Delhi Court November 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.
Sudha Vs. State (Delhi Administration)
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-24-1988
Reported in: 37(1989)DLT140; 1989(16)DRJ165
Talwar, J. (1) A normal male child was born to Sudba, the appellant herein, on 20th February, 1984 at about 10 p.m. That illegitimate baby was strangulated and the dead body was found in the possession of Sudha's mother Angoori Devi (who was a co-accused) at about 10.30 p.m. when, it is alleged she was seen attempting to dispose it of near a Ganda Nullah by one Daulat Ram(P.W.3). The appellant and her mother Angoori were tried for the offence of murder. Angoori Devi was further tried for an offence under Section 201 of the Indian Penal Code. The charges framed by the trial court are as follows: 'THAT on 20/2/84 around 10 p.m. you in furtherance of common intention of you both, committed the murder of newly born male child of Sudha by strangulation, in your house in Gali No. 5, Vijay Mohalla, Maujpur, Delhi and thereby both of you committed an offence punishable under Section 302/34 Indian Penal Code, and within the cognizance of this court.SECONDLY: that you Smt. Angoori Devi, on the a...
Jasjit Singh Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-24-1988
Reported in: 37(1989)DLT30
(1) In this criminal writ petition brought under Article 226 of the Constitution of India read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal ocedure, the petitioner has prayed for quashing of the detention order dated February 5, 1988, passed by respondent No. 2 under Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention! of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 (for short 'COFEPOSA Act') it is not necessary to refer to all the grounds pleaded in this writ petition because this petition is liable to be allowed on a very short question. (2) In the grounds challenging the detention order, particularly grounds H & I, it was pleaded by the petitioner that his representations dated February 24, 1988, sent to respondents No. 1 & 2 were not promptly dealt with inasmuch as the representation, which was addressed to the Central Government, was not even placed before the detaining authority with any promptitude and the consideration of the said representation was delayed and on that score alone the detention orde...
Gurmauj Saran Baluja Vs. Mrs. Joyce C. Salim and Others
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-22-1988
Reported in: AIR1990Delhi13; 37(1989)DLT114
ORDERD. P. Wadhwa, J.1. This appeal by the plaintiff is directed against the order dt. 26-10-1987 of the learned single Judge allowing an application of one Kaka Singh filed under 0. 1, R. 10 read with S. 151 of the Civil P.C. 1908 (for short 'the Code'), for impleading him as a defendant in the suit.2. The plaintiff on 10-5-1983 filed a suit for specific performance of two agreements and, in the alternative, for recovery of Rs.13,74,000/- as damages against four defendants. He had entered into these two agreements with the first defendant, who is the wife of the second defendant. The plaintiff contended that defendant 1, being the owner of plots Nos. 452A and 452B in Block S, Greater Kailash, Part 11, New Delhi, entered into two separate agreements to sell these two plots to the plaintiff for certain consideration and also received earnest money of Rs.15,000/- each in respect of these two plots from the plaintiff. Both these agreements were entered into the March 1972, one on 15-3-197...
Gurmauj Saran Baluja Vs. Joyce C. Salim and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-22-1988
Reported in: 1989(16)DRJ181
D.P. Wadhwa, J.(1) This appeal by the plaintiff is directed against the order dated 26-10-1987 of the learned single Judge allowing an application of one Kaka Singh filed under Order 1, Rule 10 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short 'the Code'), for impleading him as a defendant in the suit. (2) The plaintiff on l0-5-1983 filed a suit for specific performance of two agreements and, in the alternative, for recovery of Rs.l3,74,000.00 as damages against four defendants. He had entered into these two agreements with the first defendant, who is the wife of the second defendant. The plaintiff contended that defendant No. 1, being the owner of plots Nos. 452A and 452B in Block S, Greater Kailash, Part Ii, New Delhi, entered into two separate agreements to sell these two plots to the plaintiff for certain consideration and also received earnest money of Rs. 15,000.00 each in respect of these two plots from the plaintiff. Both these agreements were entered into i...
Raminder Kaur Bedi Vs. Jatinder Singh Bedi
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-22-1988
Reported in: 1989(16)DRJ154
P.K. Bahri, J. (1) This Criminal Revision is brought under Section 397/401 of Criminal Procedure Code and is directed against order dated January 23, 1988 of Shri K.S. Pal, Metropolitan Magistrate, New Delhi by which he had directed stay of proceedings in a criminal complaint filed by the petitioner under Section 500 Indian Penal Code against the respondent till disposal of the petition brought under Section 25 and 27 of the Special Marriage Act by the respondent against the petitioner. (2) The criminal complaint was filed by the petitioner who is wife of the respondent under Section 500 Indian Penal Code on the allegation that respondent has made grossly defamatory false allegations against the petitioner in the petition filed by respondent seeking divorce from the petitioner on the ground of adultery and such allegations have effected the reputation of the petitioner in the eyes of the people and has lowered the petitioner in the esteems of the members of the society in which the pet...
AmirruddIn @ Amir Hassan Vs. the State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-22-1988
Reported in: 37(1989)DLT19
Charanjit Talwar, J. (1) The appellant herein, Amirruddin @ Amir Hassan challenges the legality of the judgment dated the 28th May, 1985, whereby he was found guilty for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life. (2) The prosecution case was that Amirruddin had committed the murder of his wife at about 2.00 Am in the night intervening 16-17th February, 1984 in his room in House No. 9/32, Karan Gali, Vishwas Nagar, Shahdara, Delhi. Amirruddin was a tenant in the said room. His landlord, Islamuddin was residing in another room of that very house. According to Islamuddin, who has appeared as prosecution witness No. 1 the room was taken over by the appellant as a tenant in February, 1984, i.e., a few days prior to the incident. That house had only two rooms, one of which was being occupied by the landlord himself. Amiruddiri was living in that room Along with his wife. His two brothers were also living with him...
Municipal Corporation of Delhi Vs. Jai NaraIn Bansal and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-21-1988
Reported in: 37(1989)DLT183
M.K. Chawla, J.(1) Shri Jai Narain Bansal was working as Terminal Tax Inspector at T.T. Post, Mathura Road, in November, 1976. He was found guilty of some misconduct and a domestic enquiry to substantiate the charge was instituted. The charge was proved and consequently the penalty of removal from service, not amounting to disqualification for future employment was imposed against him. Against this order, he raised an industrial dispute in which he challenged the virus of the holding of the domestic enquiry. The matter was ultimately referred to the Court of Shri A.K. Garg, Presiding Officer, Labour Court with the following terms of reference: 'Whether the termination of the services of Shri Jai Narain Bansal is legal and justified and, if not, to what relief is he entitled and what directions are necessary in this matter.' (2) After going through the pleadings and also the record of the enquiry proceedings, the Presiding Officer set aside the findings of the domestic enquiry by holdin...
Britannia Industries Limited Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Nov-18-1988
Reported in: (1989)(21)LC185Tri(Delhi)
1. The Britannia Biscuit Co. Ltd., had filed a revision application to the Joint Secretary, Government of India, Department of Revenue and Banking, New Delhi being aggrieved from order-in-appeal Nos. 1976/76 and 1977/76 dated 17th December, 1976 passed by the Appellate Collector of Customs and Central Excise, Bombay. The said revision application stands transferred to the Tribunal in terms of the provisions of Section 35 of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 to be disposed of as an appeal. The Appellate Collector of Central Excise had disposed of two appeals by a consolidated order but the appellants had filed only one revision application. Subsequently another supplementary appeal was filed and presented in the registry on 18th January, 1985. In the supplementary appeal there was also a request from the appellants for the condonation of delay in the filing of the supplementary appeal.Another Misc. application was moved by the appellants requesting the Tribunal for the substitutio...
Collector of Central Excise Vs. Duke and Sons (P) Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Nov-18-1988
Reported in: (1989)(21)LC38Tri(Delhi)
1. The proceedings in the present appeal were initiated under Section 36A(2) of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 as in force at the relevant time by issue of a show cause notice by the Government of India for the purpose of reviewing the order of the Appellate Collector of Central Excise, Bombay in respect of M/s. Duke & Sons Pvt. Ltd. referred to as assessee in the show cause notice. The proceedings now stand transferred to the Tribunal under Section 35F of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 after this Tribunal was constituted and the matter is now being treated as an appeal before the Tribunal.2. The brief facts of the case are that the appellants in the present proceedings had claimed refund on the ground that the element of equalised freight was included in the assessable value and should be allowed abatement. The Assistant Collector rejected the appellants claim for the abatement of the transport charges under Section 4(2) of Central Excises and Salt Act for the rea...
Collector of C. Ex. Vs. Rama Sugar Works
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Nov-17-1988
Reported in: (1989)(44)ELT266TriDel
1. This appeal is directed against Order-in-Appeal No. 290-C.E./KNP/83 dated 9-12-83 passed by the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), New Delhi.2. The facts of the case, briefly stated, are that M/s. Rama Sugar Works (the respondents to this appeal) were engaged in the manufacture of khandasari sugar and were working under what is known as the Special Procedure for payment of Central Excise duty on a compounded basis.They deposited Central Excise duty amounting to Rs. 4,400/- on 8-2-1978 for the week 8-2-1978 to 14-2-1978. In the mean time, the Government of India had, by Notification No. 26/78 dated 4-2-1978, reduced the rate of compounded levy from Rs. 4,400/- per week to Rs. 2,200/- per week.Accordingly, the respondents filed a claim for refund of the excess amount paid, namely Rs. 2,200/-. This claim was received by the Assistant Collector of Central Excise on 3-10-1978. He dismissed the claim by order dated 9-2-1979 on the ground that it was barred by limitation under Central...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »