Delhi Court September 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.
Devidayal Electronics and Wires Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Sep-25-1987
Reported in: (1989)(42)ELT271TriDel
1. Devidayal Electronics & Wires Ltd. have filed an appeal being aggrieved from the Order-in-Appeal No. S/49-1194/82-R, dated 31-12-1982 passed by the Collector of Customs (Appeals), Bombay.2. Briefly the facts of the case are that the appellants had imported Brightray Alloy 'F or Strips under Bill of Entry Cash No. 3765/80, dated 16-6-1980. The same were assessed to customs duty under Heading 73.15(2) of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975. The appellants had claimed re-assessment under Heading No.75.02(1) and claimed the same as Nickel Alloy. The Ld. Asstt. Collector did not accept the contention of the appellants and rejected the refund claim. Being aggrieved by the order of Asstt. Ld. Collector of Customs the Appellant had filed an appeal to the Collector of Customs (Appeals). The appellants' appeal was also rejected by the Collector of Customs (Appeals). Being aggrieved from the Collector of Customs order, the appellant has come in appeal to the Tribunal. Notices of hearing were sen...
Kaushlaya and Others Vs. the State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-25-1987
Reported in: 1989CriLJ257; 1987(3)Crimes747; 33(1987)DLT254
Charanjit Talwar, J.1. The dying declaration of Shakuntla recorded by Investigating Officer is the basis of conviction of her husband Chetan Dass and of her sisters-in-law Kaushlaya and Koyal for the offence under S. 302 read with S. 34 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. By this appeal, the conviction and the sentence of life imprisonment imposed on the three appellants by Shri J. D. Kapoor, Addl. Sessions Judge, Delhi is under challenge. 3. The prosecution case was that Shakuntla was burnt by the three appellants in furtherance of their common intention to murder her. Kaushalaya and Koyal are sisters. Their respective husbands are elder brothers of Chetan Das, husband of the deceased. All of them live together. Chetan Dass got married to Shakuntla about eight years prior to the date of occurrence, i.e., 13 the April, 1981. They had three children. The husband and the wife used to quarrel as allegedly Chetan Dass was having an affair with one woman named 'Om'. On 12th April, 1981, Shakuntala...
Smt. Madhu Khanna Vs. Union of India and Others
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-25-1987
Reported in: 1988CriLJ1324; ILR1987Delhi7
P.K. Bahri, J.1. Smt. Madhu Khanna, wife of the detenu Vishwanath Khanna, has filed this petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India for quashing the detention order passed against Vishwanath Khanna on December 11, 1985 by the Administrator of Union Territory of Delhi under S. 3(1) read with S. 2(f) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 (for short 'COFEPOSA Act') with a view to preventing him from abetting the smuggling of gold and also the declaration dt. February 14, 1986, made by Additional Secretary to the Government of India, under S. 9(1) of the COFEPOSA Act. 2. It may be mentioned at this stage that earlier also this very petitioner had filed a writ petition in this Court challenging the said detention orders and the same was dismissed on May 30, 1986. The petitioner filed a special leave petition and also criminal writ petition before the Hon'ble Supreme Court which admittedly were dismissed. A review petition was file...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Sequria Associates
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-25-1987
Reported in: [1989]175ITR409(Delhi)
1. These three applications under section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, can be disposed of by a common order. Income-tax Case No. 223 of 1984 relates to the company and the other two to a firm. The question sought to be raised by the Department is whether the Tribunal was right in holding that the firm was a genuine firm and that the income returned by the firm was assessable in its hands and had to be excluded from the assessment of the company. This obvious is a question of fact (vide Ratanchand Darbarilal v. CIT : [1985]155ITR720(SC) and Ladhu Ram Taparia v. CIT : [1962]44ITR521(SC) ). The present case does not fall within the ratio of the Supreme Court in the case of S. P. Gramophone Co. v. CIT : 1986ECR28(SC) , relied upon by the counsel for the petitioner. 2. The main argument of counsel for the petitioner was that there was no ostensible object or purpose in the creation of the firm and that it had been really created with a view to divert the profits or a portion of the p...
(Dr.) R.A. Darbari Vs. Secretary, Govt. of India, Ministry of Health a ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-25-1987
Reported in: (1988)ILLJ336Del
1. This is a contempt petition filed by Dr. R. A. Darbari on the allegation that the judgment given in his favor in the Writ Petition No. 187/75 is not being complied with by the respondents. 2. The services of the petitioner had been terminated and he had filed a writ which was allowed and the order terminating his services was quashed and the respondents were directed to re-instate him with all necessary benefits. The short question which has arisen in this contempt petition is whether the respondents while granting the petitioner all the arrears of pay and allowance were entitled to deny to the petitioner non-practicing allowance. Another point raised by the petitioner is that he had not been given promotion although his junior has been promoted and that the respondents are bound to give him promotion from the date his junior had been promoted. 3. The case of the respondents in brief is that there is no legal right available to the petitioner entitling him to grant of ad hoc promoti...
A.E.P.C. Vs. A.E.P.C. Employees' Union (Regd)
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-25-1987
Reported in: (1989)ILLJ117Del
1. This is an application under Order 39, rules 1 and 2, of the Code of Civil Procedure moved by the plaintiff against the defendants seeking to restrain the latter by themselves or through their members, employees and agents from : (1) resorting to any strike, demonstration, dharna, gherao or assembly inside or outside or round about the offices of the plaintiff situated at premises Nos. 58 and 73, Nehru place, New Delhi and Aircargo Complex, Palam Airport, New Delhi, atleast within a radius of 500 meters of the aforesaid offices; (2) causing any obstruction in any manner in the ingress and egress of the officials/employees of the plaintiff and those of the exporters, their agents and other persons to/from the aforesaid offices of the plaintiff. On this application ad interim injunction was issued on 28th August, 1987, by B. N. Kirpal, J., as prayed for with the only exception that injunction in terms of clause (a) referred to above the radius directed was only 100 meters instead of...
Chander Bhan and ors. Vs. Pehlad and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-25-1987
Reported in: AIR1988Delhi177; 33(1987)DLT363
P.K. Babri, J.(1) This is a second appeal brought against the judgment dated the 10th of August 1972 of Shri H.C. Goel, Addl. District Judge, Delhi (as his Lordship then was) by which he has accepted the appeal filed against the judgment and decree dated 15th of March 1971 passed by Shri Sagar Chand Jain, Sub Judge 1st Class, Delhi, and that he had set aside the judgment and decree of the lower court and dismissed the suit brought by the appellants seeking injunction against the defendants. (2) Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the appellants had instituted a civil suit seeking relief of permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with the peaceful possession of the plaintiffs in respect of the plot Nos. 30 and 17 in village Rithala in the Union Territory of Delhi and also restraining them from enforcing their way through the said plots. In all there were 11 defendants in the suit and one of them was one Pehiad. The case set up by the plaintiffs in brie...
Municipal Corporation of Delhi Vs. Dhani Ram and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-25-1987
Reported in: 33(1987)DLT286; ILR1987Delhi207
Charanjit Talwar, J.(1) All the above appeals have been filed by the Municipal Corporation of Delhi directed against the orders of acquittal passed against the respective respondents for offence punishable under Section 7 read with Section 16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. In each case the cognizance of offence was taken by the Magistrate as the Commissioner of Municipal Corporation of Delhi had given written consent to institute the complaints as required under the provisions of section 20 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act (hereinafter called the Act). In these appeals, the first question which arises for consideration is whether these are barred by limitation. The period of limitation is provided under Sub-Section 5 of Section 378 of the Criminal Procedure Code. It reads : '5.No application under Sub-Section (4) for the grant of special leave to appeal from an order of acquittal shall be entertained by the High Court after the expiry of six months where the comp...
Khem Chand Khattar Vs. Municipal Corporation of Delhi and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-25-1987
Reported in: 34(1988)DLT140
P.K. Bahri, J.(1) By virtue of this writ petition the petitioner has challenged the orders of the respondent No.1 by which he has not been granted selection grade while his juniors have been granted selection grade. He has prayed that he may be granted selection grade retrospectively with effect from the 5th September 1971. He has also prayed for payment of all arrears and other benefits with effect from the 1st of September 197 Tin the selection grade. He has also challenged in this very writ' the order of punishment withholding four increments. (2) The facts, in brief, are that the petitioner was employed as Assistant Teacher by respondent No. 1. Municipal Corporation of Delhi since October 1959 in the pay scale of Rs. 68-170 which was revised to Rs. 118-225 in the year 1960 retrospectively from October 16, 1959. He was promoted to the post of Assistant Teacher on March 1, 1961. As per orders of the Government of India dated November 26, 1971, which had been adopted by respondent No....
Pratap Chand Mehta Vs. Krishna Devi Meuta
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-25-1987
Reported in: AIR1988Delhi267; ILR1987Delhi210; 1987RLR596
Chaudhry, J.(1) By this suit the plaintiff claim a decree against Smt. Krishna Devi Mehta, sole defendant for the return of gold ornaments or in the alternative for the recovery of Rs. 5 lakhs (the market value of the property). The plaint proceeds on the following allegations :- . (2) That the plaintiff is the son of late Shri Ramji Lal Mehta. Shri Ramji Lal Mehta, after his death, besides immovable properties left behind the movable properties detailed in Annexure 'A'. That on 8-1-1984 Shri Ramji Lal Mehta made his last will wherein it was provided as under :- 'I will and devise that after my demise my properties immovable and movable and real and in corporal vest in my son Mr. P. C. Mehta'. According to the plaintiff there is a reference of the gold ornaments bequeathed to the plaintiff also in the will dated 3-12-1984 of late Smt. Tulsi Devi Mehta wife of Shri Ramji Lal Mehta, wherein it is stated as under :- OUR200 tolas of gold ornaments are lying in trust with sister Smt. Krishn...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- Next ›
- Last »