Delhi Court August 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.
Raghunath Sahai Vs. NaraIn Singh and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-18-1987
Reported in: 33(1987)DLT111
N.N. Goswamy, J. (1) This second appeal by the tenant is directed against the judgment dated 28-1-1980 passed by the Rent Control Tribunal whereby the first appeal filed by the appellant against the eviction order was also dismissed. (2) The short point canvassed in this appeal by the learned counsel, for the appellant, is that the respondent ceased to be the owner of the property in dispute as the same was acquired and vested in Delhi Development Authority. On consideration of the entire evidence on record, the Rent Controller as also the Rent Control Tribunal have recorded the finding that the land which had been acquired has not been connected with the disputed property and as such the respondent continues to be the owner. Ordinarily, this is a question of fact and not open to second appeal in view of section 39 of the Delhi Rent Control Act which specifically states that a second appeal is maintainable only on a substantial question of law. All the same I have heard the learned cou...
Abdul Jalil and anr. Vs. Union of India
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-17-1987
Reported in: 33(1987)DLT267
S.S. Chadha, J. (1) We will dispose of these two R.F.As. and one civil revision by one common judgment even though they arise out of two different notifications : one dated October 3, 1962 and the other dated February 24, 1965 issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). (2) The land of the appellants along with others' land was notified for acquisition for a public purpose, namely, for the planned development of Delhi by notification dated October 3, 1962 issued under Section 4 of the Act. A declaration under Section 6 of the Act was made vide notification dated December 12, 1962. The land of the appellants bearing khasra No. 379 measuring 2 bids was and khasra No. 613/590/381/2 measuring 34 bighas and 16 bids was of village Malikpur Chhawani was acquired under this notification. The Land Acquisition Collector by his award No. 1589 offered compensation for the acquired land at the rate of Rs. 4,000.00 per bigha. On a reference under Se...
Collector of Customs Vs. Bijas Corporation
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Aug-14-1987
Reported in: (1989)(42)ELT290TriDel
1. The issue involved in this appeal is the classification of acrylic plastic sheet crushed scrap for the purpose of additional duty of Customs. The Collector of Customs (Appeals) has held that the goods in question are assessable under Item 68 of the CET and not under Item 15A(1) or 15A(2). Aggrieved by the impugned order of the Collector (Appeals), the Revenue has filed this appeal. During the hearing of the appeal the learned JDR has stated that the case is covered against the Revenue by the decision of this Tribunal in order No. 271 to 288/87-C dated 15-4-1987 in the case of Collector of Customs, Bombay v. R.K.Industries and Ors., in which it has been held that acrylic plastic scrap fall under Item 68 of the Central Excise Tariff. Following the said decision, we uphold the impugned order and dismissed this appeal....
P.P. Kapur, Vs. Delhi Development Authority
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-14-1987
Reported in: 1987RLR614
B.N. Kirpal, J. (1) This judgment will dispose of Civil Writ Petition Nos. 55 of 1971, 466 of 1973 and 573 of 1983 wherein common questions arise for consideration.(2) The petitioners in these writ petitions are owners in various shares of 22 Bighas 8 bids was of land in Khasra Nos. 371, 372, 373, 374 and 694/375 in village Kharera, Delhi. (3) Initially by notification dated 15.3.56 issued u/s 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, there was a proposal to acquire 63 Bighas 10 bids was of land in this village, including the land in question. This land was proposed to be acquired for the public purpose of construction of houses for South Delhi Cooperative House Building Society Limited. Subsequently this notification was withdrawn and the acquisition proceedings dropped. (4) Sometime in the year 1957 the land in question was bought by the petitioners, who are all closely related to each other. It appears that the desire of the petitioners was to develop the land as a residential colony. Lay out ...
Hari Krishan Sharma Vs. Municipal Corporation of Delhi
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-14-1987
Reported in: 1988(14)DRJ134; 1988RLR34
Y.K. Sabharwal, J.(1) This application has been placed before the Full Bench in view of the order of reference dated 3/4/1987 passed by the Division Bench. The order dated 3/4/1987 reads as under : 'C.W.446/87 Rule D.B. C.M. 736/87 It appears that different Division Benches of this Court have taken divergent views on the question whether the operation of an order retiring a person at a lower age should be stayed after rule has been granted on a petition by him claiming a higher age of retirement. In other words, whether he should be allowed to continue in service and function whilst his petition is pending. In Civil Writ Petitions Nos. 1365 of 1984 and 2798 of 1985 an interim order of stay was granted. On the other hand, in Civil Petitions Nos. 623 of 1986 and 3103 of 1985 such an interim order of stay was refused. The point is one of general importance and arises frequently. It is, thereforee, desirable that it should be decided more authoritatively by a larger bench. Consequently, we...
Krishan Kumar Vs. Dau Dayal Dwarka Dass and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-14-1987
Reported in: 33(1987)DLT131; 1988(14)DRJ29
H.C. Goel, J.(1) The first point raised by Mr. Mathur is that the authorities below were in error in holding that the petition for eviction as originally filed by M/s.Dau Dayal Dwarka Dass and others did not stand abated on the failure of the legal representatives of Mohan Lal is not having: filed the amended petition for eject lent as, directed by the Rent Controller. The petition for eviction was filed by M/s. Dau Dayal Dwarka Dass through five persons, two of whom namely. Mohan Lal and Mukesh Lal had signed and verified the petition. Mohan Lal died during the pendency of the petition on which his legal representatives were ordered to be brought on the record on the application of Mukesh Lal, attorney of the petitioners, having been filed in that regard. Mr. Mathur submitted that it was incumbent on the remaining petitioners and the legal representatives of the deceased Mohan Lal to have filed an amended petition and that not having been done by them, their filing of a revised memo o...
Laxmi Kant Dixit Vs. State and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-14-1987
Reported in: 33(1987)DLT294; 1988(16)ECC143; 1988LC454(Delhi); 1987(32)ELT632(Del)
M.K. Chawla, J.(1) Following a tip off the officers of the Customs and Central Excise Collectorate, Delhi, kept a vigil on premises 'No. 510, Kucha Kabul Autar.Chandni Chowk, Delhi. On 19th January, 1970, at about 8.30 p.m. accused Laxmi Kant Dixit and Shankar Sahai were seen going inside the said premises. After some time they came out and proceeded towards Delhi Railway Station. Before they could enter the Railway Platform, they were apprehended by the customs officers. Their baggage and persons were searched in the presence of two independent witnesses. From their search 50 rectangular bars of gold i.e. 25 from each of them, weighing 10 tolas each, bearing foreign markings were recovered. The value of the recovered gold was assessed at Rs. 11- lakh. Some incriminating documents were also taken into possession. The accused could not produce the documentary evidence of owning or possessing the said gold. It was seized under Section 110 of the Customs Act. (2) The statements of the acc...
Collector O Customs Vs. Dai-ichi Karkaria Pvt. Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Aug-13-1987
Reported in: (1989)(41)ELT587TriDel
1. Since all the appeals involve common issues, a common order is being passed. A copy of the order will be placed in each of the appeal files.2. Question involved here in these appeals is whether Lauryl alcohol is to be classified under Heading 15.08/13 of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 as claimed by the respondents herein or under Heading 29.01/45 as claimed by the department.3. Learned SDR appearing for the appellant-Collector has fairly conceded that the issue involved in these appeals is squarely covered by the Tribunal's order No. 548-555/84-C, dated 21st August, 1984.Learned SDR has reiterated the various grounds set out in the appeal memoranda filed by the appellant-Collector. The learned Representatives of the respondents have, however, reiterated the various grounds dealt with in the Tribunal's order in their favour.4. We have carefully considered the grounds of appeal set out in the appeal memoranda. We feel that all the grounds taken by the appellant-Collector have been exha...
Asian Hotels Limited Vs. Municipal Corporation of Delhi and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-13-1987
Reported in: 33(1987)DLT183; [1988]171ITR116(Delhi)
Mahesh Chandra, J.(1) By this order I propose to dispose of I.A. No. 7180 of 1986 filed by the plaintiff for grant of ad-interim injunction to restrain the defendant-Municipal Corporation of Delhi from recovering any tax in pursuance of its demand notice 180 dated 16th December, 1986 for Rs. 3,09,23,454/. This application is opposed on behalf of the defendant. (2) This order would also dispose of Application (I.A. No. 599 of 1987) filed by the defendant-Municipal Corporation of Delhi (for short 'M.C.D.') for vacation of ex-parte ad-interim injunction issued by M.K. Chawla, J. vide his order dated 29th December, 1986 whereby subject to a deposit of Rs. 35 lacs by the plaintiff the demand notice dated 16th December, 1986 (Annexure IX) was to remain stayed. Reply to this application has also been filed by the plaintiff. (3) This order would also dispose of I.A. No. 3785 of 1987 filed by the defendant under Section 151 Civil Procedure Code . for early hearing of above mentioned two I.As. I...
Anjali Sarma Vs. Council for the Indian School Certificate Examination ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-13-1987
Reported in: ILR1987Delhi421
Y.K. Sabharwai, J. (1) Anjali Sharma was a student of Xth class in Seventh Day Adventist High School, Hapur (hereinafter referred to as 'School'). The school is affiliated to Council for the Indian School Certificate Examination (hereinafter referred to as 'Council'). The council has various schools affiliated to it all over India. Anjali appeared in examinations (known as Icse, Examination) conducted by the Council in March, 1986. The results were declared in May, 1986. Anjali failed because in compulsory subject of English, she secured only 28 marks. She secured pass marks in all other subjects. Anjali claims that as she is a brilliant student and did her papers very well, she was surprised and shocked to learn that she has failed. On rechecking the Council confirmed that the result as already declared was correct. (2) Anjali through her mother Mrs. Kamlesh Sharma filed C. W. 2293/86 in this court alleging serious malafides against the school authorities. It was also alleged in the p...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »