Delhi Court May 1994 Judgments

Sudhir Kumar JaIn and ors. Vs. State

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 1994IIAD(Delhi)706; 1994(2)Crimes954; 55(1994)DLT56; 1994(29)DRJ405; 1994RLR319

Jaspal Singh, J. (1) On November 19, 1989 Sushma Jain entered into wed lock with Sudhir Kumar. On May 30, 1991 she lodged a report with the police alleging cruelty at the hands of her husband and his other relations. On September 8, 1993 the learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate framed charges under section 498A read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code against the husband Sudhir Kumar, his brother Pawan Kumar Jain, sister Ms.Punam Jain and mother Smt. Supla Devi. By this joint petition they are seeking to get the charges quashed. (2) Is it that the material on the record spells nothing against the petitioners? Let us have a look at it. First, the First Information Report lodged by the estranged wife Sushma Jain. Its bare perusal would go to show that right from the very start of her matrimonial life her husband Sudhir Kumar, mother-in-law Supla Devi, brother-in-law Pawan Kumar and sister-in-law Punam had been expressing unhappiness over the dowry brought by her and on t...

Kesar Singh Vs. Lt. Governor of Delhi and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 1994IIIAD(Delhi)634; 1994(30)DRJ326

Anil Dev Singh, J. (1) By this Writ Petition, the petitioner calls question the letter of the Deputy Registrar (INDI.) Cooperative Societies, Delhi Adminitration, Delhi a dated October 5, 1988 requiring execution of a fresh sublease of Plot No. H-12, Udyog Nagar, Delhi and the consequential letter of the Administrator of the respondent No. 3, the Manufactures' Cooperative Industrial Estate Limited, dated january 11, 1989 whereby the petitioner has been asked to sign a fresh/supplementary sub lease of the plot.(2) The facts giving rise to the writ petition are as under : On May 31, 1963 the petitioner applied turn the membership of the respondent No. 3, a society registered under the Societies Registration Act,1860, which was formed for the purpose of acquiring land for industrial purposes and paid a sum of Rs.10.00 as admission fee, Rs.1100.00 as value of one share and Rs.3000.00 as earnest money for the land (See Annexure P-3 collectively). On July 1, 1965 the petitioner was admitted ...

Prakash Singh Vs. State

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 1994(29)DRJ431

Jaspal Singh, J.(1) In Chameli Devi v. State 1993 Jcc 293 and Mool Chand v. State (2) DL 14 it was held by this court that if the Central Forensic Science Laboratory (in short C.F.S.L.) form is neither deposited in the Malkhana nor sent to the C.F.S.L. Along with the sample, it would entitle the accused the benefit of doubt and acquittal. In Mool Chand;s case, referred to above, the learned single judge had placed reliance on two judgments namely Lachho Devi v. State 1990 (2) CCC 395 and Anoop Joshi v. State 1990 (2) CCC 314. (2) In the present case also which relates to the recovery of Poppy had powder, though it is in evidence that the C.F.S.L. form was filled in, there is nothing on the record to show that the said Form was deposited with teh Moharrar, Malkhana or was taken to the C.F.S.L. Along with the sample parcel. In this respect reference may particularly be made to the statement of Head Constable Chander Pal Singh (Public Witness - 3) who at the relevant time was posted as Mo...

Sarla JaIn Vs. Skipper Builders (P) Ltd.

Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi

R.N. Mittal, President: 1. Briefly the facts are that the complainant booked a flat in Vaishali Housing Scheme (Ghaziabad) promoted by M/s. Skipper Builders, Opposite Party (O.P.), at a cost of Rs. 6 lacs in instalment basis. She paid Rs. 2,10,000/- as part of the sale price as detailed below:DateAmountReceipt No.(a) 10.6.89Rs. 30,000/-979(b) 16.12.89Rs. 1,20,000/-1890(c) 23.3.90Rs. 60,000/-19312. It is alleged that the flats have not been constructed as yet by the O.P. Consequently it is prayed that they be directed to refund the amount of Rs. 2,10,000/- alongwith interest. Notice of the complaint was given to the O.P. but no one appeared on their behalf. Consequently they were proceeded against ex-parte on 12.11.93. 3. The case of the complainant stands established from the affidavit of the complainant and the copies of the receipts dated 10.6.89, 16.12.89 and 23.3.90. She has also stated that the building has not been fully constructed as yet. A period of about 4 years has since ela...

Sanjay Kumar and anr. Vs. Union of India and anr.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 54(1994)DLT403

Lahoti, J.1. This common judgment shall govern the disposal of Civil Writ Petitions Nos. 1271 of 1992, 2659 of 1992, all the three raising common questions of law in the background of common set of facts and the three petitions having been heard analogously. 2. On 9 January 1990, the petitioners were appointed as apprentices for the term of two years by the respondents. Vide order, dated 6 January, 1992, the apprenticeship training period of the petitioners was extended up to 30th January. 1992. The performance of the petitioners as apprentices was satisfactory. From 1 October 1991, certain posts of Junior Scientific Assistants in the employment of respondents were all called for interview on 21 October 1991. One of the terms of the letter of appointment, dated 9 January 1990, appointing the petitioners as apprentice scientists was : '5. You are required to sign the enclosed bond to reimburse to this Board the expenditure incurred or a sum of Rs. 30,000 whichever is higher, in case of ...

Mohit Thakore Vs. Collector of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1994)LC373Tri(Delhi)

1. This is an Appeal against the Order-in-Original No. 2/MS/93 dated 17-8-1993 passed by the Collector of Customs (J), New Delhi.2. Learned Advocate stated that the Appellant is a Canadian Passport Holder, NRI. He had initially come to India for getting married and was on a re-visit. At this time he had brought with him two kgs. of gold as baggage in view of liberalisation announced by the Government.3. However, he handed over this gold and the amount of duty payable to his co-passenger who had accordingly deposited the same.4. Learned Collector, has however, confiscated the gold and imposed a penalty on a technical ground that his present visit was within six months of the earlier one.5. It was his submission that the Collector has referred only to Customs Notification No. 117/92 and not taken into account the Notification No. FERA 111/92 referred to in the Show Cause Notice. This notification grants general permission to import gold upto 5 kgs both to the Indian Nationals and those ...

B.P. TIn Factory Vs. Collector of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1994)LC125Tri(Delhi)

1. Shri Gopal Prasad, learned consultant, submits that in the instant cases department has sought to club the clearances of B.P. Tin Factory and B.P. Oil Mills on the ground that both the factories are owned by the same person i.e. B.P. Tin factory is owned by B.P. Oil Mills Ltd. which is a Public Limited Company. Further, the VNE oil unprocessed and oil cakes are not specified goods. Therefore, their clearances have also to be taken into account in computing the aggregate clearances under notification 71/78 (as amended). Learned consultant has submitted that apart from merits of the case which he is not pressing the demand is hit by time bar, as stipulated under Rule 10 as it existed at that time. Show cause notice in the case of B.P. Tin Factory is dated 21-7-1980 and the period of demand is 1-4-1979 to August 1979. In the case of B.P. Oil Mills Ltd., show cause notice is dated 19-7-1980 and the period of demand is from 1-4-1979 to 30-6-1980.2. Learned consultant has drawn attention...

M/S. Surya Agro-oils Ltd. Vs. M/S. Surya Coconut Oil Industries

Court: Delhi

Reported in: AIR1995Delhi72

ORDER1. By this application, the plaintiff seeks to restrain the defendant from using the trade mark 'Surya' or any other trade name or trade mark identical with or deceptively similar to the plaintiff's/applicant's aforementioned trade name and trade mark consisting of the device of 'Surya'.2. 'Surya' is the Hindi name of the 'Sun'. Sun as the centre of the solar system has existed for long long time, so has 'Surya'.3. I do not think that any person can exclusively appropriate the word 'Surya' per se for himself. I am not inclined to grant injunction with respect to the word 'Surya'.4. I have seen the 'Sun' device of the plaintiff. It is a half circle with lines radically projecting out of its circumference, alternatelines being long, and alternate lines being short.5. However, as per the registration certificate which has been filed by the defendant in Suit No. 1094 of 1989 and relied upon by the defendant in this suit, that device comprises of a very stylized representation of 'Sun'...

Bharat Commerce and Industries Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax and ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: (1995)123CTR(Del)514; ILR1995Delhi317; [1994]210ITR13(Delhi); 1994RLR316

M. Jagannadha Rao, C.J. 1. This petition is filed by the petitioner for issuing a writ of certiorari quashing the charging of interest in a sum of Rs. 11,83,631 under section 220(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, with effect from May 1, 1992, through demand notice dated November 13, 1992, which was issued pursuant to the rectification order under section 154 of the Income-tax Act for the assessment year 1989-90. The following are the facts. 2. The petitioner filed return for the year ending March 31, 1989, relating to the assessment year 1989-90 on December 29, 1989, declaring a loss of Rs. 2,91,95,935. Assessment under section 143(3) of the Act was framed by the second respondent on March 25, 1992, determining the total income at Rs. 4,37,87,944 which was wholly set off against brought forward losses/allowances. The assessment order and the demand notice were served on March 31, 1992 (annexures P-2 and P-3). Subsequently, on August 4, 1992, the second respondent issued a notice under se...

Aditi Marketing Vs. Birla3m Ltd. and anr.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 54(1994)DLT633; 1994(30)DRJ239

Sat Pal, J.(1) By this order I am disposing of two applications bearing is 2520/94 & is 3399/94. is 2520/94 was filed on behalf of the plaintiff under Order 39 Rules I & 2 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter referred to as the Code) and in this application it was prayed that the defendants, their servants, agents be restrained from appointing any other person as Distributor of Scrub Pads in the Union Territory of Delhi. This application came up for hearing on 9th March, 1994 and on that date an ex-parte injunction was granted in favor of the plaintiff and the defendant their agents, servants were restrained from appointing any other distributor of Scrub Pads in the Union Territory of Delhi. Notice of this application was issued to the defendants and reply has been filed on behalf of the defendants controverting the averments and allegations made in the application.(2) is 3399/94 has been filed on behalf of the defendants under Order 39 Rule 4 read with Sec...