri(Delhi)
1. These appeals are directed against two Orders-in-original passed by the Collector of Customs and Central Excise, Chandigarh. One order, viz. No. 18/Cus/83 dated 3.10.1983 was passed by the Collector under the Customs Act, 1962 and the other order, viz. No. 4/Gold/83 dated 3.10.1983 was passed under the Gold (Control) Act, 1968. By the Order-in-Original passed under the Customs Act, the Collector absolutely confiscated the seized 10 gold bars of 10 tolas each weighing 100 tolas under Section 111 of the Customs Act and imposed a penalty of 20,000/- under Section 112 of the Act. Under the said order he confiscated the seized Indian currency of Rs. 5200/- under Section 121 of the Customs Act and 3 rubberised knee caps under Section 119 ibid. By the Order-in-Original No. 4/Gold/83 under the Gold (Control) Act, the Collector held the seized gold bars weighing 100 tolas liable to be confiscated under Section 71 of the Gold (Control) Act, but since the said gold bars stood confiscated unde...
Collector of Central Excise Vs. Hindustan Lever Limited
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Feb-13-1986
Reported in: (1986)(6)LC564Tri(Delhi)
1. The facts, in so far material, in this application for condonation of delay in filing the appeal, preferred by the Collector of Central Excise, Meerut, are as follows, on the basis of an affidavit sworn by the applicant and other relevant papers on record :- (a) The Order-in-Appeal dated 4-7-1984, now the subject-matter of an appeal before us, was received in the applicants' office on 19-11-1984; (b) the applicant had authorised the Assistant Collector Central Excise Division III, Ghaziabad, to file the instant appeal on 16-2-1985; (d) the authorisation was, for a fact, received by the Assistant Collector, Ghaziabad, on 19-2-1985 (The Receipt Register from the Asstt. Collector's office produced at our instance). That was the last day for filing the appeal itself; (e) The appeal was actually filed on 28-3-1985 in the office of the Tribunal; (f) There was, therefore, a delay of nearly 36 days in filing the appeal after the expiry of the limitation on 19-2-1985; (g) Between 8-2-1985 a...
Harbans Lal Khetrapal and ors. Vs. Balbir Singh and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-13-1986
Reported in: 30(1986)DLT66
Charanjit Talwar, J. (1) By this petition, the petitioners Harbans Lal, Kapil Khetrapal and Mrs. Suniti, (son and wife respectively of the first petitioner) are challenging the order dated August 7, 1984 passed by Shri S.K. Kaushik, Metropolitan Magistrate, New Delhi, whereby the petitioners were summoned for an offence under Sections 3 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act and also under Sections 384 and 406 Indian Penal Code read with Section 120-B of the Code. (2) That order is a short one, it may be quoted 'I have heard the learned counsel for the complainants gone through the evidence led by the complainants in support of their complaint and also considered the documents relied upon by them. I am satisfied that the complainants have made out a prima facie case against accused Harbans Lal Khetrapal, Mrs. Suniti Khetrapal and Kapil under Sections 3 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 and Section 384 and 406 Indian Penal Code read with Section 120-B. The learned counsel for the com...
Anju Bhargava Vs. Rajesh Bhargava
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-13-1986
Reported in: ILR1986Delhi355; 1986RLR354
Mahinder Narain, J.(1) This is a wife's appeal against an order of the Additional District Judge dated 12th October, 1983. The Additional District Judge, had, on a petition filed by the appellant, Smt. Anju Bhargava under Section 13(1)(ia) decreed her petition or dissolution of marriage by a decree of divorce. (2) The petition was not contested before the District Judge. During the pendency of the petition under Section 13(1)(ia), the petitioner filed an application under Section 27 of the Hindu Marriage Act (hereinafter called 'The Act') on 9-5-83. By this application she had prayed that the properties which are mentioned in the schedule, filed along with it, be ordered to be given to the petitioner-wife. (3) The District Judge dealt with the petition under Section 13(1)(ia) and the application under Section 27 of the Act by the same order. The District Judge had come to the conclusion that the application, under Section 27 of the Hindu Marriage Act by the petitioner wife, was not mai...
Gill and Co. and ors. Vs. Bimla Kumari Jolly
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-13-1986
Reported in: 1986(11)DRJ228; 1986RLR370
J.D. Jain, J. (1) The facts giving rise to this second appeal by the tenant M/s. Gill and Company Pvt. Ltd. appellant No 1, and Sohan Lal Ahuja, appellant No 2 succinctly are that the premises in question viz, a portion of property No. A-41. Kirti Nagar, New Delhi were let to appellant No. 1 (hereinafter referred to as 'the tenant company') at the rate of Rs. 750.00 per month way back in 1966. Sohan Lal Ahuja, appellant No. 2 wa(r) employed with appellant No. 1 as Manager at Delhi and he was put into occupation of the same for residence in his capacity as Manager. On 12th February 1975, the respondent landlady moved an application for eviction of the appellants on the grounds of (a) non-payment of rent ; miss-user , (c) bonafide requirement as residence for herself and members of her family ; and (d) Sub-letting, assignment or parting with possession of the demised premises by appellant No. I in favor of appellant No. 2. The eviction petition was contested hotly by the appellants on va...
S.K. Gambhir Vs. T.R. Pahwa and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-13-1986
Reported in: ILR1986Delhi635b
J. D. Jain, J. (1) Both these appeals arise out of judgment dated 17th December 1984 of Rent Control Tribunal directing eviction of the appellant-tenant on the grounds under Clauses (a) and (e) of the proviso to Section 14 of the Delhi Rent Control Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). (2) The facts giving rise to these appeals in brief are that late Lt. Ge.n. T. R. Pahwa (Retd.) was the owner of property bearing No. D-318, defense Colony, New Delhi. He let out the same to the appellant-S. K. Gambhir by a registered lease- deed dated 1st July 1973 for a period of three years with effect from 10th July 1974. The agreed rate of rent was Rs. 1,000 per month. However, a sum of Rs. 280 per month was to be deducted there from by the tenant out of the amount of Rs. 10,000 which had been given by the lessee as advance for electing structural changes in the demised premises It was agreed that the said amount would be adjusted over a period of three years by monthly deductions of Rs. 280. ...
Manju Grover Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-12-1986
Reported in: 30(1986)DLT270; 1986(10)DRJ339; 1986RLR275
Malik Sharief-ud-din, J. (1) The appellant Miss Manju Groyer (hereinafter for short known as Manju) was charged by the Additional Sessions Judge Delhi, under Section 302 Indian Penal Code for committing murder of one Bhagwanti Grover. She was found guilty and was convicted and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life. Aggrieved with this order she has filed this appeal. (2) The date of incident is 2.1.79 near-about 3 Pm and a report in, this respect is lodged by one Shri D.D. Grover, son of the deceased at police station Rajinder Nagar. We may quote the report he made in verbatim which is as under :- 'THAT his mother was alone on the ground floor of house No. R. 808. New Rajinder Nagar and when in the evening he returned to his house he found darkness and despite repeated knocks he did not: hear any response from her.'(3) This report was lodged at 6.25 PM. Consequent to this report S.I .Puran Chand Public Witness 20 goes to the spot. Om Parkash constable scales the back wall of the h...
Narndhari Body Builders Vs. Raj Kumari and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-12-1986
Reported in: 29(1986)DLT505; 1986(10)DRJ345
G.C. Jain, J. (1) This second appeal is directed against the order of the Rent Control Tribunal dated August 5, 1982. (2) The dispute is in respect of property No. WZ-40,PhoolBagb, Rohtak Road, Delhi. These premises were admittedly let out by Naurattan Chand to Harbans Lal on a monthly rent of Rs. 425.00 vide lease deed dated August 22, 1966. The tenant, admittedly, sub let a part of the premises to the present appellant (M/s. Namdhari Body Builders). The landlord, it appears, took objection to the sub letting and served a notice on the tenant in this behalf. A compromise was arrived at between the landlord and the tenant on April 1, 1970. The agreed rent was increased to Rs. 500.00 per month and the said sub letting as condoned. This compromise was witnessed by Nirmal Singh, proprietor of the appellant-firm. (3) On January 29, 1973 the landlord filed a petition under clauses (a) and (b) of the proviso to Sub-section (1) of Section 14 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (for short 'the...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 8
- 9
- Next ›
- Last »