Delhi Court March 1990 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.
Subhash Chander Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-15-1990
Reported in: 41(1990)DLT430; 1990(18)DRJ330
M.K. Chawla, J. (1) Puran Singh is the owner of house No. P-16, Gali No 17, Brahmpnri, Delhi. It consists of four living rooms, a kitchen. a W.C and a bathroom on the ground floor and another room on the first floor. He Along with his family which consisted of his wife, two daughters and a son aged 3 years were living there. Usha Rani (Public Witness -l) aged 14/15 years is elder of the two daughters. Subhash Chander, the appellant before this Court was a tenant at a monthly rent of 'Rs 80.00 in one of the front side room on the ground floor. Few days prior to the date of incident, Subhash Chander started cutting indecent jokes with Usha Rani with an evil intention to outrage her modesty. She, however, could not understand his intention and did not pay any heed to such advances. (2) Narrating the sequence of events leading to the murder of her brother Jitender Kumar @ Rinku, at the hands of the accused Subhash, Usha Rani told the police in her statement Ex. Public Witness -1/A, as also...
Adarsh Marwah and anr. Vs. Nehar Ranjan Bhattacharya and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-15-1990
Reported in: 41(1990)DLT167
Bahri, J. (1) Adarsh Marwah and Bihari Lal partners of M/s. Neha Agencies have brought this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing the proceedings pending in the Court of Shri S.L. Khanna, Chief Metropolitan Magistrate on the basis of the complaint filed by respondent No. I for prosecuting the petitioners and one Mahinder Kumar and M/s. Neha. Agencies. (2) Facts, in brief, are that M/s. Neha Agencies is a partnership firm of which Bihari Lal and Adarsh Marwah are the partners while Mahinder Kumar is the Manager. On November 27, 1986 at about 12.30 P.M. complaint in the presence of public witnesses had inspected the premises of the said partnership firm situated at D-4, Laxmi Nagar, Vikas Marg, Delhi and Mahinder Kumar was present at that time and it was found that Panjon tablets manufactured by M/s. Panama Chemical Works, Bombay stood stocked in the said premises and exhibited the same for sale and distribution. Two samples of the aforesaid drug were ...
Harish Kumar Vs. Registrar, Delhi High Court and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-15-1990
Reported in: 41(1990)DLT130; (1992)ILLJ148Del
S.B. Wad, J. (1) The petitioner, who was working as a Sweeper in the Delhi High Court, has, through this writ petition, challenged the order dated 31.3.87, terminating his service under Rule 5(1) of the C.C.S. (Temporary Service) Rules, 1965. (2) The petitioner was appointed as a Sweeper in November 1972. His appointment was extended each time for every three months till his services were terminated on 1.12.78. He was re-appointed on 3.11.79. His services were continued each time for a period of three months till he was removed from service by the impugned order. (3) The petitioner's submission is that although he was working in the High Court for the last 15 years, he was not confirmed even though the permanent regular posts were available. He further submits that his termination of service under Rule 5(1) of the said rules is illegal as he cannot be treated as a temporary employee. He also submits that since he was working for 15 years in the High Court his services could be terminat...
M.D. Oswal Hossiery Mills and anr. Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Mar-14-1990
Reported in: (1990)(29)LC355Tri(Delhi)
1. The learned Counsel stated that both these applications are with reference to the same order in original.2. Mr. M.K. Jain was the partner of the firm at the relevant time and M/s. M.D. Oswal Hossiery is the firm.3. Both of these have been penalised for the alleged offence under the order.4. The facts are that Polyester Texturised Yarn of foreign origin was seized from the business premises of the firm and the statement of the partner Shri M. K. Jain was recorded. In the statement Shri M.K Jain has stated inter alia that they had purchased that yarn on 15.3.1986 from one Shri Hanuman Singh of M/s. Maclon India, New Delhi, but the payment had not yet been made.5. At the time of delivery as no bill/paper was brought, they had asked Shri Hanuman Singh to give them the relevant papers. Shri Hanuman Singh told them that these were the smuggled goods and hence there was no bill or paper. Thereupon he had asked Shri Hanuman Singh to take back the goods as they did not want to deal with smu...
Grasim Industries Ltd. Vs. Collector of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Mar-14-1990
Reported in: (1990)LC307Tri(Delhi)
1. The appellant Company has two units located at Kumarapatnam (Karnataka), one known as Harihar Polyfibres established in 1972 for the manufacture of Rayon Grade Wood Pulp and Grasilene Division in 1977 for the manufacture of viscose staple fibre. For the purpose of manufacturing pulp and man-made fibres the appellant had installed three boilers for generation of steam in the premises of Grasilene Division. The steam generated from one of the boilers is exclusively utilised by Harihar Polyfibres while the steam generated in the other two boilers is consumed in the Grasilene Division.2. Two show cause notices were issued (one on 11-10-83 for the period from 1-3-1982 to 31-8-1983 and one on 7-1-1984 for the period from 1-9-1983 to 23-11-1983) for demand of duty in respect of steam generated from the boilers. The Asstt. Collector accepted the contention of the appellant, that exemption under Notification 118/75-C.E., dated 30-4-1975 was available in respect of the steam generated from t...
Shri Hap Chemical Enterprises Vs. Collector of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Mar-13-1990
Reported in: (1990)LC409Tri(Delhi)
1. In these three appeals and cross appeals, common question of law arises and hence they are being taken together for decision.2. The appellants have sought for setting aside the order-in-appeals dated 9-12-1985 and 6-12-1985 passed by the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals) New Delhi by which he rejected the appeals of the appellants and confirmed the order-in-original Nos. V(15-A) 3-1-82/1360 dated 11-2-1983, No. V-68/18-10/82/5775 dt. 30-6-1983 and No. V(68) 15-9/82/5772 dated 30-6-1983 passed by the Assistant Collector of Central Excise Division, Ujjain.3. The appellants are manufacturers of HDPE Jerrycans. Prior to 28-2-1982, these goods fell under CET Tariff Item 15A(2) and availed exemption from the whole of duty leviable thereon vide Notification No.68/71 dated 29-5-1971 as amended till 27-2-1982. By Finance Bill 1982, the description of Item 15A was amended and the goods in question fell out of the scope of Tariff Item 15A and were classifiable under CET item 68 subject to...
M/S. Chelsea Mills and Others Vs. M/S. Chorus Girl Inc.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-13-1990
Reported in: 41(1990)DLT142
ORDER1. These two applications have arisen out of a suit filed by the plaintiffs numbering three for recovery of about Rs. 6 lacs from the defendant. is 9496/ 89 is by the plaintiff and is under 0. 38, R. 1, 0. 39, Rr. 1 and 2 and S. 151 of the Civil P.C. (for short 'the Code). The other application is 82/ 90 is by the defendant and is under O.38, R. I and S. 151 of the Code.2. Plaintiff No. 3 is stated to be the proprietor of plaintiffs Nos. 1 and 2. Defendant is styled as Chorus Girl Inc., New York, U.S.A. and has been sued through Mrs. Nina Batra without describing as to what she is in the defendant company. The whole body of the plaint does not say as to what position Mrs. Nina Batra is holding in the defendant, though it is stated that orders had been placed on behalf of the defendant by Mrs. Nina Batra for supply of certain readymade garments by the plaintiffs to the defendant. The suit is for recovery of price of the goods and interest accrued thereon.3. Along with the suit, the...
Ajudhia Textile Mills and Others Vs. Presiding Officer, Labour Court a ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-13-1990
Reported in: (1991)ILLJ218Del
1. This writ petition is filed against the Award of the Labour Court dated 13th October 1987, passed under Section 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, holding that the respondent was performing the duties of a Chief Clerk in the Excise Department of the petitioner between January 1979 to January 1983, and was entitled to a sum of Rs. 24,035.40 by way of difference of wages. 2. Admittedly the respondent was working as a Junior Clerk in the General Department of the Petitioner. According to the petitioner, the hierarchy is Junior Clerk to Senior Clerk and then Chief Clerk. By order dated 21st January 1979 the petitioner made a transfer order in relation to seven persons, including the respondent from one Department to another. The respondent was transferred from the General Section to the Excise Section in place of Mr. Inderjit Rampal. The contention of the petitioner before the Labour Court was that this was only a normal transfer to a different department and it was not intended as...
Mschelska Mills Mothers Vs. Chorus Girl Inc.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-13-1990
Reported in: AIR1991Delhi129; I(1990)BC468; 2(1990)DLT88; ILR1990Delhi337; 1990RLR340
D.P. Wadhwa, J.(1) These two applications have arisen out of a suit fled by the plaintiffs numbering three for recovery of about Rs. 6 lacs from the defendant. Ja 9496189 is by the plaintiff and is under Order 38, Rule, I, Order 39, Rules I and 2 and Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short the Code'). The other application Ja 82/90 is by the defendant and is under Order 38 Rule I and Section 151 of the Code. (2) Plaintiff No. 3 is stated to be the proprietor of plaintiffs No. 1 and 2. Defendant is styled as Chorus Girl Inc., New York, U.S'.A. and has been sued through Mrs. Nina Batra without describing as to what she is in the defendant company. The whole body of the plaint does not say as to what position Mrs. Nina Batra is holding in the defendant, though it is stated that orders had been placed on behalf of the defendant by Mrs. Nina Batra for supply of certain readymade garments by the plaintiffs to the defendant. The suit is for recovery of price of the goods and int...
General Manager, Ajudhia Textile Mills and ors. Vs. Presiding Officer, ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-13-1990
Reported in: 41(1990)DLT94; [1991(61)FLR216]
S.B. Wad, J. (1) This writ petition is filed against the Award of the Labour Court dated 13.10.87, passed under Section 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, holding that the respondent was performing the duties of a Chief Clerk in the Excise Department of the petitioner between January 1979 to January 1983, and was entitled to a sum of Rs. 24,035/40 by way of difference of wages. (2) Admittedly the respondent was working as a Junior Clerk in the General Department of the petitioner. According to the petitioner, the hierarchy is Junior Clerk to Senior Clerk and then Chief Clerk. By order dated 21.1.79 the petitioner made a transfer order in relation to seven persons, including the respondent from one Department to another. The respondent was transferred from the General Section to the Excise Section in place of Mr. Inderjit Rampal. The contention of the petitioner before the Labour Court was that this was only a normal transfer to a different department and it was not intended' as a ...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- Next ›
- Last »