Delhi Court January 1995 Judgments
Home Cases Delhi 1995 Page 9 of about 158 results (0.019 seconds)Ved Parkash Chawla Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1995IAD(Delhi)685; 58(1995)DLT773; 1995LabIC1234
Anil Dev Singh, J. (1) This is a Writ Petition whereby the petitioner seeks a direction to the respondents to pay disability pension at the rate of 60% to him w.e.f. 9/05/1988 for a period of 10 years as assessed by the Re-survey MedicalBoard.(2) The facts giving rise to this petition are as under: THE petitioner was enrolled in the Army (EME) on 17/10/1941. He was discharged from the Army on completion of his term of engagement on 7/07/1969. At the time of his discharge he was examined by 'Release Medical Board',which found him to be in a low medical category. His disability was assessed at the rate of 30% and the same was held to be attributable to army service.Consequently the petitioner was granted disability pension at the rate of 30%besides the usual pension, which was admissible to him. The amount of disability pension was varied from time to time by the respondent depending upon the assessment of the disability by 'Release Medical Board'.(3) On 9/05/1988 a Re-survey Medical Boa...
Tag this Judgment!C.C.E. Vs. Purushotham Gokuldas Plywood Co.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1996)(85)ELT355TriDel
1. The Collector of Central Excise, Cochin has filed this appeal against the order dated 19-5-1986 passed by the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), Madras by which he has upheld the order of Asstt.Collector, Central Excise that the commercial plywood for shuttering manufactured by the respondents is eligible for lower rate of duty as commercial plywood and that it does not fall under the excluded category of structural plywood on which there is higher rate of duty.The facts of the case are as follows :- M/s. Purushotam Gokuldas Plywood Company, Baliapattam, Can-nanore are manufacturers of 'Commercial Plywood for Shuttering" among other things falling under the then T.I. 16B of CET. They were classifying this item under 16B(ii) claiming concessional rate of duty of 20% Ad valorem applicable for commercial plywood vide Notification No. 55/79, dated 1-3-1979 as amended on Tariff value fixed by Government. The classification was accordingly approved by Department.The Collector of Cent...
Tag this Judgment!Sh. John Tayang Vs. Kirori Mal College and Another
Court: Delhi
Reported in: AIR1995Delhi139
ORDER1. This is a writ petition whereby the petitioner seeks directions to the respondent to allow him to be admitted in the second year B.A. (English) Hons. Class and also to permit him to take examination of the first year and the second year B.A. (Hons.) together.2. The petitioner is a student of B.A. (Hons.) Kirori Mal College, University of Delhi. It is alleged that the petitioner was taken ill and as a result thereof fell short of a attendance. He, thereforee, field a representation before the Principal of respondent No. 1 for permitting him to appear in the firstyear examination of the B.A. (Hons.) and also understood to make up the shortage of attendance in the second year. It appears from the copy of the representation produced by the respondent that it was filed by the petitioner before the Principal on April 21 1994 which happened to be the first day of the examination for the first year B.A. (Hons.) students. The petitioner was permitted to appear in the examination and was...
Tag this Judgment!Bhagwan Dass Vs. the State
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1995CriLJ2056
P.K. Bahri, J. 1. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated October 8, 1982 of an Additional Sessions Judge, Delhi by which he convicted the appellant of an offence punishable under Section 302, I.P.C., and vide order of sentence of the even date, he sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life. 2. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that deceased Sukh Lal was familiar with the appellant and Kanhaiya Lal and Gian Chand and on day of occurrence i.e. October 26, 1981 at about 10.45 p.m. at Ganga Mandir Marg, Near Gali No. 63, Regarpura. New Delhi they were found gambling. Ram Chander and Madan Lal, the two brothers' of Sukh Lal had come in search of Sukh Lal as he had not returned home and it was getting late night and they found them gambling at that place. They wanted Sukh Lal to get up and leave the said place on which Bhagwan Dass, Gian Chand and Kanhaiya Lal also stood up and they exchanged hot words with Sukh Lal and they proceeded towards the lane. When t...
Tag this Judgment!J.P. Lal Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1995CriLJ1715; 57(1995)DLT394
P.K. Bhari, J. 1. This appeal is directed against judgment and order dated May 29, 1990, of an Additional Sessions Judge, by which he has convicted the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and has sentenced the appellant to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 100/- and in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one month more. 2. Facts of the case, in brief, are that one Kundan Lal with his wife Laxmi (deceased) and children was residing in house No. I/28A, Seema Nagari and the appellant, who is a junk dealer, had taken a shop on rent from Kundan Lal in that area. Appellant was on visiting terms at the house of Kundan Lal and he was also visiting the said house in absence of Kundan Lal. It is the case of the prosecution that on March 28, 1986, at about 1 p.m. the appellant had brought Laxmi (since deceased) to a room in house No. E-51, Mansarovar Park, Shahdara. One Vijay is stated to be a tenant in one of the ...
Tag this Judgment!Sher Singh Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1995CriLJ2187
S.D. Pandit, J. 1. Sher Singh s/o Teja Singh r/o house No. 2. Village Tikri, Delhi stands convicted by the Additional Sessions Judge in Sessions case No. 112/87 on 12th November, 1987 and is sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- and in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for three months. 2. Deceased Jagtar Singh had three brothers Sahib Singh, Gumand Singh and Kishan Singh. His brother Sahib Singh and Gumand Singh are dead. Sahib Singh has three sons, Mahinder Singh, Darshan Singh and Makhan Singh. Present appellant Sher Singh is son-in-law of said Sahib Singh and brother-in-law of Darshan Singh and Makhan Singh. The present appellant and Surinder Singh were tried for an offence of murder of one Sant Singh and were sentenced to imprisonment for life and appellant Sher Singh had undergone the said sentence and was released some days prior to the day of incident. It seems that in those proceedings son of Gumand Singh as well as deceased's son Pur...
Tag this Judgment!John Tayang Vs. Kirori Mal College and anr.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 57(1995)DLT269
Anil Dev Singh, J.(1) This is a writ petition whereby the petitioner seeks directions to the respondent to allow him to be admitted in the second year B.A.(English) Hons. Class and also to permit him to take examination of the first year and the second year B.A. (Hons.) together.(2) The petitioner is a student of B.A. (Hons.), Kirori Mal College, University ofDelhi. It is alleged that the petitioner was taken ill and as a result thereof fell short of attendance. He, thereforee, filed a representation before the Principal of respondent No. 1 for permitting him to appear in the first year examination of the B.A.(Hons.) and also undertook to make up the shortage of attendance in the second year. It appears from the copy of the representation produced by the respondent that it was filed by.the petitioner before the Principal on 21/04/1994 which happened to be the first day of the examination for the first year B.A. (Hons)students. The petitioner was permitted to appear in the examination a...
Tag this Judgment!Rajinder Kumar Sachar Vs. N.N. Vohra and anr.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 57(1995)DLT605
Cyriac Joseph, J. (1) According to the petitioner the respondents have committed civil contempt as defined in Section 2(b) of the Contempt of Courts Act1971. The allegation is that the respondents have violated the undertaking given tothe High Court which is incorporated in the order dated 20/05/1993 in Civil Writ Petition No. 3601 /92.(2) A reply on behalf of the respondents in the contempt petition has been filed.The petitioner has filed the rejoinder also.(3) The petitioner filed Civil Writ Petition No. 3601/92 challenging an order passed by the Government of India on 1/11/1992 by which the Government decided not to promote and appoint the petitioner as Inspector General of Police in B.S.F. and ordered that the services of the petitioner be placed at the disposal of the Government of Orissa with immediate effect. When the writ petition was pending the Government of India offered to consider the case of the petitioner for promotion as Inspector General of Police in B.S.F. on the basi...
Tag this Judgment!Mohd. Shahid @ M. Shahid @ Shahid Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1995IAD(Delhi)420; 57(1995)DLT406; 1995(32)DRJ298
Vijender Jain, J.(1) This is a petition seeking appropriate writ of habeas corpus or any other appropriate direction under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India for quashing the detention order dated 4.4.1994. (2) MR.HERJINDER Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner, has argued that on 18.4.1994 a representation was made to the detaining authority for revocation of the detention order and supply of various documents and information. On 26.4.1994 a representation was made to the Chairman and the companion Members of the Central Advisory Board. The main thrust of the arguments of Mr.Singh is that at the time when detention order was passed on 4.4.1994, the petitioner had not moved any application for grant of bail and there was no imminent likelihood of petitioner being released. Learned counsel for the petitioner has stated that paragraph-9 of the ground of detention, the satisfaction recorded by the detaining authority is bad as the same is based on no material. The petitioner...
Tag this Judgment!Haryana Breweries Ltd. and anr. Vs. Govt. of N.C.T. of Delhi, Lt. Gove ...
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 58(1995)DLT151; 1995(32)DRJ652
D.P. Wadhwa, J. (1) This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution has been filed seeking a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to dispose of the application of the petitioners for grant of L-1 license for wholesale vend beer for the year 1994-95 under the Delhi Liquor license Rules, 1976, framed under the Punjab Excise Act as extended to Delhi, and then a mandamus is also sought directing the respondents to issue the license 'after disposing the representation/appeal made by the petitioners.' A writ in the nature of mandamus is also sought directing the third respondent the Commissioner-cum-Special Secretary, Excise, to grant/renew the license of the petitioners within seven days and then to allow the petitioners as licensee to make wholesale supply of all brands of beer, namely, (1) Rosy Pelican Beer; (2) Boxer Super Strong Beer; (3) Haywards Lager Beer; and (4) Haywards-2000 Extra Strong Beer, with a direction to the respondents to grant permission to impor...
Tag this Judgment!