Delhi Court January 1988 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.
Krishan Murari and anr. Vs. State (Delhi Administration)
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-15-1988
Reported in: 1988(15)DRJ54
Charanjit Talwar, J.(1) By this appeal, Krishan Murari @ Pappu and his younger brother Krishan Pal Kuckoo challenge the legality of the judgment dated the 31st January, 1984 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Delhi, whereby they were convicted under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. They further challenge his order of the same date sentencing them to life imprisonment. The further sentence imposed on Krishan Pal under Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code to undergo 9 months, rigorous imprisonment is also sought to be set aside.(2) Before proceeding to the merits of the case, we have to highlight that the appellants were adolescent on the date of commission of offence, i.e., 18th February, 1983. Their statements under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure were recorded on 17th January, 1984. Krishan Murari declared himself to be 19 years old and his younger brother Krishan Pal stated that he was 17 years old. Their ages it appears from the record w...
Menon Associates Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jan-14-1988
Reported in: (1988)(34)ELT367TriDel
1. The appellants imported consignment of Ball Bearing valued at Rs. 86,061/- equivalent to SKF Series 6201 to 6208, 6202 to 6308, 6004 and 6005. They claimed the clearance of goods against stock and sale licence No. 2030871, dated 26-12-1983 issued in terms of para 80(1) of the Import Policy for 1983-84. The sald para stipulates that Import licence issued in these cases will be subject to the condition that import of a single item of spares listed under Appendices 3, 4 & 30 of the Import Policy shall not exceed Rs. one lakh, in value per item and import of other items will not exceed Rs. 10 lakhs in value (c.i.f.).The term "single item" for the purpose of this para will have the same meaning as defined in sub-para 31(2) of the Policy Book. The appellants had earlier imported a consignment of ball bearing covered by Sl. No.434 of Appendix 3 within the value limit of Rs. one lakh permissible for "single item" of spares. The appellants claimed the release of these bearings falling u...
Sirsilk Limited Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jan-14-1988
Reported in: (1988)(15)ECC263
1. Similar issue is involved in these two appeals and as such, the same are disposed of by this common order. The issue involved 's whether Acetate Yarn/Staple Fibre/Tow manufactured by the appellants are entitled to the concession granted under Notification No. 201/79-C.E., dated 4-6-1979. By this notification the Central Government exempted all excisable goods (hereinafter referred to as "the said goods"), on which the duty of excise is leviable and in the manufacture of which any goods falling under Item No. 68 of the First Schedule to the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 (hereinafter referred as "the inputs") have been used, from so much of the duty of excise leviable thereon as is equivalent to the duty of excise already paid on the inputs. The Notification also envisages that the procedure set out in the Appendix to the Notification is to be followed and that nothing contained in this notification shall apply to the said goods which are exempted from the whole of the duty of e...
Collector of Central Excise Vs. Polyflex (Pvt.) Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jan-14-1988
Reported in: (1993)(66)ELT306TriDel
1. Since a common question of classification is involved in both the matters, they are being disposed of by a common order.2. Question involved in these appeals is whether saddles for scooters /motor-cycles manufactured by the respondent company according to the process mentioned hereafter are classifiable by the Tariff Item 15A(4) of Central Excise Tariff as "articles made of Polyurethane foam" or under Tariff Item 68 as that tariff stood before 28-2-1986.Manufacturing process of the saddles is described in one of the Orders-in-Original dated 28-5-1986/8-9-1986 as follows :- "To manufacture the seat saddles, the imported raw material like polyol and polyisocyanate are used. These raw materials are poured into moulds and heated to a certain temperature. These moulds are closed immediately and the material inside is allowed to expand to the shape of the mould for a required time. Then these seat saddles are removed from the moulds and are subject to compression and after compression, t...
Nat Organic Chemicals Industries Vs. B.L. Industries
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-14-1988
Reported in: 1988(2)Crimes272; 34(1988)DLT232
B.N. Kirpal, J. (1) On 17th December, 1987 an ex parte injunction was granted against the defendant A Local Commissioner was also appointed, inter alia, for preparing an inventory of the goods in possession of the defendant. It was further directed that the plaintiff will comply with the provisions ofOrder39Rule3C.P.C. (2) The defendant has moved the present application contending that the provisions of Order 39 Rule 3 have not been complied with by the plaintiff and as such this Court should vacate the order dated 17th December, 1987 granting an ex parte ad interim injunction. (3) Order 39 Rule 3 provides that before granting an injunction, notice should be issued of the application to the opposite party. It further provides that such a notice need not be issued where it appears to the Court that the granting of an injunction would be defeated by the dealy. The proviso to rule 3, which was inserted by amendment with effect from 1st February, 1977, provides that when an ex parte injunc...
Rattan Kumar Adhikari Vs. State and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-14-1988
Reported in: 34(1988)DLT230
Malik Sharief-ud-Din, J. (1) The petitioner is aggrieved of an order dated 3rd of June 1985 by which he was convicted under section 27(a) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act and was sentenced to undergo six months' simple imprisonment and to payment of fine of Rs. 300.00 , in default of payment of which he was to undergo further simple imprisonment for one month. This conviction and sentence was recorded on the plea of guilty of the petitioner. Since appeal in such a case under section 375 Cr. P.C. would lie only in respect of the extent and legality of the sentence, it seems the petitioner went in revision to the Sessions court The revision petition was dismissed as without any merit and the order of conviction and sentence was confirmed. (2) The petitioner has now come up before this court under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing the order resulting in his conviction and sentence. The contention mainly is that the plea of guilty recorded by the court below is not v...
Ansar Ahmad Through Zaki Ahmad Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-14-1988
Reported in: 1988(2)Crimes460; 34(1988)DLT223
Malik Sharief-ud-Din, J. (1) The petitioner is aggrieved of an order dated 27th November 1987 directing the issuance of a non-bailable warrant against the accused as also the warrant of attachment against the surety who in fact is the petitioner. (2) It appears that the accused is being prosecuted for offences under sections 506/323, of the Indian Penal Code. The accused who is the son of 22 the petitioner at the relevant time, it seems, was undergoing treatment in the All India Institute of Medical Sciences for schizophrenia and according to the petitioner he fled from his house on 8th of August 1987 and was recovered from Kanpur and brought back to Delhi on 17th November 1987. On 17th March 1987 the petitioner had moved an application before the trial court that since the accused, that is his son, was of unsound mind the procedure laid down in section 329 Cr. P.C. be followed. This was accompanied by a medical certificate to the effect that the accused is of unsound mind. On the basi...
JaIn Rubber Industries Vs. Crown (P.) Ltd. and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-14-1988
Reported in: 34(1988)DLT227
B.N. Kirpal, J. (1) This is an application under Order 39, Rules 1 and 2 for grant of ad interim injunction restraining the defendants from using the mark. 'Crown' in respect; of the tooth picks which are being manufactured and sold by the defendants. (2) The case of the plaintiff is that it is a registered proprietor of the trade mark Crown in respect of tooth picks This registration was granted in 1986 with effect from 10th September, 1980 It is further alleged that the plaintiff has been using the trade mark Crown since January, 1980 According to the plaintiff, the defendants have started using the trade mark Crown in respect of tooth picks on or after December, 1980,t The plaintiff, thereforee, prays that as it is the proprietor of the trade mark Crown, the defendants should be restrained from using the said mark. (3) On behalf of the defendants, it has been contended that the defendants have adopted the mark Crown in respect of tooth picks when in 1977 they had applied to the Gove...
indrashan Sharma Vs. Prema Rastooi
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-14-1988
Reported in: 34(1988)DLT220
Sunanda Bhandare, J. (1) C.M. 2752/87 in Cr (R) 745/87. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the limitation for filing a revision petition in a case like the present one is three years and not 60 days and, thereforee, there is no delay in filing the revision petition. He further submitted that assuming the limitation is 60 days, even then there was sufficient reason for not filing the revision petition in time. (2) From the facts stated in the application for condensation of delay I find that the petitioner could not file the revision petition earlier because the certified copy of the order was taken by another tenant in the same property. This other tenant has vacated the premises and settled the matter with the respondent-landlady and, thereforee, he did not part with the certified copy of the order. The delay which has occurred, thereforee, appears to be bona fide and not deliberate and the same deserves to be condoned. The application is thus allowed. C.R....
Babu Lal and anr. Vs. Tilak Kumar and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-13-1988
Reported in: 1988(1)Crimes456; 34(1988)DLT160
Maiik Sharief-ud-Din, J. (1) Even though the revision has been on my board none appeared. This revision is directed against an order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge Hated 3rd of January 1980 by which he dismissed a challan and discharged the respondents. 18 persons were prosecuted for offences under sections 366/368/380/411/109 Indian Penal Code . The learned. Additional Sessions Judge by an elaborate order examined the prosecution case and found that it was not a fit case for charge. (2) Under section 227 Cr.P.C. if, upon re-consideration of the record of the case and the documents submitted therewith, and after hearing the submissions of the accused and the prosecution in this behalf, the judge considers that there is no sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused he shall discharge the accused and record his reasons for so doing. Reverse of the same is provided under section 228 Cr. P C. and the ratio of section 228 is that if the judge is of the opinion on conside...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- Next ›
- Last »