Delhi Court October 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.
Gurdeep Singh @ Sarpanch Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-07-1988
Reported in: ILR1988Delhi522
Malik, J.(1) The detenu petitioner has challenged order of detention dated 9th of March 1988 passed by Shri K.L. Verma, Joint Secretary to the Government of India, under section 3(1) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 (as amended). The detention has been ordered with a view to preventing the detenu from abetting the smuggling of goods, engaging in transporting smuggled goods and dealing in the smuggled goods otherwise than by engaging in concealing or keeping smuggled goods.(2) This detention order followed an incident dated 24th of February 1988 when the petitioner-detenu was arrested from premises No. 113, Ek Jot Group Housing Society, Pitampura, New Delhi, along with one Hardayal Singh. The premises allegedly belonged to one 0m Prakash but nothing was recovered there from. They were thereafter taken to the D.R.I. office where one Halwinder Singh and Harbans Singh who had been arrested in truck No. Hru 1357 on the same day and fro...
Sukhdev Singh Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-07-1988
Reported in: 36(1988)DLT407; 1989(16)DRJ176
Charanjit Talwar, J. (1) By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, Sukhdev Singh is seeking issuance of a writ. of Habeas Corpus, the detenu is challenging the detention order passed on 12th January, 1988 under Section 3(1) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 (hereinafter called the Cofeposa Act). The impugned order was passed by Shri K.L. Verma, Joint Secretary to the Government of India, specially empowered under the Act, with a view to preventing the detenu from abetting the smuggling of goods. The grounds of detention which also bear the date 12th January, 1988, were served on the petitioner/detent while he was lodged in Central Jail, Tihar, New Delhi. (2) To appreciate the contentions which have been raised before us, the facts of the case so far as they are relevant to the arguments may be noticed. These facts are disclosed in the grounds of detention. (3) One Jasbir Singh Sandhu bad established a world-w...
inspecting Assistant Vs. Punjab National Bank
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Decided on: Oct-06-1988
Reported in: (1989)28ITD41(Delhi)
1. This is an appeal filed by the Inspecting Asstt. Commissioner (Asst.), Range XIII, New Delhi against the order of the Commissioner (A)-I, New Delhi contending that the learned Commissioner (A) erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 6,19,68,285 made as interest on protested advances.2. By going through the order passed by the Income-tax Officer it is found that in this year under appeal the bank has taken credit for an interest of Rs. 6,19,68,285 on protested advances and that the same was not shown in the return of income filed by the bank. The Bank's case was that in cases where certain advances were not likely to be recovered either in part or in full, these were transferred to a register known as "Protested Advance Register". It was further submitted that in all these cases the recovery of the principal amount itself was in doubt. There was therefore no justification or question of taking credit for the interest accrued on such doubtful advances. It was also submitted that as and...
Ashok Kumar Bhatnagar Vs. Shabnam Bhatnagar
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-05-1988
Reported in: AIR1989Delhi122; 1989(16)DRJ105
Santosh Duggal, J. (1) This is petitioner-husband's Letter Patent Appeal, filed against the dismissal in liming of his appeal by a Learned Single Judge of this Court ; which appeal he had taken against the judgment dated 5th January, 1985 of the Additional District Judge, Delhi, dismissing his petition for a decree of divorce by dissolution of his marriage with the respondent filed under the provisions of Section 13(l)(ia)(ib) Of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, as amended by the Marriage Laws (Amendment Act of 1976). (2) It is a case of short lived marriage between the spouses, as revealed from the facts culled from the record, inasmuch as the wedding had taken place on 7th March, 1976 whereas there has been admitted severance of relationship between them since 10th October, 1976. The petitioner came up with the allegations that the respondent had deserted him and left the matrimonial home on 10th October, 1976 with the intention of permanently abandoning the same and that this was witho...
Collector of C. Ex. Vs. Remed Saw Mill No. Ii
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Oct-04-1988
Reported in: (1989)(43)ELT688TriDel
1. The facts of the case, as stated in the orders of the lower authorities, are that the respondents manufacture furniture without the aid of power out of timber sawn with the aid of power in their factory.The Superintendent of Central Excise, Sambalpur held that Central Excise duty was not chargeable on the furniture as the same was manufactured without the aid of power. He, however, held that duty was to be paid on the sawn timber as the same was manufactured with the aid of power. The order of the Superintendent was challenged before the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), Calcutta under Section 35-E (4) of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944. By the impugned order, the Collector (Appeals) has upheld the order of the Superintendent. Hence the present appeal of the Revenue before us.2. The question to be decided in this case is whether furniture manufactured by the appellants should be charged to Central Excise duty. Under Notification No. 179/77-C.E., dated 18-6-1977 issued u...
Dal Chand Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-04-1988
Reported in: 36(1988)DLT282; 1989(16)DRJ44
Charanjit Talwar, J.(1) This case has an eventful history. This is the second time that Dal Chand, the appellant has challenged his conviction and sentence punishable for the offence of murder which, it is alleged, he committed on April 21, 1975. At the time of commission of offence, the appellant was stated to be a little over 17 years of age. He was found guilty after trial by an Additional Sessions Judge, Delhi vide judgment dated the 22nd February, 1977. The appeal filed by him (Criminal Appeal No. 132/77) was allowed by this court on October 23, 1981 and the case was remanded for re-trial to the Court of Sessions.(2) The Division Bench comprising D.K. Kapur, J. (as his lordship then was) and J.D. Jain, J. found that as the substantive charge for the offence of murder had not been framed, the conviction and sentence awarded for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code read with Section 149, Indian Penal Code was not sustainable.(3) The facts of the case hav...
Hi-bred (India) Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Ravi Kumar and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-04-1988
Reported in: 37(1989)DLT7
P.K. Bahri, J. (1) This Civil Revision is brought under section 25-8(8) of the Delhi Rent Control Act against the eviction order dated June 1, 1988 of Shri V. K.Jain, Additional Controller, made on the ground of eviction under Section 14(l)(a) of the Act.(2) I have heard the arguments in detail at the time of admission. The findings of the Additional Controller that the respondents herein are the owners-landlords in respect of Property No. S-260, Panchshila Park, New Delhi and the said premises had been let out to the petitioner for residential purposes only and that the respondents are not in possession of any alternate reasonably suitable accommodation in Delhi are not challenged before me. The finding of the Additional Controller that the respondents bona fide require the premises in question for occupation as residence for themselves and for their two sons is seriously contested.(3) The facts, in brief, are that the respondent No. 1 and his wife respondent No. 2 were employed and w...
T.M. Mammoo Haji Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-04-1988
Reported in: 1989(1)Crimes282; 37(1989)DLT11; 1989(16)DRJ49
Malik Sharief-ud-din, J.(1) The petitioner has challenged the validity of the detention order dated 20th of August, 1987 passed by the Government of Kerala under Section 3(1)(iii) and 3(1)(iv) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974. The order was passed with a view to preventing the petitioner in dealing with the smuggled gold otherwise than by engaging in transporting or concealing or keeping smuggled gold.(2) The brief facts arc that on 7th of November, 1986, the customs people made a recovery of Rs, 91,000.00 from the residence of one K. Sasidharan. Thereafter on 8th of November,S1986 residential premises of one M. Appukkuttan was searched and 100 gold biscuits were recovered from a china clay hidden under-neat the earth in the Kitchen. Another 100 gold biscuits of foreign made similarly hidden in china clay were recovered after 50 digging earth of the back-side of his house. On 14th of November, 1986 a tin containing 72 gold biscuit...
Rohit Pulp and Paper Mills Limited Vs. Collector of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Oct-03-1988
Reported in: (1988)(18)ECC134
1. Both these appeals were heard together and are being disposed of by this common order as they involve common questions and issues.2. The question that arises for decision in these appeals is as to which slab (slab 3 or slab 4) mentioned in Notification No. 25/84-CE is attracted for the purposes of levy of excise duty on different varieties of paper and paper board manufactured by the appellants. The answer to this question depends on whether or not "broke" arising during the course of manufacture and consumed within the factory is to be considered as paper and paper board cleared from the factory of the appellants. If broke is considered as paper/paper board, its quantity is added to the annual clearances and the appellants fall in a higher bracket and consequently pay higher rate of excise duty, as is the case now. Including the question about broke, 4 issues arise for determination in this appeal. These are as follows :- 1. Whether the quantity of Broke consumed within the factor...
Rajinder Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-03-1988
Reported in: 1988(3)Crimes831; 36(1988)DLT358
Malik Sharief-ud-Din, J.(1) The petitioner was tried for an offence under section 379 Indian Penal Code and was convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 2 years by the court of the Metropolitan Magistrate.First appellate court of the learned Additional Sessions Judge recorded concurrent finding and confirmed the order of conviction and sentence.(2) The brief facts are that on 30/03/1981 at about 9 p.m. while the complainant Nanak Chand was traveling in a crowded bus the petitioner Rajinder at Chowk Pahar Ganj removed a sum of Rs. 5.00 and a card marked as Ex. P-1 and Ex. P-2 in the case from his pocket. In the process of picking the pocket of Nanak Chand, Nanak Chand caught hold of Rajinder and with the help of another person Sat Prakash and co-passengers took him to the police station where a case was registered and the stolen articles seized.I have gone through the seizure memo. In this it is faithfully stated that both the stolen goods were produced by the compla...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »