Delhi Court January 1989 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.
J. Hakim Purshotam Lal Vs. Goverdhan Lal and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-05-1989
Reported in: 38(1989)DLT287; 1989(17)DRJ138
P.K. Bahri, J(1) This second appeal has been brought against judgment and decree dated October 13, 1972, of Additional District Judge by which he dismissed the appeal filed against judgment and decree dated February 15, 1967, of Shri RK. Singhal, Sub-Judge 1st Class, Delhi dismissing the suit brought by Hakim Purshotam Lal appellant (since deceased) for possession in respect of one kothari located in building bearing municipal No. XII/28-36 (New) and 16-50 (Old), situated in Main Bazar, Subzi Mandi, Delhi, depicted in red colour in the plan filed Along with the plaint.(2) This kothari was attached by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate in proceedings under Section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The question as to which of the parties was in possession of the kothari was referred to the civil court for report and Shri Rk Singbal, Sub-Judge, had after recording the evidence given a report dated April 28, 1965. to the effect that at the relevant time defendant-respondent No. I Goverdhan...
Jeevan Thread Mfg. Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Income-tax Officer
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Decided on: Jan-04-1989
Reported in: (1992)40ITD152(Delhi)
1. Appellant-assessee, by the present appeal, challenges order dated January 7, 1986 of the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), New Delhi, for the assessment year 1981-82 on various grounds. First two grounds are in the following manner : " 1. That the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-XI, New Delhi, has erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 30,460 being one per cent, of the rebate out of the rebate allowed on sales to Messrs. Navin Bharat Co. (India) Pvt. Ltd. at the rate of two per cent, considering it to be adequate without any justification. 2. That the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-XI, New Delhi, has erred in observing that Messrs. Navin Bharat Co. (India) Pvt. Ltd. was allowed only five per cent, discount by the firm in earlier years, ignoring the facts and the material on record that Messrs. Navin Bharat Co. (India) Pvt. Ltd. has been paid bill discount at five per cent, and in addition to bill discount, a rebate on sales has been allowed e...
Baleshwar Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-04-1989
Reported in: 1989(1)Crimes765; 37(1989)DLT341
S. Dnggal, J. (1) This is an appeal, sent through jail, against the conviction and sentence of the appellant, for offences under Sections 366/376 Ipc, vide judgment dated 20th Deceimber, 1985. The order of sentence was separately recorded on the same date whereunder the appellant was awarded Rl for two years under Section 366 Indian Penal Code and sentence for seven years under Section 376 Indian Penal Code with a fine of Rs. 600.00 in default of payment of fine to undergo Rf for six months. The sentences were however, to run con- currently. The appellant challenges both his conviction as well as sentencing. (2) The appellant was sent up for trial, on the allegations that on 31st March, 1984, at about 11.30. A.M., he deceitfully enticed away a minor girl :Anarsa Devi, then aged about 13 years from the custody of her elder sister Smt. Meera Devi, resident of B-2/90, Nand Nagri, Delhi with an intent that she may be seduced to illicit intercourse, and further that after kidnapping the sai...
Rajesh Vs. Kultar Singh and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-04-1989
Reported in: 1(1989)ACC304
S.B. Wad, J.1. This is an appeal filed by Rajesh, son of Shri Ram Chand, who suffered an injury in an accident that took place on 16-4-1966. The evidence of eye witnesses and the evidence of the police as well as the Inspector of the vehicle shows that the accident had taken place on 16-4-1966 and that the petitioner had wrongly recorded the date of accident as 14-4-1966 in the claim petition. The Tribunal has considered the evidence of the eye witnesses, the police and the vehicle Inspector and held that the accident had taken place as claimed by the petitioner and had further come to the conclusion that the injuries received by the petitioner were the result of the said accident. Since the finding of the Tribunal is correct on the basis of the evidence referred to above, it has to be accepted that the accident took place on 16-4-1966. It is implicit in the finding of the Tribunal itself.2. The Insurance Company in its written statement stated that on the relevant date of the accident...
Victor Paul©raju Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-02-1989
Reported in: 1989(2)Crimes683; 37(1989)DLT274
Santosh Duggal, J. (1) The present appeal filed by convict Victor Paul @ Raju is directed against his conviction for offences under section 307 Ipc as well as section 27 and section 25 of the Arms Act. By consolidated judgment dated 5th February, 1987, recorded by Shri V.P. Bansal, then Addl. Sessions Judge, New Delhi, the appellant was sentenced to R.I. for three years for offence under section 307 Indian Penal Code and to R.I. for two years on account of conviction under section 27 of the Arms Act and another R.I. for one year under section 25 of the Arms Act by separate order recorded on 7th February. 1987. The sentences were, however, directed to run concurrently. (2) The present criminal appeal was filed from jail while the convict was undergoing the sentence and the plea is that of failure on the part of the trial court to take note of the vital and glaring discrepancies in the statements of the prosecution witness, rendering the case as not worthy of conviction. Some details of ...
Bhagwan Singh Etc. Vs. Union of India
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-02-1989
Reported in: 38(1989)DLT114
S.S. Chadha, J.(1) R.F.A. 73/73 and the Cross Appeal 83/73 has arisen out of the judgment dated January 12,1973 of the Court of Shri O.N. Vohra, Addl. District Judge, Delhi answering a reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) out of award No. 1891 of village Moradabad Pahari. R.F.A. 396/74 has arisen out of the judgment dated July 9, 1974 of the Court of Shri O.N.Vohra, Addl. District Judge, Delhi answering a reference under Section 18 of the Act arising out of award No. 2047 of village Moradabad Pahari. The preliminary notification under Section 4 of the Act in both these awards was issued on January 23. 1965. (2) Land situate in village Moradabad Pahari was notified for acquisition under Section 4 of the Act on October 24,1961 along with other land. In R.F.A. 250/68, 'Manipal&0rs. v. Union of India', decided on November 15, 1988, had determined the market value of the acquired land in that appeal at the rate of Rs. 12,000.00 pc...
Collector of Central Excise Vs. Aerolex Hose Pvt. Limited
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jan-01-1989
Reported in: (1989)(39)ELT681TriDel
1. Dealing with the miscellaneous application first the respondents company has prayed for substituting the respondents as stated in the impugned order namely from M/s. Aerolex Hose Industries to Aerolex Hose Pvt. Ltd. There being no opposition from the learned SDR misc.application is allowed with consequent change in cause title.2. Question involved in this appeal is the classification of the respondent company's product described as 'Hose assembly'. The product is composed of rubber or PVC Hose which is fitted with metal or aluminium fittings and sold as such. The Assistant Collector classified the product under T.1.4009.92 of the CET which reads as : "40.09 - Tubes, pipes and hoses of vulcanised rubber other than hardened rubber, with or without their fittings (for example, joints, elbows, flanges) 4009.92 - Designed to perform the function of conveying air, gas or liquid." The respondents company, on the other hand, claimed its assessment under CET 8431.00 or 8466.00 as parts of m...
Collector of Customs Vs. Union Carbide (i) Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jan-01-1989
Reported in: (1989)(40)ELT459TriDel
1. Collector of Customs, Calcutta, had filed a consolidated appeal being aggrieved from the following orders passed by the Appellate Collector of Customs, Calcutta:Order No. Date of Order Date of communicationCal-Cus-498/81 to 19.3.1981 2.9.1981Cal-Cus 501Cal-Cus-1193/81 4.12.1981 6.3.1982Cal-Cus-504/81 19.3.1981 13.8.1982 The said appeal was addressed to the Registry and sent per registered A.D. post vide covering letter dated 22nd May 1985 and was received in the Registry on 27th May, 1985. In the consolidated appeal in ground of appeal No. 3 internal page 5 of the appeal memo a prayer was made for the condonation of delay which is reproduced below: "3. Reasons for delayed appeal to CEGAT The appeals to CEGAT against the subject orders-in-appeal is time barred. However, a request is made to condone the delay which occurred because the deptt. initially awaited the decision on the Revision Application made against the order-in-appeal No. 224/81, dated 2.2.81 and latter lost track of t...
Collector of C. Ex. Vs. Brookhill Ceramics Pvt. Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jan-01-1989
Reported in: (1989)(44)ELT269TriDel
1. This appeal is against the order-in-appeal dated 18-10-1982 of the Collector (Appeals), Calcutta under which he allowed the appeal preferred by the respondents M/s. Brookhill Ceramics Pvt. Ltd. against the order dated 11-11-1980 of the Assistant Collector. In this appeal the appellant is described as Deputy Collector (I), Central Excise, Calcutta. The appeal has been signed and verified by the Deputy Collector. The respondents who had sent a memorandum of cross objections have, subsequently, sent written representations dated 26-9-1987. Therein they had pointed out that the appeal is liable to fail on the ground that no copy of the direction or authorisation, if any, of the Collector, for the appeal being filed by the Deputy Collector on his behalf, has been filed. The respondents have not appeared in person.2. We have heard Shri K.C. Sachar for the appellants and perused the records.3. Since, as pointed out by the respondents, no copy of the authorisation (as required order Sectio...
Indian Dyestuff Industries Ltd. Vs. Collector of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jan-01-1989
Reported in: (1989)(41)ELT694TriDel
1. We have heard Shri A.N. Haksar, the learned Advocate in support of the application praying for dispensing with pre-deposit of Central Excise Duty of Rs. 7,70,922.95 and Shri Shishir Kumar, SDR for the respondent in opposition. Shri Haksar says that the appellants before the Collector (Appeals) had deposited 50% of the duty amount demanded in cash and would have no objection if this deposit continues to remain with Revenue till decision of the present matter. He stated that pre-deposit of duty demanded may be dispensed with on this condition.To this proposal by Shri Haksar, Shri Shishir Kumar, SDR has no objection. To us also on the facts and circumstances obtaining in the case, Shri Haksar's offer to which Shri Shishir Kumar agrees, appears to be fair offer. Accepting the same we dispense with pre-deposit of Central Excise Duty demanded in the case on condition that 50% of duty deposited by the appellants before the Collector (Appeals) continues to remain in deposit till the decisi...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 10
- Next ›
- Last »