Delhi Court July 1994 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.
Dalip Kumar and Others Vs. State (Delhi Administration)
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-28-1994
Reported in: 1995CriLJ2769
ORDER1. The petitioners have filed this revision petition under Sections 397/401 read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, against order dated 21st of January, 1994, passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Delhi, in which a charge against the petitioners was framed under Sections 399/402, Indian Penal Code. 2. Brief facts necessary to dispose of this application are reproduced as under :- 3. That on 8th August, 1990 at about 7 p.m., the Police received information from a secret informer that at about 7.30 p.m. a Maruti Van No. DNJ-0525 occupied by 5 persons will come to Loha Mandi, Naraina, Delhi, for the purpose of committing dacoity. On the basis of the secret information, a raiding party was prepared. At about 7.30 p.m. on 8-8-1990, the Maruti Van was stopped at Naraina Flyover and the Police succeeded in apprehending four accused and the fifth succeeded in escaping. It is the further case of the prosecution that on personal search of the accused persons, a katta, bu...
N.N. Keswani and ors. Vs. P.N. JaIn and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-28-1994
Reported in: 1994IIIAD(Delhi)1406; 1994(31)DRJ109
D.P. Wadhwa, J. (1) This petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution by 55 members of the Supreme Court Bar Association seeking to quash a communication dated 4 August 1993 of the Assistant Registrar (Administration) of the Supreme Court whereby all the allottees of the lawyers' chambers in the Supreme Court compound were asked to pay license fee at the rate of Rs.l,000.00 per month per chamber from 1 July 1993. The petitioners also challenge the resolution passed by the General Body of the Supreme Court Bar Association in its meeting held on 12 May 1993 whereby it was resolved that the members of the Association had no objection to the enhancement of license fee to Rs.l,000.00 per month per chamber w.e.f. 1 July 1993 'to enable the authorities to construct new chambers for the members of the Bar.' The recommendation of the Allotment Committee for Lawyers' Chambers for enhancement of license fee has also been challenged. (2) When the matter came up before us for admis...
Amar Nath and anr. Vs. Kiranwati
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-28-1994
Reported in: 1994IIIAD(Delhi)1009; 56(1994)DLT97; 1994(30)DRJ408; 1995RLR583
Sat Pal, J.(1) This petition filed on behalf of the petitioners (hereinafter referred to as the tenants) under Section 25B(8) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) is directed against the order dated 3rd February, 1994 passed by Shri O.P. Gupta, Addl. Rent Controller, Delhi in the eviction petition bearing No.E-211/82.(2) Briefly stated the facts of the case are that Smt. Kiran Wati (hereinafter referred to as the landlady) who is the owner of house No.146, Gali Batasha Chawri Bazar, Delhi filed an eviction petition bearing No.E-211/82 against the tenants in respect of one room measuring 8'X12.9', two kothas measuring 8'X8.3' and 8'X7.5', kitchen, bath and W.C. on the ground floor of the said house which were let out to the tenants in the year 1961. As per averments made in the eviction petition, the premises in dispute are residential in nature and were let out for the same purpose and the same were being used by the tenants for residential purpose. ...
Taraqi Ahmed Vs. the State (Delhi Administration)
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-28-1994
Reported in: 1994IIIAD(Delhi)838; 1994CriLJ425; 1994(3)Crimes377; 55(1994)DLT612; 1994(30)DRJ481
Dalveer Bhandari, J.(1) The petitioner has filed bail application under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure against the order dated 19th April, 1994 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Shahdara, Delhi, whereby he rejected the bail application of the petitioner under Section 21 of the N.D.P.S. Act. The petitioner is facing trial under Section 21 of the N.D.P.S. Act for alleged recovery of 900 grams of smack.(2) The petitioner has submitted that there is violation of Section 50 of the N.D.P.S. Act, and that non-compliance of mandatory provisions must result in vitiating the entire trial. He has placed reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court State of Punjab Vs . Balbir Singh, : 1994CriLJ3702 . In this case, the Supreme Court has held that compliance of Section 50 is mandatory. The Court has ob served that it is. imperative on the part of the officer intending to search, to inform the person to be searched of his right that if he so chooses, he will be searched in the pres...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Surinder Kumar
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-28-1994
Reported in: [1996]221ITR713(Delhi)
Y.K. Sabharwal, J.1. The questions referred for decision of this court under Section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, are these :'1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal had any evidence before it in reducing the income from undisclosed sources from Rs. 93,000 to Rs. 42,000 ? 2. Whether the order of the Tribunal is vitiated in ignoring or misreading the evidence on record and also basing its findings on irrelevant evidence ?' The assessment year in question is 1962-63. The assessed is a managing director of Pearl Cycle Industries Ltd. He also holds a one-fourth share in the registered firm named, E.S. Pearey Lal.2. While completing the assessment, the Income-tax Officer made an addition of sum of Rs. 93,000 as income of the assessed from undisclosed sources. In the appeal filed by the assessed, the Appellate Assistant Commissioner upheld the said addition of Rs. 93,000. In further appeal filed by the assessed, the Tribunal reduced the income from ...
Kibro Elbert Glove Co. Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jul-27-1994
Reported in: (1994)(73)ELT893TriDel
1. This is an appeal against the order dated 1-8-1990 passed by the Additional Collector (Customs), Madras. The facts are that the appellants imported a consignment of stamping machines for which they filed a Bill of Entry at the time of importation. Along with the machines, 253 bags of leather/leather split of Glove Parts were also found. These goods were not declared in the Bill of Entry. After investigation, the case was adjudicated by the Deputy Collector of Customs, who ordered the confiscation of the goods with an option to the importer to redeem the same on payment of a fine of Rs. 20,000/-. A penalty of Rs. 5,000/- was also imposed. The goods were assessed as leather glove parts (articles of leather) under Heading No. 42.01/06 of the erstwhile Tariff. This order of the Deputy Collector of Customs was challenged by the importer without success before the Collector of Customs (Appeals). The importer filed an appeal to the Customs, Excise & Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal, ...
Maxa Laboratories (P) Ltd. Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jul-27-1994
Reported in: (1994)(73)ELT749TriDel
1. The above appeal arises out of the order of the Additional Collector of Customs, New Delhi confiscating a consignment of Suffed Sarh (Poppy Seeds) as being covered by Entry No. 121 of Appendix 2 Part B of the 1985-88 Import Policy as consumer goods requiring specific Import Licence/CCP and denying clearance as claimed under OGL Appendix 6 List 8 Sl. No. 1 - the goods have been confiscated with an option to redeem the same on payment of a fine of Rs. 1,00,000/- and in addition a penalty of Rs. 30,000/- has been imposed.2. We have heard Ms. Sangeeta Jain, learned Counsel and Shri K.N.Gupta, learned SDR.3. The issue as to whether the import of poppy seeds be allowed under OGL as crude drug in the 1984-85 Import Policy has been decided by the Tribunal in the case of Jay Kay & Co. v. Collector of Customs, 1988 (38) E.L.T. 709 (Tri.), Final Order No. A/173/94-NRB, dated 14-2-1994 holding that the import of the item as crude drug has been ruled out as there is no specific mention that...
Kartar Singh Vs. Rameshwari Kela
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-27-1994
Reported in: 1994IIIAD(Delhi)889; AIR1995Delhi73; 55(1994)DLT317; 1994(30)DRJ323; 1994RLR425
Jaspal Singh, J. (1) The dispute revolves around an order of remand passed by the learned Additional District Judge under Order 41 of the Code of Civil Procedure and concerns its legality.(2) Rameshwari Kela who is the respondent before me had filed a suit for permanent injunction against Kartar Singh appellant seeking to restrain him for raising any construction in the park facing her plot. Kartar Singh contested the suit on various grounds including the plea that the plaintiff being not in possession of the park or any part thereof, the relief of injunction could not be sought and that not only the suit was not maintainable, it was not even properly valued for purposes of court fee and jurisdiction. It was also pleaded that the land in question was not earmarked as a park and that, in any case, there was no contract between the parties regarding the user of the land as a park. The parties went to trial on the following issues: '(1)Whether the suit is correctly valued for the purposes...
Collector of Customs Vs. India Watch Parts Mfrs.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jul-26-1994
Reported in: (1994)(73)ELT705TriDel
1. These reference applications have been filed by the Department against Tribunal's Final Order No. A/1102-1112/93-NRB. It has been urged that the following questions of law are arising out of the above order and the same may be referred to the Hon'ble High Court for decision :- 1. Whether the Tribunal was correct in law inasmuch as it refused to admit the letter of D.G.F.T. clarifying that Bezels fitted with glass required a specific licence even by actual users since the empty watch case is specifically mentioned in the restricted list of the Import Policy. 2. Whether after having refused to admit the additional evidence, if the clarificatory letter can be so regarded, the Tribunal could have sat on judgment and interpreted the Exim Policy.2. Making his submissions on behalf of the Department, Shri M.M.Mathur, Jt. CDR stated that the question to be decided was whether Bezel fitted with glass could be deemed as "watch case" which was covered under Item 3A of the Negative List of the...
Supreme Washers P. Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jul-26-1994
Reported in: (1994)(73)ELT430TriDel
1. When the stay application had come up for hearing the applicants were asked to address arguments on maintainability of the appeal since the present appeal was filed against the order passed by the Assistant Collector.2. Shri J.K. Srivastava, learned Advocate, appearing for the applicants submitted that order passed by the Assistant Collector is in continuation and connected with the earlier order passed by the Collector and against which the applicants have filed an appeal and the same is pending before the Tribunal. Since issue is connected and in continuation of the proceedings, he submitted that Tribunal can entertain the appeal against this order to avoid multiplicity of proceedings. He referred to the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Collector of Central Excise v. Karna Industries Ltd., reported in 1991 (53) E.L.T. 566 (Tribunal), wherein it was held that power of the Collector (Appeals) and the Tribunal, contained in the proviso to Section 35F, is of wide amplitude. In...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »