Delhi Court July 1997 Judgments

Arjun Singh and ors. Vs. Vice Chancellor, Jamia Millia Islamia and ors ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: AIR1998Delhi82; 70(1997)DLT95

Cyriac Joseph, J. (1) The petitioners are three students of first year LL.B Course in Jamia Millia Islamia, a Central University, governed by the provisions of the Jamia Millia Islamia Act, 1988. The respondents in the writ petition are the Vice Chancellor, the Registrar and the Dean, Faculty of Law of the said University. (2) The petitioners challenge the decision of the respondents to detain them from appearing in the examination of LL.B. first year (1996-97) on account of their having secured attendance less than the minimum prescribed by the Academic Council for the year 1996-97. The main prayer in the writ petition is for a direction to the respondents to allow the petitioners to appear in the examination. (3) ANNEXURE-A to the writ petition is an office order dated 21st July, 1997 issued by the Joint Registrar in the Office of the Registrar, Jamia Millia Islamia. It reads thus: 'OWING to the unusual conditions which prevailed during the year 1996-97 the students who have secured ...

Court on Its Own Motion Vs. Umesh Kumar

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 1997IVAD(Delhi)741; 1998CriLJ604; 70(1997)DLT600; 1997(42)DRJ627; 1997RLR497

Jaspal Singh, J. (1) On the 23rd day of March, 1995 Court Room No. 294, in the sprawling Tis Hazari Courts complex, was a witness to an unfortunate incident. On that day, at about 11.15 A.M., while a Metropolitan Magistrate (hereinafter referred to as the complainant) was in the thick of a judicial proceeding, an accused threw a polythene bag at him containing human excreta. It struck against an almirah and burst. Its contents flew around besmearing the wearing glasses, the turban and the robes of the complainant. The incident led to the filing of a complaint which came up for trial before another Metropolitan Magistrate who, after a trial, convicted and sentenced the accused under Sections 228, 353 and 355 of the Indian Penal Code. Though the main judgment convicting the accused consumed only 18 pages, the order on sentence ran into 80. Not that lengthy orders are not known. They are. However, what caught the discerning eye of a brother judge of this Court were the remarks passed ther...

Lal Singh @ Lal Chand Vs. State

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 1997IVAD(Delhi)895; 1998CriLJ450; 68(1997)DLT503; 1997(42)DRJ729; 1997RLR514

Y.K. Sabharwal, J. (1) CRL.A.NO. 75/94 & Crl.A.No. 67/94 Preetam Singh and Lal Singh were convicted for offences under Sections 460/320 Indian Penal Code and sentenced to imprisonment for life. They are in appeal before us.(2) During the course of hearing of the appeal, one of the contentions raised by learned counsel for the appellants is that testimony of Public Witness 17 Asi Shish Ram cannot be relied upon as no opportunity was granted to cross-examine him.(3) The testimony of Public Witness 17 was recorded by the Court of Sessions on 17th February, 1992. It was inconclusive on that date. The remaining testimony of the witness was recorded on 21st February, 1992. The testimony of Public Witness 18 Inspector Jai Bhagwan was also recorded on 21st February, 1992. The cross-examination of Public Witness 17 and Public Witness 18 was, however, deferred since counsel for Lal Singh was not present in Court on that date. Public Witness 17 was again present on the adjourned date i.e. 18th Ma...

Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Umrao Singh

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 70(1997)DLT598

R.C. Lahoti, J. (1) This is a reference under 256(I) of the Income Tax Act, at the instance of the Revenue arising out of the assessment year 1976-77 seeking opinion of the High Court on the question of law : 'WHETHER,on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was correct in following the Bombay High Court ruling in 128 Itr 87 and deleting the capital gains tax on compulsory acquisition of agricultural land?'(2) During the accounting year ending 31.3.1976 the assessed had received compensation and interest on compulsory acquisition of his agricultural land. The assessed did not declare any capital gains on the ground that it was outside the ambit of capital assets as defined in the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Itr, however, observed that capital gains were taxable and brought them to tax. The Aac upheld the order of assessment. The Tribunal relying on Bombay High Court decision in Manubhai A. Sheth & Ors. v. Ito : [1981]128ITR87(Bom) held that capital gains could not ...

Bhagwan Singh Vs. State

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 1997VAD(Delhi)193

Jaspal Singh, J.(1) It is the same stereo-typed story again. The Police Officer receives secret information, forms a raiding party, lays a picket, nabs the accused, recovers smack, takes out the sample, prepares separate parcels, applies the seals and writes down the necessary memos. Only the characters have changed. The accused this time is Bhagwan Singh. The alleged recovery is 900 grams of Charas. For a change a person from the public was also joined in the raiding party but later given up allegedly on the ground of having been won over. (2) The learned Additional Sessions Judge has held the accused guilty under Section 21 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act. As for me I find myself unconvinced. The reasons are as under: (3) The Investigating Officer, Sub-Inspector Prithi Singh, tells us that the C.F.S.L. Form was filled in and that the case property was got deposited with the Moharir Malkhana by Constable Mohan Singh (Public Witness -6). However, he nowhere says t...

Ramesh Chander Vs. State

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 1997IVAD(Delhi)712; 1998CriLJ579; 68(1997)DLT257; 1997(42)DRJ607

Anil Dev Singh, J. (1) This revision is directed against the order of Shri S.P. Garg, Metropolitan Magistrate, dated 4th May, 1995. By the impugned order the learned Metropolitan Magistrate framed charge against the petitioners under Sections 39/44 of the Indian Electricity Act (for short `the Act').(2) The case against the petitioners is that their factory premises were inspected by the Enforcement Staff of the Desu on 14th September, 1991, when it was discovered that the half seals of all the meters and both revit seals were tampered with. On 1st October, 1992, i.e., after 14 months an Fir was lodged which was registered under Section 39/44 of the Act read with Section 379 of the Indian Penal Code. A charge sheet was filed against the petitioners for the offences punishable under the aforesaid sections.(3) As stated above, the learned Metropolitan Magistrate on 4th May, 1995, framed charge against the petitioners under Sections 39/44 of the Act. The charge is to the following effect....

Mohd. Sayee Vs. Commissioner of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1998)(97)ELT186TriDel

1. The appeal is directed against the order-in-appeal dated 27-9-1996 passed by the Commissioner of Customs and Central Excise (Appeals), Allahabad upholding the order dated 20-2-1996 passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Customs, Lucknow. In terms of his said order, the Deputy Commissioner had imposed a penalty of Rs. 20,000/- on the appellant besides ordering confiscation of the tractor and trolley belonging to him. The said order had been passed by the Deputy Commissioner following the seizure of cloves found to be carried therein which were held to be of third country origin which had been smuggled into the country from Nepal.2. Arguing the case of the appellant, Shri Rajesh Kumar, learned advocate stated that the appellant had sent the tractor and trolley with his driver for having some repairs carried out at Tetri Nagar. The driver of the vehicle employed by the appellant had accepted a load of 43 bags of cloves from the owner thereof at Tetri Nagar as also another load of 36 bag...

Collector of C. Ex. Vs. Atlas Paper Mills

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1997)(94)ELT532TriDel

1. The Revenue is aggrieved by the order of the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), Bombay extending the benefit of Notification 25/84, dated 1-3-1984 to the product manufactured by the respondents herein, claimed by them to be called as kraft paper.2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the respondents are manufacturers of paper falling for classification under Chapter 48 of the CETA, 1985. They filed Classification List 1/86 with effect from 1-3-1986 upto 31-3-1986 claiming classification under Heading 4808.29 and the benefit of concessional rate of duty at Rs. 275/- per M.T.under Notification 25/84 which grants this concessional rate to all sorts of paper commonly known as kraft paper, subject to the condition that the total quantity of clearances, if any, of all varieties of paper and paper board in the preceding financial year, on behalf of a manufacturer from one or more factories, did not exceed 3000 MTs. The classification list was approved subject to chemical te...

Maharashtra State Electricity Vs. Collector of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2003)(161)ELT391TriDel

1. The appellants filed, this appeal against the order-in-original dt.31st August, 1989 passed by the Addl. Collector, Central Excise & Customs, Pune. In the impugned order, the Addl. Collector confirmed the demand raised in the show-cause notice for the reasons given in the order u/r 9(2) of the Central Excise Rules read with Section 11A of CESA, 1944.2. The appellants fabricated certain materials in their workshop out of the duty paid materials like M.S. Angles, Sections, M.S. Flats of various cross-sections. The activity of fabrication consisted of straightening, cutting, bending, drilling, punching, painting by red oxide on the said angles, channels, sections or flats and in some cases welding was also taken. The show-cause notice was issued on 24th April, 1989 alleging that the appellants failed to obtain Central Excise licence before manufacture of the goods and to maintain accounts and discharge duty liability and hence proviso (1) to Section 11A is applicable in the case. ...

D.K. Gupta Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi

1. This appeal is directed against order dt. 30th November, 1996, passed by the AO, i.e., Dy. CIT, Spl. Range 24, New Delhi, under s.158BC (c) of the IT Act for the block period from asst. yrs. 1986-87 to 1996-97 (1st April, 1985 to 17th November, 1995) pursuant to action under s. 132(1) of the Act taken against the appellant on 17th November, 1995. In response to notice issued by the AO under s. 158BC (a), the appellant-assessee declared nil income. Against this the AO computed assessee's income at Rs. 2,97,16,770 with tax liability @ 60 per cent thereof at Rs. 1,78,30,062. The appellant is engaged in the business of real estate, including builders and developers besides financing business. The sources of income include income from house property and other sources.2. The assessee has challenged the validity of the assessment and has also contested all the additions aggregating to Rs. 2,97,16,770 as under :(a) Unaccounted payments 1,50,000 (Para 5 of Asstt. Order)(b) Transaction in tr...