Delhi Court September 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.
Union of India and anr. Vs. Ravinder Singh Johar and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-20-1988
Reported in: 36(1988)DLT301; 1988RLR620
P.K. Bahri, J (1) This civil revision has been brought under Section 25-B(8) of the Delhi Rent Control Act (for short 'the Act') challenging the eviction order dated April 30, 1985, of Shri Prem Kumar, Additional Rent Controller, Delhi, made on the ground of' eviction covered by clause (e) of sub-section (1) of Section 14 of the Act.(2) The facts, in brief, are mat the petitioner is the tenant in the premises No. 161329, Khajoor Road Karol Bagh, New Dielhi. The premises had been lei out since December 21, 1970, to the Delhi Administration for running a child care centre. The respondents filed the eviction petition on the ground of bona fide requirement for residence. The petitioners tiled the application seeking leave to depend. Along with the application the affidavit of one Shri Sri Pal, S.A.S., of Directorate of Social Welfare was filed In the leave to defend application various pleas were taken that the landlords did not bona fide require the premises in question for occupation as ...
Municipal Corporation of Delhi Vs. Piyush Traders (P) Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-20-1988
Reported in: ILR1988Delhi577; 1988RLR651
Bahri, J. (1) These two Writ Petitions are being disposed of by this common judgment. Facts in brief are that M/s. Piyush Traders Private Limited, respondent No. 1. in both the writ petitions has constructed property bearing Municipal No. B-II/33, Mohan Cooperative Industrial Estate, Mathura Road, Badarpur, New Delhi. The petitioner. Municipal Corporation of Delhi, in both the writ petitions has sent a notice dated 30th March, 1984 proposing to fix the rateable value of Rs. 1,62.000 w.e.f. 1st April, 1983. Respondent No.1 filed objections to the said notice raising the plea that soon after constructing the building the same was let out to M/s. Jain sons Engineers Private Limited w.e.f. 1-10-83 for a period of 2 years vide a license deed dated 26th October, 1983 at the rental of Rs. 6,000 per month, but the said tenant vacated the premises by the end of December, 1983 and the same name to he let out to American Embassy w.e.f. January 1. 1984 on a monthly rental of Rs. 15,000. Hence the ...
Raju Vs. State (Delhi Administration)
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-19-1988
Reported in: 1988(3)Crimes837; 36(1988)DLT319
M.K. Chawla, J.(1) There is a cluster of jhuggis covering a vast area at Yamuna Pushta near the boat bridge, falling within the jurisdiction of Police Station Kotwali. Raju, accused, is known as a tough of that locality. In the presence of a few persons, including Shri Bhola Yadav, the first informant, the accused is alleged to have stabbed Raju, deceased, at 8 P.M. on 4th November, 1983 at the back of jhuggi of one Tahir. PWs. Sher Ali and Dilawar removed the injured to J.P.N. Hospital in the cycle-rickshaw of Noor Aslam. At about 9.30 P.M., Balram Constable on duty at the Hospital telephonically informed the Duty Officer at the Police Station Kotwali that one unknown person said to have been injured in a knifing incident near the jhuggis situated at Yamuna Pushta, had been declared 'brought dead' by the doctor. This information was incorporated as Dd Report 31-B (Ex. PW-15/ A). Its copy was given to Shri O.P. Tiwari, SHO/inspector of Police Station, Kotwali, who Along with his staff ...
Anjali Sharma Vs. Council for the Indian School of Certificate Examina ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-19-1988
Reported in: 36(1988)DLT316
Y.K. Sabharwal, J.(1) The writ petition filed by the petitioner was dismissed on 20th July 198? and by orders made on 13th August 1987, the Registrar of this Court was directed to make a complaint in writing against the petitioner and Ms. Kamlesh Sharma for having committed offences under sections 191, 192 and 193 of the Indian Penal Code to the Magistrate having jurisdiction. This application though seeks review of these orders but learned counsel has confined her submissions only in regard to the review of order made on 13th August 1987. In para 3 of the application, the petitioner has referred to the orders passed by the Supreme Court on 30th November, 1987 in the following words :- 'THAT vide order dated 30-11-1987 the Hon'ble Supreme Court was pleased to direct this Hon'ble Court to review its aforesaid judgment and order dated 20-7-1987 and 13-8-87 the Hon'ble Supreme Court was also pleased to grant ex-parte stay against the prosecution, vide order dated 7-9-1987. The copies of t...
R.P. Locks Co. Vs. Sehgal Locks Co. and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-19-1988
Reported in: 1989(2)ARBLR69(Delhi); 36(1988)DLT417; 1988RLR648
B.N. Kirpal, J.(1) This order will dispose of the application under Order 39 rules I and 2 filed by the plaintiff where the prayer is for the grant of a temporary injunction pending disposal of the suit.(2) The plaintiff is admittedly the owner of the registered trade mark HARRISON. This trade mark is used in respect of locks manufactured by the plaintiff. The registration was .granted to the plaintiff on 27th April, 1960. The case of the plaintiff is that it has a large turn over and the defendants have now started manufacturing and selling locks under the trade name and style of HARTCON. This, according to the plaintiff, amounts to infringement of the plaintiff's trade mark.(3) Along with the suit. an application under Order 39 rules I and 2 was also Sled for the grant of interim injunction and an ex parte injunction was granted on 27th November, 1987. An application was also filed under Order 26 pursuant to which a Local Commissioner was appointed who took possession of the locks/pa...
Kusum Products Ltd. Vs. Collector of C.E.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Sep-16-1988
Reported in: (1988)(18)ECC128
(i) Whether the credit of Central Excise duty paid on nickel catalyst and activated bleaching earth, falling under Central Excise Tariff Item 68, used in the manufacture of vegetable product falling under Item 13 of C.E.T. could be utilised by adjustment against the duty payable on the finished product under Notification No. 201/79-CE, dated 4.6.1979 as amended ; and (ii) Whether the demand for duty is time-barred. Demand was raised by the Department on the ground that the credit was availed of by the appellants wrongly.2. It is stated in the impugned order that as per manufacturing process of the vegetable product, nickel catalyst is used as a catalytic agent for accelerating or retard-Ing chemical action. The catalytic agent itself does not undergo any change and recovered as such for use again and again. Activated bleaching earth is used for bleaching of colour of the oil taken for hydrogenation and is recovered by filtration to obtain refined oil which is then ready for hydrogenat...
Collector of Customs Vs. India Polyfibres Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Sep-16-1988
Reported in: (1988)(18)ECC132
1. Landing charges are levied by the respective port authority on goods imported into India. Such charges normally work out, on an average, to around 1 % of the C.I.F. price of the goods. As a part of the cost of delivery of the goods at the place of importation, these charges form a component of the assessable value of the goods for levy of customs duty.2. The customs duties have to be assessed and paid before the goods could be cleared from the port premises. Since the amount of actual landing charges that would be levied on the consignment at the time of its clearance is not known at the earlier stage of assessment and payment of customs duties, it has been an established practice in the Customs Houses to adopt an average rate, worked out on the basis of the total landing charges collected and the total C.I.F. value of the goods imported in the previous year(s). The average rate of landing charges so determined is revised periodically on the basis of actuals of the preceding year(s...
Collector of Customs Vs. Kewal Kishore Malhotra
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Sep-16-1988
Reported in: (1989)(23)LC632Tri(Delhi)
1. This appeal is directed against the impugned adjudication order No.50/83, dated 19-9-1983 passed by the Collector of Customs, New Delhi.2. Factual backdrop: In pursuance of an information received from the Commissioner of Customs and Excise, Customs and Excise Headquarters, Hong Kong to the effect that the respondent having an Indian Passport on his arrival at Hong Kong on 6-1-1980 had declared 50 pcs. of silver valued at 1 lakh Hong Kong dollars to Hong Kong, Customs, the enquiries were started at Delhi by the authorities concerned and as a sequel thereof on the strength of a search warrant the residential premises of the respondent was searched and as a result thereof three containers namely (1) Normal size of V.I.P. TRAVELITE bearing the visiting card of the respondent; (2) A small check suitcase and (3) Black coloured hand bag were recovered and seized. Some other documents being relevant to and useful for the proceedings under the Customs Act, 1962 were also recovered. Stateme...
Ballarpur Industries Ltd. Vs. the Director General of Investigation an ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-16-1988
Reported in: AIR1989Delhi329; [1988]64CompCas884(Delhi); ILR1988Delhi10a
D.P. Wadhwa, J. (1) By this petition field under Article 226 of the Constitution the petitioner, a public limited company. engaged in the manufacture of paper seek to have a notice of inquiry issued by the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Pra.ctices Commission, the second respondent (tor short'the Commission') and the further order of the Commissionrefusing, to set aside the said notice of inquiry and the proceedings in pursuance thereto quashed.(2) The facts which are in brief may be set out.(3) On 3-6-1985 the Commission issued a notice under Section 10(a)(i) and 10(a)(iv) and Section 37 of the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Act, 1969 (for short'the Act') and Regulation 58 of the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Commission Regulations. 1974 (for short'the Regulations') ordering that an inquiry be instituted against the petitioner to inquire into certain trade practices alleged against the petitioner and it those trade practices had or might have the effect of pr...
Satish Bhardwaj Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-16-1988
Reported in: 1989(16)DRJ1
Malik Sharief-Ud-Din, J. (1) The petitioner has challenged the validity of the detention order dated 5th of March, 1988 passed under Section 3(1) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 (as amended) by the Joint Secretary to the Government Mr. K.L. Verma. This order was passed with a view to preventing the detenu from acting in any manner prejudicial to the augmentation of foreign exchange. This in turn was based on an incident dated 8th of January, 1988 when some documents and cash were recovered from the residence of the petitioner pursuant to some information given by one Jamalu-Ud-Din Rao apprehended on 7th January, 1988 by the Rajasthan police in Jaipur. The documents seized from the residence of the petitioner were explained by him in his statement recorded under Section 40 of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act and it was found on investigation that the petitioner was indulging in what is commonly known as Hawala transactions. On ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- Next ›
- Last »