Delhi Court December 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.
Matai Parshad Vs. State (Delhi Administration)
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-07-1988
Reported in: 37(1989)DLT196
Charanjit Talwar, J. (1) The conviction of Matai Parshad, the appellant herein for an offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code is based solely on the extra-judicial confession, which is said to have been made by him to Public Witness .1, Malook Singh on 23rd July, 1983 at 9.00 P.M. The prosecution chose not to lead any evidence to corroborate the extrajudicial confession. The trial court vide its judgment of the 7th May, 1985 convicted the appellant and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life. The co-accused Ram Pal was, however, acquitted. By this appeal, the appellant is challenging the legality of the conviction and the sentence imposed on him. (2) Malook Singh, Public Witness . 1 had a factory at J-6, Mukhram Garden, Chokbandi Road, Delhi. He was carrying on the business of fabricating iron grills, gates and windows. The appellant berein, Matai Parshad, was working as a Welder in that factory. Malook Singh owned two houses. He resided at C-53, Mukhram Ga...
Jai Shree Sharma Vs. Inder Kumar Sharma
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-07-1988
Reported in: 1988(16)DRJ288
N.N. Goswamy, J.(1) ADMITTED. This petition by the wife is directed against the order dated 25-5-1988 passed by the learned Addl. District Judge, Delhi whereby her application under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act for maintenance pendents lite was disposed of and maintenance of Rs. 400.00 per month was allowed for the child. However, according to the directions, the maintenance was payable from the date of the order. The grievance of the petitioner is that the application under Section 24 was filed in 1986 and as such the maintenance should have been allowed from the date of the application and not from the date of the order. (2) Notice of this petition was issued to the respondent. Counter affidavit has been filed, In the counter affidavit, it is stated that it was in fact the petitioner who had been delaying the proceedings both in the main petition as also in the application under Section 24 of the Act. Facts, in details, have been mentioned, which indicate that in spite of rep...
Kirpal Mohan Virmani Vs. B.D. Mishra
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-07-1988
Reported in: 1989(3)Crimes146; 37(1989)DLT362; 1989(16)DRJ257; 1989(20)ECC28
G.C. Jain, J. (1) Whether the officers of the Department of Revenue Intelligence (DRI for short) invested with powers under Section 53 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1988 (NDPS Act' for short), were police officers within the meaning and scope of Section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act and whether the incriminating statement of an accused person recorded by them is inadmissible in evidence as envisaged by Section 25 of the Evidence Act', is the question which has been referred to a larger Bench for the determination by a learned Single Judge of this Court. In view of this reference. Criminal Revision 170/87, Raj Kumar Karwal v. Union of Ind a & others and Ajit Singh v. State raising inter alia, this question have been sent to the Bench.(2) The facts leading to the main reference, as gathered from the- petition filed by the petitioner, may be briefly stated. On July 12, 1986, a truck bearing registration No. Del 3124 was intercepted near Calcutta by the officers of...
income-tax Officer Vs. Hindustan Commercial Bank Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-06-1988
Reported in: [1989]30ITD165(Delhi)
ORDERPer Shri Ch. G. Krishnamurthy, President - The Income-tax Officer, Central Circle V, Kanpur is the appellant in this appeal filed against the order of the Commissioner (A)-I, Kanpur.2. In the first grounds taken in the grounds of appeal objection was raised against the deletion of an addition of Rs. 30,000 representing a provision made for payment of legal charges. While the Commissioner (A) allowed the claim of the assessed on the ground that this provision was in respect of an ascertained liability, which arose during the accounting year under appeal, the grounds of appeal states that the Commissioner (A) had not ascertained the full facts relating to the liability provided for and thereforee its allowance was uncalled for. The learned Commissioner (A) observed in his order :'The amount relates to provisions made in the year and the ground taken by the ITO us that the reason for which this liability arose was not given by the appellant. It is contended that this provision was fo...
ShamshuddIn Akbar Khan and Co. Vs. Collector of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Dec-05-1988
Reported in: (1989)(43)ELT684TriDel
1. The issue for determination in these appeals is whether the appellants were eligible for refund of the duty claimed by them from the Department on the ground that the product manufactured by them, namely, 'gudakhu' falls under Item 4 II of the Central Excise Tariff Schedule as it stood at the material time.2. We have heard Shri A.C. Jain, Advocate, for the appellants and Shri L.C. Chakraborty, DR, for the respondent Collector.3. The Counsel for the appellants has pointed out that the issue of classification of 'gudakhu' was disposed of by the Collector of Central Excise, Calcutta in his Order-in-Appeal No. 115/OR/81, dated 18-7-1981, whereby he held the goods to fall under residuary Tariff Item 68 of the Central Excise Tariff Schedule and not item 4 II. This Order-in-Appeal was challenged before the Tribunal in Appeal No. ED/SB/T/A.No.1662/81-D which was disposed of by the Tribunal by Order No. 185/87-D, dated 11-3-1987. In this order, the Tribunal noted that, in arriving at the de...
Shree Tirupati Plastic Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Dec-05-1988
Reported in: (1989)(21)LC284Tri(Delhi)
The appellant firm herein Filed a bill of entry for clearance of approximately 40 M.Ts Acrylic Plastic Sheets (other than sheets of thickness 0.85 mm to, 1.2 mm) on. 11.1.88. Invoice filed alongwith the bill of entry did not show any quality of plastic sheets or any specifications thereof; nor did it indicate the reference of any order placed by the appellants herein. The unit price of the goods shown in the invoice was @ U.S.$ 700 per M.T. Since no other documents like indent, confirmation, packing list etc. were produced alongwith the invoice, the appellants herein were asked to produce the said documents Proforma invoice dated 2.7.87 of the suppliers also does not indicate any specifications or quality of the plastic sheets. In the absence of the aforesaid documents and particularly the packing list the goods were ordered to be examined hundred per cent. Examina- tion revealed that the goods were packed in 41 pallets in two different containers each comprising 21 and 20 pallets res...
Shakuntala Rajpal and Others Vs. Mckenzie Philep (India) P. Ltd. and O ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-05-1988
Reported in: [1988]64CompCas585(Delhi)
Ranganathan, J.1. This is a petition under section 433 and 439 of the Companies Act, 1956, parrying that M/s.Mckenzie Philip (India) Pvt. Ltd. (respondent No.1) (hereinafter reefer to as 'the company') be wound up. The petitioners are the wife (petitioner No.1, who has since died), the sons (petitioner Nos.2 to 4) and daughters (petitioner Nos.5 and 6) of one Som Prakahs Rajapal (hereinafter referred to as 'S.P.). The circumstance in which the petitioner seek the winding up of the company may be briefly touched upon. 2. The company was fated in 1951 by S.P.and one of his brother, Kapil Munni. By 1966, the shareholders were S.P., his other mother and four brothers who held the 1,000 shares of the company (of Rs. 100 each) in the following proportion: ----------------------------------------------------------------------Name No.of shares ----------------------------------------------------------------------1. Smt. Krishna 2722. S.P. 167 3. Kapil Munni 1664. Chander Muni 1675. Shanti 127 ...
J. Lalhmingliana and Others Vs. Union of India and Others
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-05-1988
Reported in: (1989)77CTR(Del)101; ILR1988Delhi522b; [1989]177ITR24(Delhi)
Leila Seth, J.1. The question in issue in this case is whether the petitioners, who are members of 'Scheduled Tribes', are entitled to the benefits of exemption under section 10(26)(a) of the Income-tax Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act of 1961'), even when they are working outside the specified scheduled areas 2. The petitioners are admittedly government servants and members of Scheduled Tribes of the North-Eastern States. They are persons who draw salaries, etc., from the Government of India, State Governments or Union Territories of the Schedule area States, namely, Nagaland, Manipur Tripura Arunachal Pradesh and Mizoram, and are posted outside the specified scheduled areas. However, it is claimed that they are permanent residents of the said areas. 3. Mr. Harish Salve, learned counsel for the petitioner, has submitted that since the petitioners are permanent residents of the specified scheduled areas, they should be entitled to the exemption under section 10(26)(a) of the Ac...
J. Lalhmingliana and ors. Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-05-1988
Reported in: ILR1988Delhi522a
Leila Seth, J.(1) The question in issue in this case is whether the petitioners, who are members of Schedule Tribes are entitled to the benefits of exemption under section 10(26)(a) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act of 1961'), even when they are working outside the specified scheduled areas (2) The petitioners are admittedly government servants and members of Scheduled Tribes of the North-Eastern States. They are persons who draw salaries etc. from the Government of India. State Governments or Union Territories of the scheduled area States, namely, Nagaland, Manipur. Tripura, Arunachal Pradesh arid Mizoram and are posted outside the specified scheduled areas. However, it is claimed that they are permanent residents of the said areas. (3) Mr. Harish Salve, learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that since the petitioners are permanent residents of the specified scheduled areas, they should be entitled to the exemption under section 10(26)(a) of ...
New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. N.P. Tyagi and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-05-1988
Reported in: I(1989)ACC241; 1988(16)DRJ268
M.K.Chawla, J.(1) By this order, I purpose to dispose of four connected appeals bearing Nos. F.A.O. 52/88 to F.A.O. 55/88, filed by New India Assurance Company Limited, against the respondents m the respective appeals, as common questions of law and fact arise for determination. The appellant has challenged the correctness of the order of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal dated 9-11-1987 whereby the appellant herein was directed to pay the interim compensation of Rs.15,000.00 under Section 92-A of the Motor Vehicles Act to the respondents in the appeals. The submission of the learned counsel for the appellant is that an order under Section 92A of the Motor Vehicles Act cannot be passed unless and until the owner of the offending vehicle admits the accident with the other vehicle. His alternative plea is that assuming for the sake of arguments that such an order can be passed, then in that case Shri Subhash Chand, the transferee of the vehicle insured with the company, be made liable ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »