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.
Dolly Varshney Vs. Director General Health Services
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-22-1991
Reported in: 44(1991)DLT275
P.N. Nag, J. (1) The petitioner has filed a writ petition, being C W 4114 of 1990, seeking a writ of mandamus to allocate a seat in any one of the Medical Colleges in Delhi/New Delhi or in the King George Medical Collect Lucknow and in this writ petition the petitioner has filed the present application, Cm 869/91, whereby it has been prayed that the petitioner should be allowed provisional admission in the vacant seat reserved in Medical College medicines or any other expense. Already a sum of Rs. 500.00 on account of expenses and Rs. 3,000.00 by way of general damages had been awarded in favor of the appellant. The photograph proved by the father as PW5 during proceedings in the claim petition of the child, which I have perused on the case record, does not show any disfigurement or the face or any other permanent facial injury. (2) Learned counsel for respondent No. 4 rightly argued that the teeth were milk teeth. At the time of accident, the age of the child was 5' years and in the n...
Agyapal Singh Vs. Delhi Administration
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-22-1991
Reported in: 45(1991)DLT2
R.L. Gupta, J. (1) This appeal is directed against the Judgment/order of sentence dated 23.8.76 by which the learned Asj, Delhi convicted the appellant under Sections 411 and 467. Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to undergo R.L for a period of four years and a fine of Rs. 500.00 or in default suffer further Ri for six months under section 467, Indian Penal Code, and for 2 years under Section 411, IPC. The sentences were made to run concurrently under both the counts.(2) I have heard the learned counsel for the appellant as well as the State. Learned counsel for the appellant has not challenged the conviction of the appellant on merits. His only grievance is regarding sentence imposed upon the appellant. According to the learned ASJ. the age of the appellant in 1974 when he pleaded not guilty to the charg(r) was 27 years. The offences were alleged to have been committed on 1210.67. thereforee, the age of the appellant at the 'time of the commission of the offence would be less than 2...
Ram Bilas and ors. Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-22-1991
Reported in: 44(1991)DLT211; I(1991)DMC608
V.B. Bansal, J. (1) By way of this revision the petitioners have challenged the order dated 20th November, 1990 holding that a prima facie case for the offence under Sec. 302 Indian Penal Code or in the alternative 304B Indian Penal Code against Shanti Devi and. offences under Ss. 304B and 498A Indian Penal Code against Mange Ram, Ram Bilas and Suresh Kumar and a case under Sec. 498A against Smt. Shanti Devi has been made out. They have also challenged the charges actually framed against them on 14th December, 1990. (2) It would be necessary to give some facts before dealing with the arguments advanced by learned Counsel for the parties. (3) Trishla d/o Sita Ram r/o Tohana in Haryana was married to Ram Bilas on 10.3.88. Mange Ram and Smt. Shanti Devi are the parents while Suresh Kumar is the brother of aforesaid Ram Bilas. After her marriage Trishla Rani started residing with her in-laws. However, her in-laws including parents-in-law, husband, brother-in-law Suresh and sister-in-law Su...
O.S. Saxena Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-22-1991
Reported in: 44(1991)DLT371; [1991(63)FLR788]
Leila Seth, J. (1) The petitioner was appointed as a Traffic Inspector Grade I on 24th October, 1967 in the Delhi Transport Corporation. Subsequently, he was promoted to Assistant Traffic Superintendent and thereafter to traffic Superintendent on 31st December, 1968. (2) In 1980 a first information report was lodged against the petitioner and he was convicted by an order and judgment dated 2nd April, 1981 under Section 161 of the Indian Penal Code. The petitioner then filed an appeal in this Court, which was admitted and is pending hearing being Criminal Appeal No. 82 of 1981. (3) The petitioner's services were terminated by an order dated 22nd January, 1986 issued under Regulation 9(b) of the Delhi Road Transport Authority (Conditions of Appointment and Service) Regulations, 1952 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Regulations'). (4) The petitioner filed this writ petition in February, 1986 challenging the said order of termination. On 14th February, 1986 Rule D.B. was issued and it was ...
Ram and ors. Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-22-1991
Reported in: 44(1991)DLT241
S.C. Jain, J. (1) The charge against the appellants Siri Ram, Rati Ram @ Ratia, Leela Ram @ Leelu is that they along with other co-accused (eight in all) conjointly committed robbery of the property, i.e. pair of bangles necklace, pair of ear tops chain of platinum, eartops with ruby stones and three rings with stones and other articles belonging to Smt.Shiv Parbha Singh and Smt Yogeshwari Devi, on the intervening night of 7th and 8th June, 1983 at. house No. A-65, Gulmohar Park, New Delhi, and while committing this offence they were armed with deadly weapons and they made use of the same in causing grievous hurt to Mrs Shiv Parbha Singh, (Public Witness 4), and Anant Narain Bhanjedev, who were occupant of the house at that time. Leelu Ram, Deep Chand @ Deepa, Rati Ram. Randhir and Sri Ram were arrested and were challaned and prosecuted under Section 395 read with Section 397 Ipc, whereas Puran. Ram Chander and Vidya Ram. other co-accused could not be arrested and they were declared pr...
J.K. Synthetics Vs. Income Tax Appellate Tribunal
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-22-1991
Reported in: (1991)94CTR(Del)213; 44(1991)DLT447
B.N. Kirpal, J. (1) The short question which arises for consideiation in this writ petition is whether the application under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 filed by the Commissioner of Income-tax was within time.(2) By order dated 25th April, 1989 passed by the Income tax Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as Tribunal) the appeals filed by the department against the orders of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) wore dismissed. These appeals had been filed by the Income-tax Officer before the Tribunal because the Commissioner Income-tax (Appeals) had deleted the penalty of Rs. 12 lacs which had been levied on the petitioner herein by the Ito under Section 271(l)(c) of the Act.(3) Under the provision of Section 254(3) the aforesaid order dated 21st April, 1989 was served on the Chief Commissioner of Income-tax, New Delhi on 28th April, 1989. The Chief Commissioner, in his turn, served the said order on the Cit, Delhi (Central 1) on 14th August, 1989. By reckonin...
Baboo Vs. Ashok Kumar and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-22-1991
Reported in: 44(1991)DLT297
Santosh Duggal, J. (1) This appeal was filed in-the year 1974 for enhancement of the compensation awarded by means of award dated 31st August 1973 The cause of action was an injury caused to a child aged about 5' years by the car driven by Ashok Kumar, respondent No. 1. The injuries were loss of four- front teeth and some other facial injuries for which the child was treated in Irwin Hospital, New Delhi. It is on record that the father of the child did not have to incur any expense on the treatment or medicine of the child so long as he was in hospital for about ten days. The evidence of the father that he incurred expenses thereafter on medicines of the child was not supported by any documentary evidence, such as vouchers or cash memos, showing purchase of medicines or any other expense. Already a sum of Rs. 500.00 on account of expenses and Rs. 3,('0).00 by wav of general damages had been awarded i:i favor of the appellant. The photograph proved by the father as PW5 during proceeding...
Kusum Ansal Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-22-1991
Reported in: [1991]190ITR24(Delhi)
B.N. Kirpal, J. 1. The question which has been referred to this Bench for consideration is whether a single application under Section 256(1) and/or 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, is maintainable when theIncome-tax Appellate Tribunal disposes of, by a common order, appeals pertaining to more than one year and/or of different assesseds. 2. In respect of the assessment years 1982-83, 1983-84 and 1984-85, the petitioner had filed its returns of income. One of the items of income was the rent which was received by the petitioner from commercial flats which had been let out. The petitioner claimed that this rent was taxable under the head 'Income from house property'. 3. The Income-tax Officer passed three separate assessment orders and he treated the rental income as taxable under the head 'Income from other sources' on the ground that the flats had not yet been transferred to the petitioner under a registered document. The petitioner was, thereforee, denied deductions under Section 24...
international Conveyors Ltd. Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Mar-21-1991
Reported in: (1992)(37)ECC93
1. This appeal is directed against the impugned Order-in-Appeal passed by the Collector of Customs (Appeals), Bombay confirming the Order-in-Assessment passed by the Assistant Collector of Customs whereby he held that the subject goods namely imported Industrial Nylon Yarn Type 717 were correctly charged to duty at the rate of 100% Adv. + Rs. 11/- per kg.2. The undisputed facts of the case are that the appellants imported and declared the goods as Industrial Nylon Yarn Type 717 Multifil D Tex 940.00. On test it was found that the imported goods are Nylon Yarn having denier of 856.1 and tenacity of 9.4 grams. The appellants claimed the benefit of Notification No. 38/78 dated 1-3-1978 stating that the goods imported by them are not Nylon Tyre Yarn and their goods are covered by Serial No. 8 and all articles other than those specified in Serial. No. 1 to 7 and therefore duty charged should have been only 100% for Customs Tariff purpose. Whereas it was the case of the Department that the ...
Collector of Central Excise Vs. Dewarance Macneill and Company
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Mar-21-1991
Reported in: (1991)(37)LC268Tri(Delhi)
are correctly classifiable under Item 68 or Item 22F of the erstwhile Central Excise Tariff; and (ii) The demand for differential duty under Item 22F and Item 68 can be demanded under Section 11A for a period of six months prior to the issue of the show cause notice dated 20.5.1983.2. The facts of the case have been stated in the statement of facts given in the memorandum of appeal filed by the Revenue. In short, the same are as follows: (a) The respondents filed classification list in Form I dated 25.9.1975 to the proper officer for classification of the above mentioned three products under Item 68 of the Central Excise. Tariff. The classification list was approved by the proper officer and the respondents cleared the goods on payment of duty under the said Tariff Item 68. Subsequently, chemical test of the three products revealed predominance of asbestos fibres in the composition of the said goods. The Department issued a show cause notice dated 20.5.1983 proposing to re-classify th...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »