Delhi Court May 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.
Pratap Singh and anr. Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-20-1992
Reported in: 48(1992)DLT46
V.B. Bansal, J.(1) This is a revision petition by Pratap Singh Rana, Jaswant Singh and Smt. Jag Devi against their conviction and sentence. (2) Vide judgment dated 9th January 1979 Pratap Singh was convicted under Section 325 T.P.C. while Jaswant Singh and Smt. Jag Devi were convicted under Section 323 Indian Penal Code . On 11th January 1979 Pratap Singh was sentenced to Rl for six months while Jaswant Singh and Smt.Jag Devi were sentenced to pay fine of Rs. 300.00 each or in default Si for 30 days by a Metropolitan Magistrate, Delhi. They challenged their conviction and sentence in the Sessions Court but the appeal was dismissed on 21st July 1979. Still not being satisfied they had filed this revision petition. (3) The case relates to an incident of 7th May 1973 in which Raghunath Tyagi is stated to have sustained grievous injury at the hands of Pratap Singh while simple injuries were caused by Jaswant Singh and Smt. Jag Devi. (4) Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that Jaswa...
India Steel House Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-20-1992
Reported in: 47(1992)DLT648; 1992(23)DRJ223; 1993(41)ECC112; 2003(162)ELT37(Del)
Gokal Chand Mital, J.(1) In this batch of writ petitions the point involved is whether the Heading 73.15(2) of the Central Customs Tariff Act, 1975 would apply to the prime quality of stainless steel only or does it apply to both prime and defective and secondary stainless steel circles also. (2) A group of petitions came up for hearing before a Division Bench of this Court and the main judgment was rendered in Super Traders v. Union of Inida. 1983 E.L.T. 258 Delhi, and after discussion it was held that these types of stainless steel including the so called defective and secondary stainless steel circles will also be covered by the Heading 73.15(2) of the Central Custom Tariff Act, 1975 and the customs duty would be payable accordingly which was much higher. One of such matters decided by this Court was taken to the Supreme Court and the Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 1254-55 of 1989- M/s A. Parmananddas v. Union of India, decided on 4th January, 1989, upheld the decision of this Co...
Radlul Ballabh Suresh Chandra Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-20-1992
Reported in: 1992(23)DRJ296; 1992RLR374
Gokal Chand Mital, C.J.(1) Here brass scrap was imported and question arose as to what is the customs duty payable. A large number of writ petitions were filed including these which are before us. While issuing Rule D.B. interim orders were granted for releasing the imported items on payment of some duty and on executing bond/bank guarantee for the remaining disputed duty etc. (2) A group of writ petitions came up for decision before a Division Bench of this Court. On 19th October, 1982 while rejecting the contentions raised by the petitioner the writ petitions were dismissed. (3) The matter was further taken up in appeal to the Supreme Court and the Division Bench Judgment of this Court was upheld by the Supreme Court in M/ s khandelwal Metal and Engineering Works vs . Union of India, : 1985(20)ELT222(SC) . (4) It is not disputed that this batch of writ petitions is covered by the aforesaid decision of the Supreme Court. (5) Accordingly, for the reasons recorded above writ petitions a...
Union of India Vs. Nathu and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-20-1992
Reported in: 47(1992)DLT287; 1992(23)DRJ447
R.L. Gupta, J.(1) This appeal has been filed by Union of India against the judgment and decree dated 31.05.1976 by which the learned Addl/District Judge enhanced compensation payable to the respondents in respect of their lands situated within the revenue estate of village Ali, Union Territory of Delhi. As a result of the enhancement he fixed the market value of the land in Block I at Rs. 7,000.00 per bigha, in block Ii at Rs. 5300.00 per bigha and in block Iii at Rs. 1800.00 per bigha at the time of the notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act (Act for short). This was done by him on a reference under Section 18 of the Act from the Collector. The appellant desires reversal of the impugned judgment and decree and maintenance of the compensation awarded by the Collector. There are cross-objections filed by the respondents vide Cm No. 980/91 claiming enhancement of compensation at the rate of Rs. 17,000.00 per bigha over and above the same fixed by the trial Court.(2) We ...
Union of India Vs. Bhole
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-20-1992
Reported in: 47(1992)DLT303
R.L. Gupta, J.(1) This appeal is directed against judgment and decree dated 31.5.76 of learned Additional District Judge, Delhi by which he enhanced compensation at the rate of Rs. 4225.00 per bigha of land in Block I, in Block Ii and Rs. 1200.00 per bigha of land situated in Block Iii in respect of lands belonging to the respondent and situated within the revenue estate of village Ali, Union Territory of Delhi. This was done on a reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act (Act for short) from the Collector. There are no cross-objections filed by the respondent in this appeal.(2) In the case of acquisition of lands falling within the revenue estate of village Ali, compensation payable to the land owners have been enhanced by this Court in many appeals. thereforee, question of reduction in the compensation allowed by the learned Additional District Judge, Delhi to the respondents does not arise. The appeal, thereforee, is dismissed with no order as to costs....
Union of India Vs. Godhu Etc.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-20-1992
Reported in: 47(1992)DLT293
R.L. Gupta, J.(1) This appeal has been filed by Union of India against the judgment and decree dated ?7.10.1977 by which the learned Additional District Judge enhanced compensation payable to the respondents in respect of their lands situated within the revenue estate of village Ali, Union territory of Delhi.As a result of the enhancement he fixed the market value of the land in Block Iat Rs. 7,000.00 per bigha, in block Ii at Rs. 5300.00 per bigha and in block III at Rs. 1800.00 per bigha at the time of the notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act (Act for short). This was done by him on a reference under Section 18 of the Act from the Collector. The appellant desires reversal of the impugned judgment and decree and maintenance of the compensation awarded by the Collector. There are cross-objections filed by the respondents vide Cm No. 949/91 claiming enhancement of compensation at the rate ofRs. 17,000.00 per bigha over and above the same fixed by the trial Court.(2) ...
Behari and ors. Vs. Union of India Etc.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-20-1992
Reported in: 47(1992)DLT300
R.L. Gupta, J.(1) This appeal is directed against the judgment/decree dated 1.2.1974 of the learned Additional District Judge, Delhi by which he assessed the market value of the land belonging to the appellants at the rate ofRs. 2100.00, Rs. 1400.00 and Rs. 1000.00 per bigha falling in Block A, B and C respectively situated in the revenue estate of Village Mandawali Fazalpur. The learned trial Court disallowed the claim of the appellants in respect of lands falling in Khasra Nos. 1116/713 (1-5), 1117/713 (0-11) and 714 (2-14), in all 4Bighas and 13 bids was on the ground that deceased Behari, of whom appellants are the legal representatives, had not become bhoomidar of the aforesaid Khasra numbers. We have perused the impugned judgment. We are not inclined to agree with the reason given by learned ADJ. He does concede in the judgment that in the Khasra Girdawari, Behari has been shown to be in cultivatory possession of the aforesaid Khasra number after 1962-63. However,this presumption...
Union of India Vs. Kure Etc.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-20-1992
Reported in: 47(1992)DLT296
R.L. Gupta, J.(1) This appeal has been filed by Union of India against the judgment and decree dated 31.05.1976 by which the learned Additional District Judge enhanced compensation payable to the respondents in respect of their lands situated within the revenue estate of village Ali, Union territory of Delhi.As a result of the enhancement he fixed the market value of the land in Block I at Rs, 7,000.00 per bigha, in block Ii at Rs. 5300.00 per bigha and in block III at Rs. 1800.00 per bigha at the time of the notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act (Act for short). This was done by him on a reference under Section 18 of the Act from the Collector. The appellant desires reversal of the impugned judgment and decree and maintenance of the compensation awarded by the Collector. There are cross-objections filed by the respondents vide Cm No. 940/91 claiming enhancement of compensation at the rate ofRs. 17,000.00 per bigha over and above the same fixed by the trial Court.(2)...
Delhi Development Authority Vs. Maharaja Hotel and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-20-1992
Reported in: 1992(2)Crimes774; 1992(23)DRJ304; ILR1993Delhi64
P.K. Bahri, J.(1) These appeals are directed against judgments dated April 17,1979 of a Metropolitan Magistrate by which he had acquitted the respondents. It appears that two separate complaints had been brought, one against M/s Maharaja Hotel, a partnership concern comprising of partners M.K. Sachdeva, Parvesh Sachdeva, Krishna Wati, Kamlesh Kumari and Ram Parkash Devi on the allegation that they have used the property No.A-37, Vishal Enclave, New Delhi, for non conforming purpose inasmuch as the said premises falls in Zone G9 of the Master Plan and the land in the said zone could be used for residential purposes. According to the complaint the said premises were found to be used for hotel. A second complaint was filed against Smt. Kamlesh Kumari, being the owner of the said property having permitted the said non conforming user of the said premises. The first contention raised in these appeals are barred by limitation. Under S. 378 of the Criminal Procedure code if an appeal is broug...
Delhi Development Authority Vs. Devi Dass Malhan and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-20-1992
Reported in: 1992(24)DRJ72; 1992RLR331
P.K. Bahri, J.(1) This is an appeal against the Judgment dated October 26, 1977 of a Metropolitan Magistrate by which he had acquitted the respondent of an offence punishable under S. 29 read with S. 14 of the Delhi Development Act. The case of the complainant in brief was that on May 20, 1976 Public Witness 2 an official of the Dda had visited the premises in question and found a shop being run in the said premises. The reason of the said premises for running a shop was stated to be in violation of the Master Plan as well as the Zonal Development Plan. Public Witness 2 appeared in the witness box and located the building at point x in the plan Ex.P7. The learned Magistrate appears to have acquitted the respondent on the ground that it was not established by the Dda that the building which was found to be used for a non- conforming purpose had been properly located in the map Ex. P7. We are afraid that the finding of the learned Magistrate is not in consonance with law. A similar quest...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- Next ›
- Last »