Delhi Court August 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.
Sanjeev Kumar Vs. the State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-19-1988
Reported in: 1988(15)DRJ357
Malik Sharief-ud-din, J.(1) The petitioner is aggrieved by an order dated 2nd March, 1988 passed by Shri Brijesh Sethi, Metropolitan Magistrate, New Delhi. According to the petitioner the order is unwarranted against law and is a pure abuse of the process of the Court.(2) It seems that petitioner was found violating the provisions of Section 83 of Delhi Police Act and for this reason be was challaned before the learned Magistrate. The offence under Section 83 Delhi Police Act is punishable under Section 97 of the same Act. It seems that the police at the time of detecting the violation took a security of Rs. 500.00 from the petitioner. I am not really able to appreciate as to under what law the cash security was demanded and undertaken. If the offence is non cognizable and if the petitioner could not be arrested the only thing that the prosecution could do was to file a complaint before the Court and produce the petitioner before the Court pursuant to the Courts process. It seems that ...
Najma Heptulla Vs. Orient Longman Ltd. and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-19-1988
Reported in: AIR1989Delhi63; 1988(2)ARBLR302(Delhi); 1989(1)Crimes597; 36(1988)DLT31; 1988(15)DRJ223
B.N. Kirpal, J. (1) This order will dispose of the plaintiff's application under Order 39 Rules I and 2 for an injunction restraining the defendants from breaking the seals of the covers in which the complete book India Wins Freedom is lying and will also dispose of an application under Order 39 Rule 4 being 1.A. 1750 of 1988 for vacation of the ad interim exparte injunction by which defendants 1, 3 and 4 had been restrained from breaking the said seals of the covers of the aforesaid book. (2) The plaintiff, claiming herself to be one of the legal heirs of late Maulana Abul Kalam Azad, has filed the present suit for rendition of accounts and injunction. The main relief is sought against defendant No. 1 M/s. Orient Longman Limited which is a publisher of repute and with whom an agreement had been entered into by Professor Humayun Kabir, who had been Maulana Azad's admirer, close associate and who is claimed, by his daughter defendant No. 6, so be the real author of the book India Wins F...
income Tax Officer Vs. Mohd. Yousuf
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-19-1988
Reported in: (1988)73CTR(Del)150; 36(1988)DLT211; 1989(16)DRJ197; 1988RLR664
Charanjit Talwar, J. (1) By this appeal, the Income-tax Officer Special Circle challenges the acquittal of Mohd. Yousuf, respondent herein by the Metropolitan Magistrate under Section 277 of the Income-tax Act 1961 (hereinafter called the Act) and for offences under S. 193 and S. 196 of the Indian Penal Code. The impugned judgment is dated the 30th August, 1979. (2) To appreciate the contentions of the appellant, it is necessary to set out briefly the facts of the complaints which were filed by the appellant against the respondent in the Court of the Metropolitan Magistrate. (3) The complainant in discharge of his official duties and on being authorised by the Commissioner of Income-tax, Delhi filed the complaint for the said offences against the respondent in his capacity as sole proprietor of M/s. Pneumatic Spares Industries. The respondent was an Income-tax assessed. For the assessment year 1965-66 he filed a return on 30th June, 1965 declaring his income to be Rs. 1452.12. He had d...
Murari Lal Chet Ram, Badlu and anr. Vs. P.C. Sharma and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-19-1988
Reported in: 36(1988)DLT154; 1988(15)DRJ330; 1988RLR685
D.P. Wadhwa, J. (1) This batch of five petitions (C.M. (Main) Nos. 24, 25, 39, 267 and 268 of 1974) can be disposed of by one judgment as common questions of law and fact arise. These petitions under article 227 of the Constitution are by the tenants and their challenge is to an order of the Competent Authority constituted under the Slum Areas (Improvement and Clearance) Act 1956 (for short 'the Act') granting permission under Section 19(l)(a) of the Act to the respondent-landlords to institute proceedings for eviction against the petitioners.(2) The order in the case of petitions by Murari Lal (C.M. (M) 25/7-1) Chet Ram (CM.(M) 25/74) and Badlu(C,M. (M) 39/74) is of Mr. P.O. Sharma, Competent Authority, and is dated 22-10-1973. In the other two petitions of Pooran Chand (C.M. (M) 267/74) and Jayanti Pershad (C.M. (M) 268/74), the impugned order is dated 3-8-1974 and was passed by Mr. G.C. Jain, Competent Authority. The order in the first three petitions is common. The premises in ques...
Harish Chander Sharma and ors. Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-19-1988
Reported in: ILR1988Delhi182
P.K. Bahri, J.(1) 26 Junior Physical Education Teacher. (for short 'Jr. PTIs') employees of the New Delhi Municipal Committee have brought this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for a writ requiring the New Delhi Municipal Committee (for short 'NDMC') to follow the principle of 'equal pay for equal work' and pay the petitioners the same pay-scale as is being paid to employees set out in annexure-II and to also regularise the services of the petitioners. (2) These petitioners, whose particulars in detail have been given in annexure-I, were appointed by Ndmc as Jr. PTIs in the pay-scale of Rs. 330-560 in between the period 1975 to 1983. 18 Jr. PTIs whose particulars stand enumerated in annexure-II, were appointed as Jr. PTIs in the pay-scale of Rs. 440-750 in between the period 1964 to 1972. The case set up by the petitioners is simply this that the petitioners as well as the employees mentioned in annexure-II have been appointed to the same posts and they h...
income-tax Officer Vs. Mohd. Yousuf.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-19-1988
Reported in: (1989)73CTR(Del)150; [1989]175ITR263(Delhi)
CHARANJIT TALWAR J. - By this appeal, the Income-tax Officer, Special Circle, challenges the acquittal of Mohd. Yousuf, respondent herein by the Metropolitan Magistrate under section 277 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter called 'the Act'), and for offences under sections 193 and 196 of the Indian Penal Code. The impugned judgment is dated August 30, 1979.To appreciate the contentions of the appellant, it is necessary to set out briefly the facts of the complaints which were filed by the appellant against the respondent in the Court of the Metropolitan Magistrate.The complainant, in discharge of his official duties and on being authorised by the Commissioner of Income-tax, Delhi, filed a complaint for the said offences against the respondent in his capacity s sole proprietor of Pneumatic Spares Industries. The respondent was an income-tax assessed. For the assessment year 1965-66, he filed a return on June 30, 1965, declaring his income to be Rs. 1,452.12. He had declared his tot...
Collector of C. Ex. Vs. Swadeshi Polytex Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Aug-18-1988
Reported in: (1989)(23)LC478Tri(Delhi)
1. These three appeals were heard together as they involve common issues. They are being decided by this common order. The respondents manufacture polyester fibre falling under Tariff Item 18 of the First Schedule. During the course of manufacture ethylene glycol and DMT are used. The respondents received duty paid ethylene glycol falling under Tariff Item 68 from outside and claimed set off of duty in respect of said products which were used as inputs in the manufacture of polyester fibre in terms of Notification No. 201/79-CE as amended. The set off was allowed by the Assistant Collector of Central Excise subject to restrictions contained in the Notification.2. Subsequently the Assistant Collector passed orders on 6.8.1980 to the effect that no proforma credit is allowable in respect of Glycol contents contained in the following goods:- (i) 'Methanol' which is not excisable and is outside the purview of Central Excise duty. (ii) Glycol residual waste which is being destroyed by the ...
Collector of C.E. Vs. Singh Alloys and Steel Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Aug-18-1988
Reported in: (1988)(19)LC331Tri(Delhi)
1. Exemption Notification No. 201/79Central Excises dated 4-6-1979 gave setoff of the' duty paid when goods falling under Tariff Hem 68 were used in the manufacture of other excisable goods. The respondents used duty paid Burnt/Sintered Dolomite, falling under Item 68, In connection with the manufacture of Steel Ingots in their factory. The Collector (Appeals) held that the respondents were entitled to the benefit of exemption notification No. 201/79CE aforesaid. The appellant Collector has come up in appeal pleading that since Dolomite was actually used for the protection of the walls of the steel making furnace, it could not be considered as an input for the manufacture of Steel Ingots and hence the benefit of setoff under the notification was not admissible.Elaborating on the same pleading, the learned representative of the department relied on the Supreme Court judgment reported at 1965 (16) STC 563 (SC) and cited in the Larger Bench Judgment of this Tribunal at 1987 (30) ELT 850 ...
Collector of Customs Vs. Starlite Corporation
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Aug-18-1988
Reported in: (1989)(19)ECC46
1. This is an appeal filed by the Collector of Customs, Bombay against the order of Collector of Customs (Appeals), Bombay. Brief facts of the case are that the respondents imported a consignment of 1 MT of Gutta Per cha Raw G8. The goods were assessed to duty under Tariff Heading 40.01/04 of the Cus toms Tariff read with Central Excise Tariff Item 15A(1) for the purpose of levy of C.V.Duty. The appellants claimed the assessment of the goods under Tariff Item 68 CET for the pur pose of C.V. Duty and fited a refund claim. The same was rejected by the Assistant Col lector. The Collector (Appeals) on appeal allowed the appellants' plea for refund. The findings of the Collector (Appeals) and for the convenience of reference are reproduced below: "The imported product finds specific mention under Tariff Heading 40.01/04 of the CT. In the Customs Tariff natural high polymer is excluded from the purview of Chapter 39 since that Chapter only includes polymer obtained by Chemical syn thesis. I...
Wings Wear Corporation Vs. Workmen of Wings Wear Corporation
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-18-1988
Reported in: 1988(15)DRJ393; 1989LabIC974
Arun B. Saharya, J.(1) In this Letters Patent Appeal the main questions, among others, which have arisen are : (1) Whether the appropriate government can, in exercise of its power under Section 10(1) read with Section 12(5) of the Industrial disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), in view of various decisions of the Supreme Court refuse to make a reference of an industrial dispute for reasons which purport to decide merits of the dispute ; and (2) whether the scope of that power has been altered by .Section Iia inserted in the Act with effect from 15th December, 1971.(2) Several workmen-employed by the appellant were chargesheeted for misconduct. Domestic inquiry was held against them. Charges against the six concerned workmen were found to have been substanfiated. Consequently, they were dismissed from service. The workmen, through their union, approached the Conciliation Officer and submitted two identical statements of claim, one in respect of five workmen and the o...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- Next ›
- Last »