Delhi Court March 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.
Sabra Begum and ors. Vs. Mohd. Lkhiaq
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-19-1986
Reported in: 1986(11)DRJ113
G.C. Jain, J.(1) This second appeal is directed against the judgment and the decree of a learned Addl. District Judge dated May 9, 1983 confirming the judgment and the decree of a Subordinate Judge 1st class dated November 7, 1981.(2) The dispute is in respect of property bearing No. 11/932, Haveli Aazam Khan. Chilli Qabar, Delhi It was admittedly an acquired evacuee property and was purchased by the respondent Mohd. lkhiaq in a public auction held on November 7, 1964. The sale certificate was issued in bids favor on July 30, 1965, the sale being effective from July 20, 1965.(3) On September 1, 1971 Mohd lkhiaq brought a suit for possession of the said property against Mohd. Sadiq (since deceased and represented by the present appellants). The possession was claimed on the averments that the defendant was in possession of the said property unlawfully and had no- right to remain in the same.(4) MOHD. Sadiq died on November 1, 1976 His legal representatives, the appellants, were brought ...
White Hill Vs. Delhi Development Authority and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-18-1986
Reported in: 30(1986)DLT234; 1986(11)DRJ33
J.D. Jain, J.(1) The facts given rise to this revision petition succinctly are that the petitioner is a partnership firm carrying on the business of dry-cleaning on the ground floor of premises No. L-28, Kirti Nagar, New Delhi. At the relevant time Gulab Rai and his two sons VishanLal and Darshan Lal were partners in the petitioner firm. Shri Virender Bhatia, Junior Engineer of the respondent Delhi Development Authority inspected the premises in question on 5th August 1978 and found that the entire ground floor thereof was being used for commercial purpose viz. dry-cleaning business of the petitioner firm. Since the user was in contravention of the Zonal Development Plan, he made a report Ex. Public Witness 1/A to this effect to the concerned officer. As a sequel thereto, a show-cause notice dated 10th August, 1978 was issued to the petitioner, Gulab Rai and his two sons Vishan Lal and Darshan . Lal as to why they should not be prosecuted for contravention of the provisions contained i...
Chandrakant Vs. Shafiq Ahmed and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-18-1986
Reported in: 1985CriLJ1137; 30(1986)DLT35; 1986(11)DRJ207; 1986RLR538
B.N. Kirpal, J. (1) The appellant-here in is the owner of property Nos. 3580 and 3)82, Main Bazar, Lal K.uan, Delhi. The respondents are admittedly bids tenants. (2) The appellant filed an application for eviction of the respondents. The application was filed claiming eviction under sections 14(l)(a) and 14(l)(c) of the Delhi Rent Control Act. According to the appellant the tenants bad not paid arrears of rent with effect from 10th March, 1959. It was also alleged that the premises were let out for use as a shop and a godown but the tenants had wrongfully and illegally converted the rooms on the first as well as ground floors into regular factory without the written consent of the appellant. (3) The respondents denied the allegations contained in the petition. According to the respondents they were not liable to be evicted either under section 14(l)(a) or 14(l)(c) of the Act. (4) In the petition it bad been stated that notices of demand had been issued by the appellant on 3rd June, 196...
N.C. Sippy and anr. Vs. Prem Kumar
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-18-1986
Reported in: 30(1986)DLT55
J.D. Jain, J.(1) This 'petition under Section 482, Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as 'the Code') is directed against order dated 12th September 1984 of a Metropolitan Magistrate summoning the petitioners to face trial for offence under Section 63 of the Copy Rights Act (for short 'the Act') and Sections 4651467134 4651467134 , Indian Penal Code (for short Indian Penal Code '). (2) The facts giving rise to this petition succinctly are that the respondent-Prem Kumar is carrying on the business of film making under the name and style of M/s. Belco Movies at Bhagirath Palace, Chandni Chowk, Delhi. The said firm is a member of the Motion Pictures Association, Delhi. On 4th September 1984 he instituted a complaint against Shri Hira Sobhachand Choithramani and ten others under Section 63 of the Act and Sections 465, 467, 468, 471 & 380, 1PC. He has averred that Shri Hira Sobhagchand Choithramani, accused No. 1, was the managing director of M/s. Esquire Video Films Service...
Neelima Chopra Vs. Anil Chopra
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-17-1986
Reported in: 1986(11)DRJ188
B.N. Kirpal, J.(1) The petitioner had filed a petition under Section 13B(1) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 wherein she had prayed for divorce by mutual consent.(2) On 22nd August, 1984 the preliminary statements of the parties were recorded by the Addl. District Judge and the case was adjourned leaving the parties to apply for its hearing after the expiry of the prescribed period.(3) After the passing of the aforesaid order, it is stated that the parties continued to live separately. The petitioner-herein in fact got a job and has gone out of India. The parties had agreed that there was no hope of reconciliation and a second and final application under Section 13B(2) of the said Act was filed.(4) The petitioner could not appear in person in Delhi due to her pre-occupation outside India and she then executed a power of attorney dated 23rd December, 1985 in favor of her counsel. The petitioner also sent affidavit testifying to the execution of the power of attorney. The attorney was aut...
Accurate Engineering Co. and ors. Vs. Collector of Central Excise and
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Mar-14-1986
Reported in: (1986)(8)ECC1
1. Appeals Nos. E. 399/81-D and E. 1387/81-D involving similar issues, had come up before Special Bench "D" on 27-6-1985. The issue is whether "Needle Cages" or "Needle Roller Cages" are classifiable under item 49 or under item 68 of the First Schedule to the Central Excises and Salt Act. 1944 (CET for short). The very issue had earlier come up before the Special Bench in the case of M Is. Needle Roller Bearing Co. Ltd., Aurangabad and the Bench, vide its orders Nos. 140 and 141/84-D, dated 12-3 1984 1984 (17) E.L.T. 469 had held that the goods were classifiable under item 68.CET. When the appeals of Accurate Engineering Co. and Universal Engineering Co. came up before the Bench on 27-6-1985, the Departmental representative submitted that certain material aspects had not been placed before the Bench when it heard the Needle Roller Bearing Co. case and that taking into account these aspects, classification should be held to be under item 49, CET.2. The Bench, after hearing both sides, ...
Collector of Central Excise Vs. Lucas T
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Mar-14-1986
Reported in: (1986)(8)LC207Tri(Delhi)
1. Collector of Central Excise, Madras has filed an appeal being aggrieved from order in appeal No. 136/82 (M) dated 12-4-1982 passed by the Appellate Collector of Central Excise, Madras. In column No. 3 of the memorandum of appeal the date of service has been mentioned as 12;4-1982. The appellant had moved an application for amendment of the appeal and has requested for making the amendment to the effect that the date had been wrongly written as 12-4-1982 against the correct date of 27-4-1982. By a separate order dated 20-2-1986, the amendment of the appeal was allowed to the effect that para No. 3 of form E. A.3 should be read as 27-4-1982. In terms of the provisions of Sub-section (3) of Section 35B of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 the appeal was to be filed within three months. By virtue of the provisions of Removal of Difficulties Order No. GSR 597(E), dated 11-10-1982 the appeal could have been filed within six months. The appellant has filed an application for condonat...
Commercial Aviation and Travel Co. (inc.) and ors. Vs. Vimla Panna Lal
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-14-1986
Reported in: AIR1986Delhi439; 30(1986)DLT46; 1986RLR362
Yogeshwar Dayal, J. (1) This is an appeal under Section 10 of the Delhi High Court Act against the decision of learned Single Judge dated 24th September, 1985. (2) Before the learned Single Judge, the appellant (defendant) had claimed two reliefs in his application, I.A. No. 5279185 The first relief was that Issue No. I, as to whether the suit of the plaintiff is properly valued for the purpose of court fee and jurisdiction, if not, to what effect, be treated as a preliminary issue; and, secondly, that the plaint be rejected as the plaintiff has deliberately and intentionally under-valued the relief for purpose of court fee and jurisdiction (3) In the plaint the suit is valued for the purposes of jurisdiction at Rs 25,00,0001- and for purposes of court fee at Rs. 500.00 . (4) Before the learned Single Judge, the counsel for the defendant referred to various paragraphs of the plaint with a view to show that the plaintiffs have arbitrarily valued the suit for purposes of court fee and he...
Pritam Dass and ors. Vs. State and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-14-1986
Reported in: 1986(2)Crimes401; ILR1987Delhi561; 1986RLR336
J.D. Jain, J.(1) This Revision Petition has a chequered history. The facts giving rise to this petition succinctly are that Radha Kishan Vij, petitioner No. 2, was formerly residing as a tenant in house No. H-5/13, Krishan Nagar, Delhi, belonging to Hans Raj father of Ashok Kumar. respondent No. 2. At the relevant time he was residing at house No. C-25, New Govind Puri, East Delhi. On 9th April 1970 he lodged a complaint with the Officer in charge, Police Post Krishan Nagar against Ashok Kumar, respondent No. 2 alleging that the latter was shadowing his daughter Miss Vanita, who was employed at Pusa Institute and as such bad to go to her office every day. Respondent No. 2 would even pass indecent remarks on seeing her with the result that all of them including Vanita were very much perturbed. Radha Kishan had brought this fact to the notice of Ashok Kumar's father but in vain. So he requested the police to save them from the activities of Ashok Kumar who was a rowdy and was harassing t...
M.S. Kochar Vs. the State and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-14-1986
Reported in: ILR1986Delhi142
J.D. Jain, J.(1) The facts giving rise to this criminal revision under Section 397 read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as 'the Code'), in brief are that the complainant was carrying on business as Managing Director of the firm M/s. House of German Machinery and was also functioning as an industrial consultant engineer at the relevant time. He was also the sole representative in India of various manufacturing concerns of repute of Western Germany. The petitioner imported certain machinery from Germany for displaying the same in the International Industries Fair held in November 1961 after obtaining a val?d Customs Clearance Permit from the Chief Controller of Imports, New Delhi, for the said purpose. When the goods arrived at Delhi the aforesaid exhibition was already in progress but the goods could not be cleared on account of certain objections raised by the Customs Department who refused to release the goods. Eventually, however, the petit...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »