Delhi Court January 1994 Judgments
Home Cases Delhi 1994 Page 9 of about 100 results (0.018 seconds)Jai Bhagwan Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1994IAD(Delhi)185; 1994(29)DRJ209
V.B. Bansal, J.(1) Jai Bhagwan has moved this application under Section 438 read with Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code (hereinafter referred to as the .'Code') for his release in anticipation of his arrest for offence under Section 302,307,452 read with Section 34, Indian Penal Code in Fir No.377/93, Police Station Timarpur.(2) An incident took place at about 6.00 am. on 23.11.1993 at plot No.147, Garhi Burari, near Burari Masjid, Burari, Delhi, in which two persons, viz. Kamil son of Sahid; and Wahid Ali son of Nabhi Baksh lost their lives while Sajjid Ahmed son of Wahid Ahmed sustained injuries. Fir was recorded on the statement of Aneez Ahmed son of Shri Wahid Ahmed resident of Village Garhi Burari, Burari, Delhi. According to this statement Aneez Ahmed was aged about 21 years and a student of XIIth Class. On that date he Along with his father Wahid Ahmed, brother Sajeed Ali, cousin brother Kamil, Uncle Shahid Ahmed, mother Kaneeza Begum and grand-mother was present at the...
Tag this Judgment!Pradeep Kumar Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1994IAD(Delhi)217; 53(1994)DLT318; 1994RLR117
Anil Dev Singh, J.(1) This is a criminal revision against the order of learned Asj dated 20th March, 1992 whereby charge under Section 306 read with Section 34 Indian Penal Code was framed against the petitioners. (2) Smt. Veena was married to Subhash Chand sometime in January 1986 according to Hindu customs. The allegation against the revisionists, namely Pradeep Kumar, brother-in-law of the deceased, Km. Shashi and Km. Suman, sisters-in- law of the deceased and Smt.Raj Rani, mother-in-law of the deceased and Subhash Chand, husband of the deceased is that they used to harass the deceased and treated her with cruelty which drove her to despair resulting in her suicide. (3) According to the dying declaration of the deceased, she resided in the house of her in-laws along- with her husband Subhash Chand, mother-in-law, two sisters- in-laws and brother in-law. There used to be altercations on small and trivial matters. Sisters-in-law used to quarrel with her and the mother-in-law & the hus...
Tag this Judgment!Deepika and ors. Vs. State and ors.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1994IAD(Delhi)234; 1994(1)Crimes971; 1994(28)DRJ323
Anil Dev Singh, J.(1) This is a criminal revision against the orders of the Sub Divisional Magistrate datedJuly8, 1992 and August 5, 1992 where by proceedings under section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short ' the Code') were initiated and sealing of the part of the premises bearing No.734, Shora Kothi, Subzi Mandi, Delhi was also directed.(2) The revision petition has been filed with the following allegations: The property, bone of contention between the petitioner and respondent No.2 to 4, which is a part of a big katra, comprises of two rooms on the ground floor with an open verandah in front thereof. The petitioners are also residing in different portions of the katra. Earlier Parvati Devi and her sons including Krishan Lal Sindhi, their wives and children were also living in the property in dispute. Some years back Parvati Devi and her son Krishan Lal Sindhi started a lucky draw scheme and made the petitioners and some other people as members of the same. The petitio...
Tag this Judgment!Surinder Singh Ahluwalia Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1994IAD(Delhi)205; 53(1994)DLT174; 1994(28)DRJ463
Vijender Jain, J.(1) Main parties to this petition are both Ias Officers. Petitioner was inducted into Ias and allocated to the State of Nagaland in the year 1968. Respondent No.3 Shri K.S. Puri is also an Ias Officer and allocated to the State of Nagaland. (2) Other respondents are Union of India in the Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pension as respondent No. 1 and Government of Nagaland as respondent No.2 Director of Enforcement is respondent No. 4. (3) In short the prayer in the writ petition by the petitioner is for issuance of a writ of mandamus to Union of India to institute a Cbi inquiry against respondent No. 3 and other relief in the nature of directing respondent No. 4 to inquire, investigate and proceed in accordance with law regarding allegations of violation of the provisions of Foreign Exchange Regulation Act by respondent No.3. The petitioner has further sought a mandamus for instituting similar proceedings as has been done against him and further declarati...
Tag this Judgment!Ghanshyam Agarwal Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1994)(71)ELT373TriDel
1. This is an appeal against the Order of Additional Collector of Central Excise, Allahabad, dated 18-4- 1985.2. The learned Advocate stated that on 22-8-1980, the Mahanagar Police, Lucknow raided the house of the appellant Shri Ghanshyam Agarwal.3. As per the show cause notice and the order-in-original, they found seven persons engaged in counting, sorting, systematically arranging different type of bidi labels and papers as well as labelling and branding unlabelled bidis. On search, the Police recovered 30 lacs of bidis and huge quantity of fake labels of bidis and jhellies of some popular brands without Central Excise licence. The Police seized the goods for violation of various sections of the IPC and Sections 78 and 79 of the Trade and Merchandise Act as well as Central Excise Act and Rules.4. The Police arrested the appellant and others and lodged an FIR and then recorded the statements of various persons. Further, it was alleged that the witnesses mentioned in the FIR have corr...
Tag this Judgment!Travancore Cements Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1994)LC415Tri(Delhi)
1. The appellant manufacture white cement and sold it to wholesale dealers (stockist) and industrial consumers in various parts of the country. According to them, white cement market is highly competitive which varies from State to State and all the white cement manufacturers have accordingly been selling at different prices at different areas.The Collector allowed different regionwise discount in respect of wholesale dealers. Similarly, they were selling to industrial consumers in different States at different prices treating them as different classes of buyers. The prices filed accordingly were approved by the Department. However, Show Cause Notice was issued proposing to revise the different prices for the industrial consumers for different States and to value all the sales at the price charged to industrial consumers in Kerala. On receipt of reply, the proposal in the Show Cause Notice was confirmed by the Assistant Collector. On appeal, the Collector rejected the appeal. Hence th...
Tag this Judgment!Bhoop Singh Vs. Union of India and anr.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1994IAD(Delhi)249; 53(1994)DLT209; 1994(28)DRJ226
D.P. Wadhwa, J. (1)the appeal filed under section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short 'the Act') is against the judgment dated 24 September 1983 of the learned Additional District Judge by which he fixed the market value of the land at Rs.2,100.00 per bigha. (2) The land is situated ill village Khichripur. Notification under section 4 of the Act was issued on 13 November 1959 and declaration under section 6 on 20 June 1966. The award given is No. 28-B/70-71 and a supplementary award thereto was made on 7 November 1975. The Land Acquisition Collector fixed the market value of the land at Rs.600.00 per bigha. On a reference made under section 18 of the Act, the learned Additional District Judge, as noted above, fixed the market value at Rs.2,100.00 per bigha. The claim in the appeal before us is that the market value should have been fixed at rate of Rs.8,000.00 per bigha. (3) No sale deed of the sale of any laid in the village Khichirpur has been brought on record which woul...
Tag this Judgment!Satyendra Kumar and ors. Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1994IAD(Delhi)242; 53(1994)DLT181; 1994(28)DRJ264; 1994RLR167
D.P. Wadhwa, J. (1) Petitioners in this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution seek to quash the whole of the acquisition proceedings in respect of their property at IX/3335, Kucha Bajrang Bali, Bazar Sita Ram, Delhi, constructed on a plot of land measuring 853 square yards. (2) The notification under section 4 of (he Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short 'the Act') to acquire this property was issued on 1 July 1965 and declaration under section 6 issued on 20 September 1966. The award is No. 71/73-74 and is dated 30 March 1974. Because of the controversy involved in this petition it is not necessary to refer to the amount of compensation awarded to the petitioners in the matter except to note that petitioners say that they have, also filed a reference petition under section 18 of the Act. This fact is though not admitted by the respondents. Be that as it may, the possession of the property has still not been taken by the respondents as required under section 16 of the Act the ...
Tag this Judgment!Bama Metal Industries Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1996)(82)ELT81TriDel
1. In both these appeals, common questions of law and facts are involved. Hence, they are taken up together for disposal as per law.2. Both these appeals arise [from] a common order-in-appeal passed by the Collector (Appeals), Calcutta by his order dated 23rd April, 1993.The Asstt. Collector had passed two different orders-in-original in respect of the appellants denying the benefit of Notification No.178/88-C.E., dated 13-5-1988 and also had held that as the appellants had used zinc as one of the inputs which do not fall within Chapter 74 of Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. The appellants had urged before the Collector that the Notification in question nowhere impliedly suggested that in order to avail the benefit granted by the said notification, the concerned sheets/circles are to be manufactured exclusively out of the prescribed inputs and addition of any other input in admixture shall be a bar in the matter of availing the benefit. The second point urged before the Id. Collector ...
Tag this Judgment!K. Khan Vs. Municipal Corporation of Delhi and ors.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1994IAD(Delhi)201; 53(1994)DLT250; 1994(28)DRJ295
D.P. Wadhwa, J.(1) This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 11 February 1980 of the learned Single Judge passed in a writ petition filed by the appellant which was dismissed. For the purpose of this appeal it will be appropriate to refer to the appellant as the petitioner. There are three respondents being the Municipal Corporation of Delhi, a body constituted under the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act; Union of India through the Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs; and Lt. Governor, Delhi Administration, through the Director of Education. The petitioner filed the writ petition in July 1976 and prayed for an appropriate writ, order or direction to the respondents to consider him for promotion to the post of Senior Teacher (Post Graduate) in the scale of Rs.250-470 w.e.f. 1 June 1966. The petitioner also sought consequential reliefs. The facts are quite brief and they are not much in dispute as well.(2) The petitioner was an under graduate but possessed teacher training certifi...
Tag this Judgment!