Delhi Court February 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.
Chander Kant Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-02-1987
Reported in: 32(1987)DLT68; 1987(13)DRJ283
N.C. Kochhar, J.(1) This judgment will also dispose of Criminal Appeal No. 84 of 1976 also styled as Chander Kant v. State. By this appeal, the appellant has challenged his conviction and sentence in Session Case No. 84/75 and in Criminal Appeal No. 84 of 1976, he has challenged his conviction and sentence in Sessions Case No. 85/75, vide two judgments dated 4th March, 1976 announced by Shri Joginder Nath, Additional Sessions Judge, Delhi. (2) The prosecution story, in short, was as under : Public Witness 1 Arjun Singh is a business man. He received anonymous telephone calls at his factory premises between 9th and I 1th November 1970. The caller had told him that he belonged to a dangerous gang. Initially Arjun Singh was directed to pay a sum of Rs. 1,00,000 but ultimately he was told to bring a sum of Rs. 3000 at about 4 p.m. on I 1th November, 1970 at Rajghat where a person wearing black jacket and yellow muffler would meet him. Arjun Singh contacted Shri Singhal, the then Superinten...
Om Parkash Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-02-1987
Reported in: 1987(1)Crimes645; 31(1987)DLT327
Malik Sharief-ud-din, J. (1) Even though this appeal is on my board at No. 2, none appeared turn the appellant. In this situation Sodhi Teja Singh has been heard and he has very fairly taken me through the entire record. (2) The appellant has been convicted under Sections 366,3761.P.C. He was sentenced to six months' rigorous imprisonment under Section 342 IPC. He was also sentenced to four years' rigorous imprisonment and to a fine of Rs 100.00 , in default further rigorous imprisonment under Section 366 IPC. The appellant was also sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for seven years and a fine of Rs. 100.00 . in default three months' rigorous imprisonment under Section 376 IPC. The learned trial Judge however, directed that the substantive sentences shall run concurrently. (3) The appellant was prosecuted on the following set of facts. (4) The victim Kumari Lali, lived in EZ/100 J J. Colony, Sultanpuri with her parents and there was some marriage fixed in respect of the daughter of her...
R.L. Wadera Vs. A.A.C. and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-02-1987
Reported in: 1987(12)DRJ330
B.N. Kirpal, J.(1) The challenge in this writ petition is to the demand for house tax which bad been raised in respect of. the petitioner's house No. A-80, N.D.S.E. Part-11. New Delhi. (2) The petitioner had constructed the aforesaid house in the year 1961,. According to the petitioner the total cost of construction, including the cost of the land, came to Rs. 40,000.00. It is alleged that the rateable value of the said house was first fixed atRs.650.00 and was subsequently increased to Rs. 7,830.00. (3) The grievance of the petitioner is that he was served with a notice dated 25/3/1976 whereby it was proposed that the rateable value would be enhanced from Rs. 7,830.00. to Rs. 13,770.00. It is alleged in the petition that on 2/4/1976, objections were filed by the petitioner but the same were not considered and the rateable value was increased to Rs. 13,770.00, for the assessment year 1976-77. Thereafter, for the subsequent years also,. that time and again, he has been filing objection ...
Anil Kumar BhasIn Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-02-1987
Reported in: 1987CriLJ1632
ORDERM.K. Chawla, J.1. The circumstances under which the present petitioner was arrested and detained under the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act (COFEPOS A Act), in brief, are that on 2-1-1986, while the Enforcement Officers were carrying out searches of the premises of M/s. Fair Deal Impex International, M/s. Narang Enterprises, Narang Sons and M/s. Fair Deal Impex (India) at L-4, Connaught Place, New Delhi, when one person who gave his name as Narinderjeet Singh entered the premises. His personal search resulted in the recovery of two loose sheets. His statement under Section 40, Foreign Exchange Regulation Act (FERA) was recorded wherein he, inter alia, stated that the he needed money for the purchase of textiles in Hongkong. He requested his friends to arrange for money in Hongkong. Mr. Gurpal Singh (Surinderpal Singh) of Ambala offered to arrange money for him in Hongkong. Narinderjit Singh gave an advance of Rs. 64,583/- to Surinderpal S...
Jenson and Nicholson Vs. Collector C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Feb-01-1987
Reported in: (1989)(42)ELT496TriDel
1. The only question for decision in this appeal is whether demand of Central Excise duty Rs. 17,721.98 confirmed against the appellants by the Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Calcutta VIII Division by his order dated 29-8-1980 read along with Addendum dated 16-10-1980 confirmed by the Collector of Central Excise, Calcutta by his order-in-original No. 54/82, dated 31-3-81/6-11-1982 is barred by limitation.2. It might be stated that originally the appellants had also raised the question of proper classification of the appellants produce - whether it is varnish alkyd resin or modified alkyd resin but this plea was given up at the hearing on 8-8-1986. The same is also true of the plea regarding valuation which was on the same date given up by Shri K.K. Banerjee, learned Advocate representing the appellants, that is how the only issue surviving for decision is one of limitation.3. The appellants are engaged in the manufacture of synthetic resins and varnishes. Appellants filed Clas...
- ‹ Prev
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 15
- Next ›