Delhi Court March 1991 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.
Rattan Singh Vs. Union of India
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-11-1991
Reported in: 1991(21)DRJ113
Anil Dev Singh, J. (1) By means of this application, the applicants seek correction/modification of the judgment and order of this court dated September 14, 1984 in R.F.A. No. 202 of 1967. In the R.F.A this court awarded a sum of Rs. 7,000.00 per bigha as compensation as also solarium @ 15 per cent and interest @ 6% per annum from the date of taking over of possession of the land by the Collector till the payment into court of the amount in excess of the sum which the Collector awarded as compensation.(2) By this application the applicants claim the benefits of higher solarium and interest under the Land Acquisition (Amendment) Act, 1984 (Act No 68 of 1984) (hereinafter referred to as the 'Amending Act' ). Shri Ramesh Chandra, learned counsel turn the applicants urged that by virtue of Amending Act his clients would be entitled to enhanced solarium @ 30% on the market value instead of 15% awarded by this court in R.F A. 202 of 1967 under Section 23(2) as amended by Section !5 clause (b...
Defense Colony Welfare Association and anr. Vs. Union of India and anr ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-11-1991
Reported in: 44(1991)DLT266
B.N. Kirpal, J. (1) defense Colony Welfare Association and its Secretary have filed the present writ petition in which the prayer is that a plot of land measuring 1.56 acres situated in C Block, defense Colony should be allotted to petitioner No: 1 and vacant possession handed over. (2) Briefly stated, the facts are that petitioner No. I is a society registered under the provisions of the Societies Registration Act. The society consists of members who are owners of properties in defense Colony and some of them are the tenants in houses therein. defense Colony was established as a project for rehabilitating the displaced armed forces and junior commissioned officers in fifty's. (3) A big area of land was allocated for this project of establishing of the defense Colony. A lay out plan was prepared in which a big plot of land measuring about six acres situated in C Block was earmarked for a club for officers. Another plot of land in A Block was, similarly, earmarked in the lay out plan fo...
Ravi Sharma Vs. Narcotic Control Bureau
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-11-1991
Reported in: 43(1991)DLT698; 1991(21)DRJ7; 1991(33)ECC40
V.B. Bansal, J. (1) The short question for consideration in this order is as to whether the provisions contained in Section 37 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (as amended) (hereinafter referred to as the Act) would be applicable to applications for bail in cases prior to the coming into force of this amended section.(2) The Act came into force on 14th November. 1985 and Section 37 at that time was as under :- Offences to be cognizable 'NOTWITHSTANDING anything contained in Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), every offence punishable under this Act, shall be cognizable.'(3) This Act was subsequently amended vide Act No. 2 of 1989 and Section 37 was substituted by the following section : Offences to be cognizable and non-bailable. (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure. 1973 (2 of 1974)- (a) every offence punishable under this Act shall be cognizable ; (b) no person accused of an offence punishable for a term of imprisonme...
Indian Metals and Ferro Alloys Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Mar-09-1991
Reported in: (1991)(55)ELT59TriDel
1. By the present ROM application, the Collector of Customs and Central Excise, Bhubaneswar has challeged the miscellaneous Order No. 23/90-B2, dated 3-8-1987 read with Order dated 13-7-1990 passed by the President and the order dated 16-7-1990 passed by the Bench re-opening the hearing of the matter. Shri M.S. Arora, learned JDR who has appeared on behalf of the Collector pleaded that there were difference of opinion between two Members and the reference was made to the President as third Member and the Third Member while deciding the point of reference has sent back the matter to the Bench which had passed the order without expressing his opinion. Shri M.S. Arora, learned JDR stated that the third Member cannot go beyond the point of reference. In support of the same, he referred to the judgment of the Patna High Court in the case of Hanutram Chandanmul v. Commissioner of Income Tax, Bihar and Orissa where the Patna High Court had held that the Third Member cannot take a different v...
Perfect Industrial Corpn. Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Mar-08-1991
Reported in: (1991)(36)LC18Tri(Delhi)
2. The learned Counsel stated that this is a Modvat matter regarding which they had filed a declaration on 23.12.1986 mentioning the items as steel rods and pipes bars under tariff items 72.09 and 73.03.2A. Subsequently, the tariff classification of pipes and tubes changed.However, as per their understanding they continued to take Modvat credit on steel tubes on the basis of duty paying documents.3. The Asstt. Collector, however, denied the credit and confirmed the demand for Rs. 8,223.60 paise on the ground that there was no proper declaration regarding the same.4. The learned Collector (Appeals) also confirmed the Asstt.Collector's orders on the ground that no declaration has been filed during the relevant period regarding steel tubes.5. It was their contention that there is no distinction between tubes and pipes and the declaration they had already filed was also valid although the tariff classification had changed.6. The learned SDR stated that the declaration dated 23.12.1986 was...
Subhash Lata Vs. V.N. Khanna
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-08-1991
Reported in: AIR1992Delhi14; I(1991)DMC585; 1991(20)DRJ353; 1991RLR259
1. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 4-6-1988 of the learned Addl. District Judge, Delhi by which she dismissed a petition under S. 27 of the Hindu Marriage Act filed by the appellant along with her divorce petition. The divorce, however, was granted.2. By this application the appellant stated that her parents/ other relations had presented to her the following article's at the time of her marriage.i) One golden set (Jaru) comprising of gulubind for neck, two karas, earrings. ii) One another golden set called Manhi set comprising of neckless, two ponches, ear rings and three rings. iii) One golden set of small weight consisting of Kanti for the neck, karas for hand and three rings. iv) golden churies 20 v) One Nath golden, one tika, one sangarpari nath. vi) 31 utensils of silver consisting of thals, katoras etc. vii) Utensils of brass (make Muradabadi) comprised in one bucket. 3. Learned ADJ held that since there was no averment in the application that the property wa...
Sh. Shori Lal Monga and Others Vs. Sh. Manmohan Lal Monga and Others
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-08-1991
Reported in: AIR1991Delhi271; 44(1991)DLT111
1. The facts emerging in this case are that Shri Shori Lal Monga, his sons S/Shri Man Mohan Lal Monga, Krishan Kumar Monga, Anil Kumar Monga, Avinash Kumar Monga, Ratna Monga, Madhu Monga and Veena Monga later three ladies being daughters in law of Shori Lal Monga executed an arbitration agreement dated 4-7in the following words:'Whereas disputes have arisen between the parties of this deed and they are desirous of referring their disputes to the arbitrator under the provisions of the Arbitration Act. The matters in difference between the parties are their shares with regard to the assets and liabilities of the following: 1. M/s. Shori Lal and Sons, shop No. V-5 and X 70, Loha Mandi, Naraina, New Delhi. Shop No. 257, Loha Mandi, Ghaziabad. 2. Plot No. 3/18, Rajinder Nagar, Ghajiabad. 3. H. No. 1676/77 Kucha Dabhani Rai, Daryagang. 4. H. No. 11113, East Punjabi Bagh, Delhi-26. 5. Plot No. 15, East Avenue-, Punjabi Bagh, Delhi. 6. Factories of plot No. A-80, Wazir Pura, Industrial Area,...
Partap Singh Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-08-1991
Reported in: 44(1991)DLT486
S.C. Jain, J.(1) The facts giving rise to this appeal are that on 27.7.87,at about 3 p.m. Partap Singh, hereinafter called the appellant, committed rape on Kumari Suman aged about 5 years, at his house in Prem Nagar, Nangloi,Delhi. He was prosecuted for the said offence under Section 376 Indian Penal Code and the Add Session Judge who tried the case found him guilty of the said offence and convicted him under Section 376 Indian Penal Code by his judgment dated 28.4.89. After giving an opportunity of hearing on the point of sentence, learned Add Sessions Judge sentenced him to Ri for seven years by order dated 29.4.1989.(2) Aggrieved, this appeal has been filed by the appellant. Ms. UshaKumar, learned counsel for the appellant argued that the appellant has been falsely implicated in this case on account of some enmity between the appellant and the parents of the prosecutrix. The charge under Section 376 Indian Penal Code against the appellant has not been proved beyond reasonable doubt....
Nand Kishore and anr. Vs. State (Delhi Administration)
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-08-1991
Reported in: 44(1991)DLT247
Jaspal Singh, J. (1) Sh. V.B. Gupta, the then Metropolitan Magistrate by his judgment dated November 21, 1979 convicted Nand Kishore under Section 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act (hereinafter called the Act) for the offence of selling adulterated food articles and sentenced him to R.I. for two years besides a fine of Rs. 2000.00 . He also sentenced him to pay a further fine of Rs. 500.00 for selling Khoa Pera and sweetmeats without any license as required by Rule 50 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules His partnership firm M/s. Bikaner Bhujia Bhandar was also convicted under the same provisions of the Act and was sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 5000.00 for having sold adulterated food articles and a fine of Rs. 500.00 for selling Khoa Pera without license. (2) Nand Kishore as well as his firm M/s. Bikaner Bhujia, Bhandar aggrieved by the said judgment preferred an appeal before the learned Addl. Sessions Judge who dismissed the same by his judgment dated February...
Bhola Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-08-1991
Reported in: 44(1991)DLT151
S.C. Jain, J. (1) The facts giving rise to this appeal are that Bhola, herein after called the appellant, was found in possession of 80 grams of Charas wrapped in a piece of newspaper on 23.2.1987, at 9 a.m. on the northern side of platforms 8 and 9 near the latrine of New Delhi Rly Station. He was tried for the offence punishable under Section 20 of Ndps Act and the learned Addl Sessions Judge by his judgment dated 4.9.88, found the appellant guilty of the said offence and convicted him accordingly. After giving an opportunity of hearing on the point of sentence, the learned Addl Sessions Judge on 16.9.88 sentenced him to undergo Rl for ten years and also to pay a fine of Rs. I lakh under Section 20 of Ndps Act. (2) Aggrieved, this appeal has been filed by the appellant through jail. Mrs. Meera Bhatia was appointed amices curiae to argue the matter on behalf of the appellant as the appellant showed his inability to engage any Counsel of his choice. (3) The first question raised by the...
- ‹ Prev
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 11
- 12
- 13
- Next ›
- Last »