Delhi Court February 1992 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.
State (Delhi Administration) Vs. Kulwant Singh
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-06-1992
Reported in: 1992(1)Crimes959; 47(1992)DLT95
Malik Sharief-ud-Din, J. (1) The respondent was charged under Sections302/307/324, Indian Penal Code At trial, the learned Additional Sessions Judge by his order dated 8/05/1985, acquitted him of the charges under Sections 302/307, Indian Penal Code Respondent was, however, convicted under Section 324, I.P.C.He was released on probation. Aggrieved against the aforesaid order, the State has filed this acquittal appeal.(2) The brief facts of the case are that one Dharmender, PW-16, who was a class fellow of the respondent had appeared Along with the respondent in the 9th class examinations in which Dharmender passed, while the respondent got a compartment. It is alleged that in April, 1984, Dharmender had borrowed Rs. 8.50 NP. from the respondent which Dharmender had failed to return despite demand.(3) On 21.6.83, at about 8.00 p.m. Dharmender had come out of his house to call one Arun, who had visited his house earlier in his absence and when he reached near the dispensary of Pocket No....
Indian Cable Company Ltd. and anr. Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-06-1992
Reported in: 47(1992)DLT19
S.B. Wad, J.(1) The question raised in this writ petition is whether the40 employees engaged in the commercial establishment of Delhi who sell the product of principal factory at Jamshedpure, are covered by Employees State Insurance Act. It is an admitted facts that the principal manufacturing factory of the petitioner is at Jamshedpure and the bulk of the employeesnumbering about 3,000 are working there. The petitioners have commercial establishments in other cities including Pune and Calcutta After 1978, the petitioner-company has made the Employees State Insurance Act applicable to all its manufacturing or commercial establishments. The dispute is, thereforee only limited to a period between 1968 to 1978. Following the decision of Supreme Court in Hyderabad Asbestos Cement Products Ltd. v. Employees Insurance Court and Anr. 1978 L.I.C. 307, it is clear that the employees of the petitioner outside Bihar are also to be treated as employees of the principal factory at Jamshedpure, Biha...
Vinay Chawla Vs. Chandamama Toytronix Pvt. Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-06-1992
Reported in: AIR1992Delhi234; 47(1992)DLT398
Mohd. Shamim, J.(1) This is an application by the plaintiff for issue of an ad interim injunction under Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 of the Civil Procedure Code restraining the defendant, their servants and agents from manufacturing, selling, offering for sale, advertising or displaying, directly or indirectly, their toys or stuffed toys under the trade mark 'CUDDLES' or any other trade mark identical with or deceptively similar to the aforementioned trade mark of the plaintiff.(2) Brief facts which led to the present application are : that the plaintiffs a firm and Smt. Vinay Chawla is the sole proprietress of the said firm. The said firm deals in toys under the trade mark 'CUDDLES'. The plaintiff has been using the said trade mark since long i.e. 1/01/1987. The goods of the plaintiff bearing the said trade mark are in huge demand in the markets.The plaintiff with a view to acquiring the statutory rights in the said trademark moved an application bearing No. 505426 before the Trade MarkRegist...
Collector of Central Excise Vs. Harita Rubber Products (P) Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Feb-05-1992
Reported in: (1993)(66)ELT233TriDel
1. This appeal is directed against the impugned Order-in-Appeal passed by the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), Madras.2. Shortly put, the facts of the case are that the respondents are manufacturer of rubber moulded components falling under erstwhile T.I, No. 68. They were availing exemption under Notification No. 77/85, dated 17-3-1985 as amended by Notification No. 118/85, dated 8-5-1985 for the year 1985-86. They have been clearing the said rubber moulded components to various customers under 'nil' rate of duty and part of such components by following the procedure laid down in Chapter X Procedure to original equipment manufacturers. However, the Assistant Collector vide his adjudication order denied the benefit of the said Notification holding that exemption under Notification No. 167/79 can be allowed after the company crosses clearance limit of Rs. 20 lakhs as otherwise, they will be denied the benefit available. On appeal by the respondents, Collector (Appeals) set aside ...
Hardyal Singh Mehta and anr. Vs. M.A. Khan and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-05-1992
Reported in: 46(1992)DLT520
D.P. Wadhwa, J. (1) This is an application seeking review of the judgment dated 23 October 1991 of a learned Single Judge S.N. Sapra, J. Since S. N.Sapra J. has since retired the matter has been listed before this Bench. We have heard Mr. Bansal, learned Counsel for the applicant. (2) One Nirmala Devi adjacent owner of a property to that of the petitioner Hardyal Singh Mehta filed an application under Order I Rule 10 and 521 Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure before the Appellate Tribunal constituted under the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957, in an appeal filed by Mehta against an order of demolition passed by the M.C.D. That application was allowed by the Tribunal. It was, however, challenged by Mehta in this Court in Civil Misc. (Main) 161 of 1989 which was allowed by judgment of Arun B. Saharya, J. on January 1990. It is reported in 1990 Delhi 170. Thereafter, Nirmla Devi sought permission of the Tribunal to file certain documents in those very proceedings before the T...
Anita Sarwal Vs. Deepak Sarwal
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-05-1992
Reported in: 46(1992)DLT502; I(1992)DMC420
C M. Nayar, J.(1) The present petition is directed against the order of Additional District Judge dated October 11, 1991, only to the extent that he declined to waive the second Motion under Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, (hereinafter referred to as t Act) and has not passed any order with regard to the same. The decree for divorce was prayed under Section 13-B of the Act, without waiting for the statutory period of six months. (2) The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner and respondent were married on December, 14, 1987 at Delhi according to Hindu rites. The parties resided and lived together as husband and wife till 17th August, 1990. No child has been born out of the wedlock. The parties separated from each other and started living separately since August 17, 1990, in view of the irreconcilable differences between them. The petitioner filed a criminal complaint registered as Fir No 26 3 of 1990, inter alias under Section 498-A/406/34 Ipc with police station...
Commissioner of Sales Tax Vs. Printers House Pvt. Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-05-1992
Reported in: 47(1992)DLT395
B.N. Kirpal, J.(1) The appellate tribunal, sales tax, Delhi has referred to this Court the following three questions : '1. Whether 'on the facts; and in the circumstances of the case the sale of the Printing Machine imported by the dealer from Germany and sold to M/s. Union Printers Co-operative Society Ltd.for Rs. 2,39,908.85 was a sale in the course of import within the meaning of Section 5(2) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 ?2. Whether on the .facts and in the circumstances of the case the dealer acted as an agent of the purchasing dealer M/s, Union Printers Co-operative Industrial Society Ltd., New Delhi and made purchases on behalf of the principal ?3. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the amount of Rs. 2,39,908.85 can be included in the turnover of the dealer for purposes of levying sales tax under the Act ?'The facts, as found by the tribunal and narrated in the. statement offacts, are as under : 'THIS appeal is directed against the order dated 4.8.197...
K. Madhava Rao Vs. Union of India and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-05-1992
Reported in: 46(1992)DLT654; 1992(1)SLJ209(Delhi)
P.K. Bhari, J.(1) This petition has been brought by Capt. K. Madhav Rao under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking quashment of the order dated October 6, 1988, by which the punishment of reprimand has been administered to the petitioner on the basis of the charge that the petitioner on September 15, 1988, failed without sufficient cause to appear at 09.30 hours at 16 Sikh Li the place appointed for spectators to witness the 16 Inf Div Walk and Marathon Championship finals. The petitioner was at the relevant time posted with 7th Battalion The Maratha Light Infantry. The impugned order has been challenged on various grounds by the learned counsel for the petitioner.(2) One of the points raised is that the summary of evidence had not been recorded in accordance with the Indian Army Rules, in the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents by Second Lt. R. Chaudhary working with 7th Maratha Li, it has been pointed out that the petitioner had himself dispensed with the...
Orient Woollen Textile Mills Vs. Collector of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Feb-04-1992
Reported in: (1992)(60)ELT508TriDel
1. This is stay application filed with reference to the order passed by the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), New Delhi dated 3-5-1991.2. Learned counsel stated that in this case they had cleared the goods in question for export under Bond. However, at the Port of Export only a part of consignment was allowed to be exported and remaining part was retained due to some controversy between the appellants and the Customs. In the circumstances, they could not export the goods and they requested for extension of time to produce proof of export. The Department did initially grant extension of time but subsequently refused to do so. They were, however, not in a position to produce certificate of export as the goods having been confiscated were in the custody of the Customs, Bombay. In the instant matter, they had filed an appeal against the order of confiscation and moved a stay application before the Tribunal (West Regional Bench). West Regional Bench has already granted stay as evident...
Mahipal Singh Vs. Trade Fair Authority of India and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-04-1992
Reported in: 48(1992)DLT357; 1992(22)DRJ395; (1993)IILLJ876Del
ORDERdated OH. 12.1989 reads as under:- 8.12.89. Present: Mr. Dalip Singh for the petitioner. Mr. Raj Panjwani with Mr. Vijay Panjwani for the respondents. Cw 2727/88 The documents and the counter-affidavit filed by the respondents do not meet the points raised in the petition, particularly, with regard to the petitioner having continued for over .six months,and the petitioner being a Scheduled Caste. The petitioner has continued for over six months even after 3rd December, 1987. In this situation, we issue Rule. Further, four weeks' time is allowed to the respondents to file further counter-affidavit. Rejoinder, if any, to be filed within two weeks thereafter. Since the petitioner is out of job, we direct that the petition should be set down for final disposal on 20th February, 1990. High up. sd/- N.N. Goswamy, J. sd/- December 8, 1989A.B. Saharya, J.(31) In view of the nature of the counter-affidavit filed, in view of the aforesaid orders of the Court, in view of non-production of re...
- ‹ Prev
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 14
- 15
- Next ›
- Last »