Delhi Court October 1987 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.
Kuriniyan Saidalikutty Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-13-1987
Reported in: 1987(3)Crimes852; 33(1987)DLT350
P.K. Bahri, J. (1) This writ petition is brought under Article 226 of the Constitution of India read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, seeking writ of habeas corpus for getting released the petitioner who has been detained vide order dated October 22, 1986, passed by the Commisisoner and Secretary (Home), Government of Kerala, under Section 3 of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 (hereinafter referred to as the 'COFEPOSA ACT') with a view to preventing him from abating in the smuggling of goods and engaging himself in dealing with smuggled goods. He has also challenged the declaration given under Section 9 of the Cofeposa Act which has the effect of prolonging his detention from one year to two years.(2) It is the case of the detaining authority that on a complaint being filed by one Mohammed Ali with the Circle Inspector of Police, Civil Supplied Cell, Economic Offices Police Station,. Calicut, a case Crime No.3/86 w...
Municipal Corporation of Delhi Vs. Puran Chand
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-13-1987
Reported in: 1987(3)Crimes888; 33(1987)DLT359
Charanjit Talwar, J.(1) A school known as Sanatan Dharam School is being run in premises No. 755/VIII, Ajmeri Gate, Delhi. This building was an old building. The Municipal Corporation of Delhi (for short the Corporation) declared it as a dangerous building and notices under Sections 348 and 349 of the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act (for short the Act) were issued to the occupier for demolishing a part of the same. However, that part of the building was demolished by the Corporation itself and the demolition charges were recovered from Shri Puran Chand, the occupier, respondent herein. During the re-construction of the building, it appears that the Junior Engineer of the Corporation visited the premises on 18th June, 1981, 10th July, 1981, 20th July, 1981, 31st July, 1981,22nd August, 1981 and 24th August, 1981. On these visits it was found that Puran Chand was carrying out unauthorised construction of partition walls, of a loft, he was fixing iron girders and also constructing a stair...
India Foils Ltd. Vs. Collector of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Oct-12-1987
Reported in: (1989)(43)ELT293TriDel
1. The appellants are engaged in the manufacture and sale of aluminium foils backed with polythene and/or paper as re-in-forcing materials.The same are classified under Tariff Item 27(c) of the First Schedule.The aluminium foils are backed either in one reinforcing material by a single lamination or with more reinforcing by double or multiple laminations. The appellants contend that Item 27(c) did not indicate the duty would be liable for further laminations of foils. The Asstt.Collector was of the view that the duties are chargeable on double or multiple foils after the double or multiple laminations are completed.On appeal, the Collector confirmed the findings.2. Sh. N. Mookherjee, Ld. Counsel for the appellants submitted that the appellants are paying duty at the stage of the first backing with reinforcing materials and there was no justification for charging duty at the stage of subsequent reinforcements. He further submitted that the duty could be charged only under Tariff Item 6...
D.S. Khanijan and anr. Vs. Surinder Kumar
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-12-1987
Reported in: 34(1988)DLT57
Sunanda Bhaodare, J.(1) Surinder Kumar respondent herein filed a suit in the Court of Sub Judge, 1st Class, Delhi against the petitioners herein for permanent injunction restraining them from dispossessing the respondent- plaintiff from the premises bearing no. E-25 N.D.S.E. Part-1, New Delhi. Along with this suit, the respondent plaintiff also filed an application under Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure for an interim order against dispossession from the said premises. (2) The trial court by its order dated 2nd February 1987 granted a temporary injunction restraining the petitioners herein from dispossessing the respondent plaintiff from the said premises except by due process of law. Against this order, the petitioners herein filed an appeal in the Court of Senior Sub Judge, Delhi which appeal was also dismissed and the interim order granted by the trial court was confirmed. This revision petition is directed against the order of the lower appellate court dated 16th...
Municipal Corporation of Delhi Vs. Mugal Restaurant and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-12-1987
Reported in: 1987(3)Crimes872; 33(1987)DLT382
Charanjit Talwar, J.(1) The question whether these four appeals were filed by the Municipal Corporation of Delhi within time, falls for consideration. As this is a common question, this judgment disposes of all the said four appeals. (2) The respondents against whom the appeals were admitted are M/s Mugal Restaurant, A-30, Vishal Enclave, New Delhi and its Manager ShriSunil Kumar. Separate judgments in the four cases acquitting these two respondents and Smt. Lajwanti, stated to be the partner of the restaurant, were announced on 31st May, 1978. In all the four cases, the Corporation, who was the complainant, applied for certified copies on the 17th August, 1978. The copies were ready on 24th August, 1978. The appeals were filed on 30th November, 1978. It is apparent that the appeals were filed beyond the period of sixty days but within six months of the order of acquittal after deducting the period spent in obtaining the certified copies. The learned counsel for the appellant submits t...
Doaba Co-operative Sugar Mills Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Oct-09-1987
Reported in: (1987)(13)LC983Tri(Delhi)
1. A sum of Rs. 5,60,679.41P was sanctioned by the Assistant Collector on 17.5.1979 under notification No. 108/78 to the appellants M/s. Doaba Cooperative Sugar Mills Ltd., with reference to their excess production during the period May, June, 1978 and the same was credited in their PLA on 18.5.1979. On 5.11.1981 a notice was received by the appellants to the effect that a sum of Rs. 66,306/62P out of the amount mentioned earlier had been granted erroneously and the same was to be recredited.After the appellants had protested the Assistant Collector under his order dated 31.7.1982 discharged the notice as time barred. The Collector of Central Excise, Chandigarh issued notice dated 6.10.1982 under Section 35A(2) of the Central Excises and Salt Act for review of the said order. After hearing the appellants the Collector set aside the order of the Assistant Collector and remanded the matter for disposal by the Assistant Collector on merits. This appeal is against the said order.2. We hav...
income-tax Officer Vs. Ajit Vikram Singh
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Decided on: Oct-09-1987
Reported in: (1988)24ITD365(Delhi)
1. There are two appeals by the Department against the order of the OIT (Appeals) for the assessment years 1980-81 and 1981-82. There is a cross-objection by the assessee for the assessment year 1980-81. The assessee is an individual and for the last few years he had been declaring income from the sale of lands in Vikram Colony in Dhampur, District Bijnor. The assessee had treated this activity as his business activity and he had been assessed in respect of this business income with effect from 5-7-1976. It appears that the assessee had some agricultural land in Dhampur, which he decided to develop as a residential colony. For this purpose a plan of development was made out. The lands were divided into convenient plots for the purpose of sale. The assessee started selling plots of land from 1976. The first accounting year ended on 30-6-1977. For the purpose of converting this agricultural land into his stock-in-trade the assessee got the area intended to be used in the development of ...
Raman Kumar and ors. Vs. State (Central Bureau of Investigation) and a ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-09-1987
Reported in: 1988(1)Crimes423; 33(1987)DLT318
D.P. Wadhwa, J. (1) These two applications have been filed in the Criminal Revision 149/86 which had been disposed of by order of Jagdish Chandra, J. on June 1,1987, It is not necessary to deal with the facts given in the order dated June 1, 1987 except to state that the court considered the provisions of sections 3 and 4 of the Criminal Law Amendment Ordinance, 1944. Certain properties had been seized from the petitioners in the Criminal revision as cases under sections 420/467/468/471 and section 120BI.P.C.and section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act had been registered against them. This court held that these properties could be attached only under the provisions of sections 3 and 4 of the a fore said ordinance. It, however, granted time to the C.B.I./State Government to move an appropriate application before the District Judge under sections 3 and 4 of the Ordinance after obtaining necessary authorisation from the State Government with order that if no such application for ...
Jewels of India and ors. Vs. the State and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-09-1987
Reported in: [1990]67CompCas391(Delhi); 1987(3)Crimes754; 33(1987)DLT361A; 1988(15)ECC91; 1988(17)LC274(Delhi); 1987(32)ELT511(Del)
Malik Sharief-ud-Din, J. (1) The petitioners are aggrieved of a complaint case No. 619/1 filed against them by the Customs Authorities under sections 135 and 132 of the Customs Act in which they were charged under sec- corporation 132 of the Customs Act. The allegation against the petitioners is that they had exported a consignment of precious stones which was grossly undervalued. This consignment of the precious stones was confiscated under sec 113(d) and (i) of the Customs Act and a penalty of Rs. 50,000.00 was imposed on the petitioners under section 114 of the Customs Act by the Collector of Customs. This was taken in appeal before the Central Board of Excise and Customs, New Delhi. The Central Board of Excise and Customs has set aside the order of the Collector after allowing the appeal. In effect, the Central Board of Excise and Customs came to the conclusion that the goods were not under-valued. In short, the Central Board of Excise and Customs did not believe in the allegation ...
V. Ramanathan Vs. Kalawati and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-09-1987
Reported in: 35(1988)DLT12
Yogeshwar Dayal, C.J.(1) The present appeal is directed against the order of Shri P.K. Bhari, Rent Control Tribunal, Delhi, dated 23rd November, 1977 (As his lordship then was) ordering ejectment of the appellant on the ground of bona fide personal requirements of the respondents. (2) The appellant has filed an application for leading additional evidence by way of subsequent events to show that the respondents now do not require any further accommodation for bona fide' requirement after the passing of impugned order. If the position had remained static after passing of the order by the learned Rent Control Tribunal, there is nothing which could have been argued on behalf of the appellant but there have been subsequent events and today the position is that the landlady has died. Five daughters have also been married and the family of the landlord now consists of landlord himself with one son and married wife and one minor child. The accommodation with the landlord as per the plan now co...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »