Delhi Court April 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.
Virender Bhatti Vs. the State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-05-1989
Reported in: ILR1990Delhi163; 1989RLR265
P.K. Bahri, J.(1) The appellant has .been convicted of offences punishable under Sections 498-A and 306 of the Indian Penal Code vide judgment dated August- 5, 1988, of an Additional Sessions Judge, New Delhi, and vide Subsequent order dated August 10, 1988, he has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and a fine of Rs. l,000.00 and in default to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months on the first count and to undergo rigorous imprisonment for four years and to pay a fine of Rs. 2,0001- and in default to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months on the second count. In this appeal the appellant has challenged his conviction and sentences. (2) This case presents certain disturbing facts and unusual features. 'This appellant was earlier married to one Sarla, daugther of Public Witness 4Lal Chand in the year 1971. The appellant has one daugther and one son out of the said wedlock and Sarla died of burn injuries in the house of the appellant ...
Sumer Chand Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-05-1989
Reported in: 41(1990)DLT66
H.C. Goel, J. (1) The plaintiff was prosecuted by the State (Delhi Administration) for the offences punishable under sections 148/365/149/452/ 308/506/149 of the Indian Penal Code. According to the Fir lodged by one Mr. Amit Kumar Tripathi, an employee of Anil Kumar Gupta, defendant No. 5, against the plaintiff, on 27.12.1983 on an information having been received on telephone, H.C. Chottu Ram had given an information that in Lakkar Mandi some persons had come in a bus and they indulged in beating with some other persons. Acting on that information S.I. Kripa Shankar Bhatnagar, who is defendant No. 4, then in charge. Police Post, Maya Puri, along with S.I.. Habib Ahmed reached the place of occurrence. In the meantime, they got a copy of Dd No. 33 dated 27.12.83 of P.P. Maya Puri. On that S.I. Kripa Shankar Bhatnagar, defendant No. 4, sent one Asi Baldev Singh along with some constable to P.S. Kishmere Gate for inquiry. The statement of one Amit Kumar Tripithi, the complainant and an al...
Usha Rectifier Corpn. (i.) (P.) Ltd. Vs. Inspecting Assitant Commissio ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-05-1989
Reported in: [1989]30ITD1(Delhi); (1989)34TTJ(Del)209
ORDERPer Chander - This appeal by the assessed is directed against the order of the CIT (A) New Delhi dated 22-1-1986 relating to asst. year 1979-80. This appeal was filed and was marked by the Registry as time barred by 8 days. However, the assessed has explained the delay and the delay has been condoned.2. In the grounds recorded in the memo of appeal, various issues have been raised. However, at the time of hearing, the learned counsel for the assessed, Shri C. S. Agarwal, Advocate crystallised the issues for our determination with the result that in ground No. A, the issue that survives is regarding the eligible deduction under section 80J of the Income- tax Act, 1961 for the year under appeal to be determined on the facts and circumstances of the case. The grounds mentioned after this have not been pressed except for the ground relating to disallowance of Rs. 23,304 out of total expenditure of Rs. 41,606 spent by the assessed for the purpose of its business. We have heard the part...
Gulshan Raj and anr. Vs. Kishan Datt and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-04-1989
Reported in: ILR1989Delhi175
M.K. Chawla, J. (1) The challenge to the impugned Judgment is two-fold :- (A)That the learned Tribunal has erred in applying the multiplier of 15 years only for determining the com- pensation payable to the appellants. Keeping in view the age and health of the deceased at the time of accident and the. fact that both the parents i.e. appellants no. 1 and 2 at this age of 60 and 56 years respectively are still alive and are maintaining good health, thereforee, keeping in view the longevity of the family of deceased the Id. Tribunal ought to have adopted a multiplier of 30 years if not more (B)That the learned Tribunal has erred in not awarding interest on the awarded amount. The appellants are entitled to claim interest at the rate of 18% per annum on the awarded amount from the date of accident.While issuing show cause notice in the appeal. Wad, J. observed as under :- 'CONSIDERING the age of the claimants' which is now 58 and 60 the multiplier of 15 is the proper multiplier I find no ...
Khera Handloom Supply Vs. O.B. Exports and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-04-1989
Reported in: 1989(2)DRJ20; ILR1990Delhi469
B.N. Kirpal, J.(1) This case has been listed before the Division Bench on a reference having been made by one of us (B.N. Kirpal, J.) to decide the following question: 'WHETHER the provision of Order 37(2)(l) is mandatory io a sense that if it was not complied, then the plant will not be regarded as under Order 37 or is it directory so that if there is substantial compliance of Order 37 rule 2, then the plaint will not be regarded as not being under Order 37.'(2) Briefly stated the facts are that the plaintiff filed a suit for the recovery of Rs. 1,50,502/10. The case of the plaintiff was that the defendant had issued one cheque for Rs. 1,16, 455.50 against the sale of goods which cheque was dishonoured. The plaintiff also claimed interest of 42,546.60 at the rate of 18% per annum. After giving a credit of Rs. 8,500.00 for which payment had been made, the balance amount claimed by the plaintiff in the suit was Rs. 1,50,502/10.(3) In the plaint, the plaintiff had stated, . after the par...
Redihot Electricals Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-04-1989
Reported in: (1989)78CTR(Del)9; 38(1989)DLT167; 1989(25)LC147(Delhi); 1989(43)ELT253(Del); 1989RLR251; [1989]75STC257(Delhi)
M.K. Chawala, J.(1) Amongst many others, one of the commandments of dharma is that if you borrow any money from another for a particular period then it must be returned as agreed to, but if retained beyond that period, then it should be returned with interest. This principle equally applies to the public bodies, Govt. Institutions who under the guise of the public laws recover people's moneys, later discovered to be erroneous levies, then they must return the same and at the same time' compensate the citizen for the unauthorized use of his money. A similar situation has arisen in the present application. (2) The facts being admitted need not be debated. The applicant M/s Redihot Electricals are manufacturers of domestic electrical appliances. These electrical appliances are chargeable to excise duty under tariff item No. 33-C. Ad valorem excise duty is chargeable on the value of appliances and the same is to be determined under Section 4(a) of the Central Excise and Salt Act, 1944. (3)...
Amrik Singh Vs. Union of India and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-04-1989
Reported in: 1989(2)Crimes172; 38(1989)DLT237
P.K. Bahri, J.(1) This petition has been brought under Article 226 of the Constitution of India read with Section 482, Criminal Procedure Code seeking quashment of the detention order dated September 5, 1988 passed by respondent No. 2 under Section 2(1) of the Cofeposa Act. One of the pleas raised in support of this petition is that petitioner could only read and write in Gurmukbi language but be had not been supplied the grounds of detention and the documents relied upon for passing the detention order in the language known to him and thus the first facet of the constitutional gafeguard provided in Article 21(5) of the Constitution of India which requires that the grounds of detention be communicated to the detenu along with the order of detention stands violated which has the effect of vitiating the detention order. (2) Shri S.K. Chaudhary, Under Secretary in the Ministry of Finance has filed the counter-affidavit in opposition to this writ petition and has pleaded that the detenu ca...
Redihot Electricals Vs. Union of India and Others.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-04-1989
Reported in: [1990]185ITR664(Delhi)
M. K. CHAWLA J. - Amongst many others, one of the commandments of dharma is that if you borrow any money from another for a particular period, then it must be returned as agreed to, but if retained beyond that period, then it should be returned with interest. This principle equally applies to public bodies and Government institutions which, under the guise of the public laws, recover peoples moneys, later discovered to be erroneous levies, then they must return the same and at the same time compensate the citizen for the unauthorised use of his money. A similar situation has arisen in the present application.The facts, being admitted, need not be debated. The applicant, Messrs. Redihot Electricals, are manufacturers of domestic electrical appliances. These electrical appliances are chargeable to excise duty under tariff item No. 33-C. Ad valorem excise duty is chargeable on the value of appliances and the same is to be determined under section 4(a) of the Central Excises and Salt Act, ...
Collector of Central Ex. Vs. Hindustan Lever Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Apr-03-1989
Reported in: (1989)(22)ECC79
1. This 'deemed appeal' has its genesis in the show cause notice F.No.198/B/6/192/82-CX-V, dated 8.10.82 issued to M/s. Hindustan Lever Ltd. (hereinafter called the respondents) by the Central Government in exercise of its powers under Section 36(2) of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) proposing to set aside the Order-in-appeal No. 1546/Cal/81 dated 12.11.81 passed by the Appellate Collector of Central Excise, Calcutta.2. The facts of the case, in brief, are that the respondents were engaged in manufacture of Organic Surface Active Agents falling under Item No. 15AA of the First Schedule (hereinafter referred to as the Schedule) to the Act, utilising a substance called Photine C falling under Item No. 14DD of the Schedule as raw material. The respondents were permitted to avail themselves of the facility of proforma credit under Rule 56A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules) while utilising the said raw mater...
K.K. Mehra Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-03-1989
Reported in: 1989(16)DRJ377
P.K. Bahri, J.(1) These three petitions have been filed seeking anticipatory bail which have been strongly opposed by the State.(2) On a complaint made by Shri P.K. Tripathi, Commissioner (Land) of D.D.A., a case under Section 420, 468, 471 and 120B, T.P.C.has been registered. It has been alleged in this complaint that on the basis of wills and nominations, certain mutations of the plots have been obtained from the D.D.A. by practicing fraud by certain Management Committees of the co-operative societies in complicity with certain officials of the D.D.A. which have deprived the D.D.A. of huge amount which the D.D.A. was entitled to get as 50% of the unearned increase in the value of the plot on the plot being sold or transferred by the original allottee in favor of other persons who are neither blood relations nor actual heirs of the original allottee. Then certain specific instances of such fraud having been practiced were quoted and request was made that a complete and through investi...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »