Delhi Court May 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.
Risal Singh Vs. Municipal Corporation of Delhi
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-06-1987
Reported in: 32(1987)DLT253
S. Ranganathan, J.(1) We have heard both the counsel. As the point in issue is very short, we issue Rule D.B. and proceed to dispose of the writ petition finally.(2) The petitioner was working as an Assistant Chief Accountant in the Municipal Corporation of Delhi (M.C.D.) He was in the pay scale of Rs. 350-900. The Third Pay Commission had recommended a revised scale of pay ofRs. 840-1200 to all Accounts Officers who, before the revision, were on two different scales of pay. namely Rs. 350-900 and Rs. 590-900. This is quite clear from para 110 of part Ii of Volume Ii of the report of the Third PayCommission, (Annexure R-1 to the counter affidavit).(3) The M.C.D. adopted the recommendations of the Third Pay Commission. However, the pay scale of the petitioner (and other Assistant ChiefAccountants) was fixed in the scale of pay of Rs. 650-1200. The petitioner and the others claimed that this was not correct and made a representation that they were entitled to the pay scale of Rs. 840-120...
Hari Krishan Vs. Madan Lal Sharma and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-06-1987
Reported in: 32(1987)DLT338; 1987(13)DRJ188
Sunanda Bhandare, J.(1) In this petition under Art. 227 of the Constitution of India the Petitioner has challenged the order of the Additional Rent Controller dated 27th October 1986 whereby the application under Order 9 Rule 9 read with Section 151 of the Civil Procedure Code for restoration of the petition for eviction was rejected. The petitioner has also challenged the order of the Additional Rent Controller dated 11th November 1986 whereby the application of the petitioner for review of the order dated 27th October 1986 was rejected.(2) The facts of the case in brief are as follows : 'THE petitioner filed an eviction petition on the ground of bona fide requirement under Section 14(l)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act for eviction of respondent No. 1 from flat No. 63 Prasad Nagar, New Delhi in July 1985. Thereafter, respondent no. 1 filed an application for leave to contest which was allowed and consequently he also filed the written statement. The case was listed for the evidence o...
Daulat Ram Vs. Budha Ram
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-06-1987
Reported in: 32(1987)DLT247
N.N. Goswamy, J.(1) This revision petition under section 25-B(8) of the Delhi Rent Control Act by the landlord is directed against the order dated28-1-1983 passed by the learned Additional Rent Controller, Delhi whereby his eviction petition was dismissed.(2) The respondent Budha Ram is a tenant of a portion of house No. 5017,near Khanna Talkies, Pahar Ganj, Delhi. The petitioner filed a petition under14(l)(e) lead with section 25-B of the Act, for eviction of the said tenant. It was alleged that the premises were let out for residential purpose and were being used by the respondent as such. It was further alleged that the petitioner Was the owner-landlord of the premises and the premises were required for bonafide residential use of the petitioner and for members of the family dependent uponhim. It was also stated that the petitioner had no other suitable residential accommodation with him. and the premises were required bona fide by him for his residence.(3) The petition was conteste...
Elphinstone Spinning and Weaving Vs. Collector of C.E.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: May-05-1987
Reported in: (1989)(42)ELT150TriDel
1. When this matter came up before the bench on 14-4-1987, it first heard the application for change of name. The appellants M/s.Elphinstone Spinning and Weaving Mills Co. Ltd. asked that the name be changed to Elphinstone Spinning and Weaving Mills (U.C.) N.T.C. (South Maharashtra) Ltd., Bombay. The bench allowed the change.2. Next the bench heard the arguments by Mr. Gopal Prasad counsel for M/s. Elphinstone Spinning and Weaving Mills. He said that the lower authorities seem to have misunderstood the meaning of the Notification 56/78-C.E. and have read the words "research and test laboratories" in the Schedule as meaning that their laboratory should be both a research and a test laboratory. The learned Counsel said it was not necessary that it be both - it is enough if it was either a research laboratory or a test laboratory. If "and" is to be read as a meaning the laboratory must be a research as well as a test laboratory, then it will be an impossible interpretation in the case of...
Rajinder Singh Vs. Pomila
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-05-1987
Reported in: AIR1987Delhi285; 1987(13)DRJ119
C.L. Chaudhary, J.(1) This Letters Patent Appeal is directed against the order of the learned Single Judge dated 1-3-1983 by which the first appeal of the appellant, Rajinder Singh was dismissed in liming by a speaking order.(2) The facts giving rise to this appeal are that the appellant, Rajinder Singh married Smt. Pomila, respondent on 3-5-1981 according to Hindu/Sikh reties and ceremonies. The respondent filed a petition under Section 11 read with Section 5(1) and Section 12(l)(c) of the Hindu Marriage Act for declaring the marriage between the appellant and the respondent null and void. The petition proceeded on the allegations that the marriage between the parties was solemnised at Delhi on 3-5-1981. No child was born out of the wedlock. It is averred that after the solemnisation of the marriage the respondent stayed with the appellant as his wife at House No. D-7, Rajouri Garden, New Delhi for about 4 days. Thereafter the respondent stayed at Delhi with her parents while the appe...
Madan Lal Vs. Indra Devi
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-05-1987
Reported in: 32(1987)DLT289
N.N. Goswamy, J. (1) This second appeal by the tenant is directed against the eviction order passed by the Rent Control Tribunal on September 11, 1978. (2) The respondent-landlady filed a petition for eviction on the grounds covered by clauses (e) and (h) of provision to sub-section (1) of section 14 of the Delhi Rent Control Act. As regards clause (e) is concerned, the finding recorded was against the landlady. The learned Rent Controller dismissed the petition on both the grounds holding that the appellant had acquired alternate residential premises but the petition having been filed by one of the owners was incompetent. In appeal, the Tribunal reversed the findings recorded by the Rent Controller and held that the respondent was the landlady as the appellant had attorney to her and was regularly pay ing rents to her. The rent receipts had been issued by her. This finding was based on evidence both oral and documentary. Admittedly she was one of the crowners after the death of her hu...
Co-operative House Building Society Ltd. Vs. Municipal Corporation of ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-05-1987
Reported in: AIR1987Delhi371; 32(1987)DLT172; 1987RLR512
Mahinder Narain, J. (1) This revision is directed against the order of Mr. Ravi Kumar, Additional District Judge, Delhi dated 31st March, 1983, passed in an application under Section 169(2) of the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act. Section 169 in so far as it is relevant, reads as under :- '169(1)An appeal against the levy or assessment of any tax under this Act shall lie to the court of the district Judge of Delhi. (2)If, before or on the hearing of an appeal under this section, any question of law or usage having the force of law or construction of a document arises, the court of the district judge on its own motion may, or on the application of any party to the appeal, shall, draw up a statement of the facts of the case, and the question so arising, and refer the statement with its opinion on the question for the decision of the High Court.' (2) The Additional District Judge who has to hear appeals under the provisions of Section 169 of the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, has decline...
Straw Products Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: May-04-1987
Reported in: (1987)(12)LC504Tri(Delhi)
This Appeal, which has been transferred to this Tribunal, from the East Regional Bench, is against the orders of the Collector (Appeals) dated 4-4-1983. The facts of the case briefly are as follows :- 1. The Appellants manufacture paper falling under Item No. 17, C.E.T.Their factory is at Jaykaypur, near Rayagada (Orissa). It is a composite unit comprising mainly of pulp mill and paper machine Section. For the preparation of pulp certain chemicals and other raw materials are used. The Appellants have several units in Bhopal which manufacture kraft paper and paper boards. Good quality pulp is needed for the manufacture. On some occasions the pulp is issued from Jaykaypur factory to Bhopal factory. The Appellants are claiming the benefit of Notification No. 118/75 in respect of the pulp sheets cleared. The local officers were of the view that proforma credit taken in respect of the duty paid inputs used in the manufacture of pulp sheets cannot be allowed and the credit already taken sho...
Deepak Fertilisers and Vs. Collr. of Cus.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: May-04-1987
Reported in: (1989)(41)ELT550TriDel
1. The dispute in all these 76 appeals relates to addition of landing charges to the value of goods imported at Bombay.2. The Collector of Customs (Appeals), Bombay passed an order No.S/49-272/83-R + as per Annexure; it bears the date of 8-2-1984, and the date of issue of 29-2-1984; below the dates, it has a number BCH No.1172/82. In this order the Collector (Appeals) disposed of 91 appeals from orders of the Assistant Collector; the 76 appeals we have before us now are from those 91 appeals.3. The learned Counsel for these appellants, Mr. Ganesh, said that his contention for the purpose of these appeals before this bench is only that the addition of landing charges should have been not at the notional 0.75%, but at the actual charges charged by the Port Trust for the concerned consignments. However, he told the Tri. that he contends that landing charges are not at all liable to be added to the assessable value since they cannot legitimately form part of such value; but he would not a...
Lakhvinder Singh Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-04-1987
Reported in: 32(1987)DLT50
1. On 20-4-85, Shri V. S. Aggarwal, Addl. Sessions Judge, Delhi framed the following charges against the accused Lakhvinder Singh :- 'That you on 25-12-83 at about 12 in the night at C-124, New Sabzi Mandi, Azadpur, Delhi did an act to wit caused injuries to Dharam Raj girl with such intention or knowledge and under such circumstances that if you had caused the death of said Dharam Raj Giri, you would have been guilty of murder and that you did causes injuries to said Dharam Raj girl with sharp-edged weapon and thereby committed an offence punishable under section 307, I.P.C. and within the cognizance of this court.' 2. The accused pleaded not guilty to the charge and claimed trial. 3. In support of their case, the prosecution examined as many as 9 witnesses out of which PW 1 Dharam Raj girl is the injured while PW 4 Shri Ravinder Kumar is the eye-witness of the occurrence. The remaining evidence is of formal nature. 4. The accused in his statement under section 313 Cr.P.C. denied the ...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 12
- Next ›
- Last »