Delhi Court March 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.
Malkiyat Singh Vs. Delhi Administration and Others
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-08-1989
Reported in: ILR1989Delhi637
S.S. Chadha, J.1. This order will dispose of the two appeals, one by Constable Malkiyat Singh, being L.P.A. 242/80 and the other A.S.I. Jagrup Singh, being L.P.A. 241/80, arising out of a common judgment of the learned single Judge dismissing their petitions under Art. 226 of the Constitution assailing the validity of their dismissal from police force on the charge of molesting a young girl while in their protective custody. 2. FIR No. 728/73 was registered on May 25, 1973 at police station Daryaganj under sections 363/366 IPC on a complaint by one Shri Narinder Kumar, father of Miss Shashi Bala against Shri Mohinder Kumar Gupta, son of Shri Trilok Chand, r/o Mohalla Garhi Pilhwa District, Meerut alleging therein that he had kidnapped Shashi Bala under 18 years from Irwin Hospital, New Delhi, with intention that she may be forced to illicit intercourse or knowing it to be likely that she will be forced to illicit intercourse. The case on the registration of the FIR was investigated by ...
Union of India Vs. Ranjit Singh and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-08-1989
Reported in: 38(1989)DLT239; 1989(17)DRJ129
S.S. Chadha, J.(1) This appeal has arisen out of judgment dated 30th September, 1976 of the Court of Shri C.D. Vasishta, learned Additional District Judge, Delhi answering a reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') in respect of award No. 1976 of village Mithepur announced on 26th July, 1967.(2) Land measuring 44 bighas 12 bids was in the revenue estate of Mithepur was notified for acquisition under a preliminary notification under Section 4 dated August 23, 1966. The provisions of Section 17 were invoked as the land was required urgently for the construction of Gurgaon Canal along Agra Canal The declaration under Section 6 was issued also on August 23,1966. The Land Acquisition Collector gave his award No. 1976 dated July 26, 1967 and offered a compensation at the rate of Rs. 1,500.00 per bigha. The claimants were not satisfied with the compensation 'offered and made a petition under Section 18 of the Act for determination of ...
Nitu Alias Asha Vs. Krishan Lal
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-08-1989
Reported in: AIR1990Delhi1
Santosh Duggal, J.(1) The appellant in this letters Patent Appeal is the wife, who was respondent in the petition filed by the husband, seeking divorce by decree of dissolution of marriage, between the parties under Section 13(l)(ib) of the Hindu Marriage Act, as amended by the Marriage Laws (Amendment) Act, 1976. (2) The facts, in so far as are relevant for the disposal of this appeal, are that the petition was brought on the allegation that the marriage between the parties was solemnised on 20th February, 1977, according to Hindu rites and ceremonies, and out of tin-, wedlock, a female child named Poonam was bora on 24th January, 1978. According to the petitioner (husband), he was residing with his parents, brothers and sister at the time of marriage in flat No. 40, Sarojini Nagar Market, New Delhi, and that the respondent in the proceedings; namely, the wife started pestering him to live separately from his parents after 10/12 days of the marriage, and he was so harassed by her on a...
Collector of C. Ex. Vs. Anil Starch Products
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Mar-07-1989
Reported in: (1989)(22)ECC137
1. This is an appeal directed against Order-in-Appeal No. M-6/BD-1/84 dated 17-1-1984 passed by the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals) Bombay whereby he set aside the Order-in-Original dated 15-3-1983 passed by the Assistant Collector of Central Excise Division II, Ahmedabad and ruled that the product Anhydrous Molasses produced by the respondents was not leviable to duty of excise. The Assistant Collector had held that Anhydrous Molasses was "Glucose in whatever form" falling under sub-item (1) of Item IE of the First Schedule to the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 (the said Schedule is hereinafter referred to as "the Schedule").2. The facts of the case, briefly stated, are that during the manuacture of Anhydrous Dextrose by the respondents, an intermediate product Anhydrous Molasses emerges which the respondents use within their factory in the manufacture of Sorbitol, a chemical falling under Item 68 of the Schedule. Though directed by the Departmental Authorities to do so, th...
Nagina Enterprise Vs. Union of India
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-07-1989
Reported in: 1989(2)ARBLR31(Delhi); 38(1989)DLT231; 1989(17)DRJ42
C.L. Chandhry, J. (1) This is an application under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure on behalf of the petitioner seeking direction that an independent Arbitrator be appointed in terms of order dated 10th January, 1986 of this Court. It is stated that a petition under Section 20 of the Arbitration Act was disposed of by this Court vide order dated 10th January, 1986- directing the respondent to appoint an Arbitrator within one month from that date ; that nearly three years have passed by but the respondent have not appointed any Arbitrator in terms of the order dated 10th January, 1986. In these premises, it is prayed that an independent Arbitrator be appointed. (2) The notice of this application was given to the Union of India. The counsel for Union of India sought 2-3 adjournments to seek instructions but it was not done. I have heard the learned Counsels for the parties. The petition filed under Section 20 cf the Arbitration Act by the petitioner was disposed of by this Cour...
Shankar Iron Store Vs. S.R. Goel, Appellate Tribunal, Sales Tax, Tis H ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-07-1989
Reported in: ILR1989Delhi547; [1989]75STC4(Delhi)
B.N. Kirpal, J. 1. The interesting question of law which arises in this case relates to the interpretation of section 43(5) of the Delhi Sales Tax Act, 1975, which, inter alia, requires an assessed/appellant to deposit the tax demanded before the appeal filed by him can be entertained. 2. Briefly stated, the facts are that the petitioner is a dealer, who is registered both under the Delhi Sales Tax Act, 1975 (hereinafter referred to as 'the said Act') as well as under the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956. As I am not concerned with the merits of the assessment, it is not necessary to refer to, in any great detail, the particulars about the returns filed and the amounts assessed, except to note that the assessment orders were passed against the petitioner on 17th December, 1985, under both the said Act as well as the Central Act. The assessment order was passed under section 23(4) of the said Act and was assessed on best judgment. 3. Being aggrieved the petitioner filed appeals before the Ad...
Mohd. Ismail Vs. Shah Jebe Begum
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-07-1989
Reported in: 40(1990)DLT77
Mahesh Chandra, J. (1) It has been requested by the counsel for the parties that it may be heard early. Heard. (2) This second appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 16th December, 1987 whereby the appeal filed by the plaintiff was dismissed after the suit has been earlier dismissed by the trial court. From the perusal of the lower appellate court judgment I find that in the lower appellate court an application under Order 41 Rule 27 of the Civil Procedure Code had been filed by the plaintiff whereby it was requested by him that he may be permitted to place on record certified copy of plan which was attached with the sale-deed. The said application was rejected. Thereafter simultaneously the appeal of the plaintiff was also dismissed. The perusal of the order further shows that the lower appellate court has not cared to give any reasons for the dismissal of the appeal. The mere fact that there was no merit in the application under Order 41 Rule 27 does not mean that t...
Vidya Kakkar Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-07-1989
Reported in: 1989(17)DRJ33; 1989RLR245
S.B. Wad, J.(1) This appeal raises a common question of law as to whether interest should be awarded from the date of application for compensation or from the dale of the judgment on the default being committed by the Ins. Co, The Tribunals are invariably following the second course of granting interest only when there failure of depositing the compensation amount by the Ins. Co. Section 110 Cc was inserted in the Motor Vehicles Act, by Section 62 of the Motor Vehicles (Amendment) Act, 1969, which took effect from 2-3-1970. It reads : 'Where any Court or Claims. Tribunal allows a claim for compensation made under this Chapter, Such Court or Tribunal may direct that in addition to the amount of compensation simple interest shall also be paid at such rate and from such date not earlier than the date of making the claim as it may specify in this behalf.'(2) It may be noted that the section does not lay down as to whether the interest is payable from the date of the application or from a s...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Electric Construction and Equipment Co. ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-06-1989
Reported in: [1990]184ITR180(Delhi)
Leila Seth, J.1. By this application under section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, the commissioner of Income-tax prays that we direct the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal to draw up a statement of case and refer the following two questions of law for the opinion of this court : '1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that the payment of Rs. 84,143 it Nazi teaching was an allowable deduction in the hands of the assessed 2. Whether the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was correct in law in holding that the bad debts of Rs. 1,25,271 were genuine and ripe for write off in the year under consideration ?' 2. The relevant assessment year is 1975-76. The assessed claimed deduction of a sum Rs. 84,143 as an amount paid as commission to Nazi Teach-ins. The Income-tax Officer did not allow this deduction and the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) confirmed the order of the Income-tax Officer. While doing so, he observ...
Promila Nangia Vs. Baldev Raj Nangia
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-06-1989
Reported in: 38(1989)DLT198
B.N. Kirpal, J. (1) This is a revision petition filed against the order dated 12th July, 1988 whereby the Addl. District Judge, Delhi has disposed of the application under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act filed by the petitioner for enhancement of maintenance pendente lite. (2) The petition for maintenance was initially filed in September, 1985 and it was directed that the petitioner should get Rs. 550.00 as maintenance per month. The petitioner prayed for enhancement to the extent of Rs 1000.00 . (3) The case of the respondent before the Addl. District Judge was that after deductions he was getting a pay of Rs. 1400.00 p.m. It was also asserted that the petitioner had inherited business from her father and she had completed her secretarial course from Y.W.C.A. in the year 1978-79 and she bad been working since then. (4) The trial court noted that the parties did not press the application for some time. He also observed that the respondent has not been able to give the name of any ...
- ‹ Prev
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 12
- 13
- Next ›
- Last »