Delhi Court October 1998 Judgments

State Vs. Kishori and Others

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 76(1998)DLT209; 1999(48)DRJ825

ORDERN.G. Nandi, J.1. Capital punishment inflicted on Kishori son of Hoshiar Singh, Abbas son of Munsif Ali and Budh Prakash Kashyap alias Dr. Lamboo by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi in F.I.R. No.426/84, P.S. Kalyan Puri, Delhi for the offences under Section 302 read with Section 149 IPC has given rise to the criminal reference under Section 366 of the Code of Criminal procedure (hereinafter referred to as 'the Code') for the confirmation of the death sentence imposed by the Additional Sessions Judge and these three criminal appeals challenging the conviction and sentences imposed for the offences under Section 148/188/397 read with Section 149 and Section 302 read with Section 149 IPC by the appellants/convicts.2. The prosecution case is that the assassination of late Prime Minister Smt.Indira Gandhi led to the breaking out of the riots on 1.11.1984 and thereafter in Trilok Puri area; that during these days of riots in the area of Block Nos. 30,32 an...

Bhupinder Singh Vs. Smt. Janak Rani

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 1998VIAD(Delhi)689; 76(1998)DLT197; 1998(47)DRJ789

ORDERC.M. Nayar, J.1. The present petition is directed against the judgment dated October 18, 1997 passed by the Additional Rent Controller, Delhi, allowing the petition of the respondent for eviction under Section 14D read with Section 25B of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 hereinafter referred to as 'the Act').2. The tenancy premises comprises of one room and kitchen which is part of property No.IV-C/21, Old Lajpat Nagar, New Delhi. The petitioner is a tenant in the premises since 1969. The husband of the respondent expired on November 17, 1994 and the petition for eviction was, thereforee, filed under Section 14D of the Act on the ground of bona fide requirement. The respondent does not possess any other residential accommodation except the suit premises where she is living with her elder son Vijay Kapoor whose family consists of his wife and three growing children. The accommodation in their possession comprises of only one room and a kitchen. The petitioner filed his Leave to Def...

Atma Parkash and ors. Vs. Roshan Lal and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 77(1999)DLT162; (1999)121PLR54

ORDERMukul Mudgal, J.1. In the present case the plaint was returned to the plaintiff/ petitioner so as to be filed before a competent Court in accordance with its rejection under Order VII, Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Learned Counsel for respondent No. 3 points out that a decree as defined under Section 2, Sub-clause (2) of Civil Procedure Code is deemed to include a rejection of a plaint. He further submits that only an appeal would lie only against the impugned order. Section 2, Sub-section (2) reads as under: '(2) 'decree' means the formal expression of an adjudication which, so far as regards the Court expressing it, conclusively determines the rights of the parties with regard to all or any of the matters in controversy in the suit and may be either preliminary or final. It shall be deemed to include the rejection of a plaint and the termination of any question within Section 144, but shall not include- (a) any adjudication from which an appeal lies as an appeal from a...

Union of India Vs. Shibu Ram Mittal

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 1998VIAD(Delhi)908; 76(1998)DLT577; 1999(49)DRJ166

ORDERArun Kumar, J.1. These applications have been filed by the respondents in the main appeal with the object of claiming enhancement in the compensation awarded to them for their acquired land. The necessary facts are :-2. The (Late) Shri Shibu Ram Mittal, father of the Applicants/Respondents and Shri Sukhbir Saran were co-shares/co-owners of undivided agricultural lands comprising Khasra Nos. 146(12-0), 148(5-5), 149(4-13), 150(4-0), 151(10-1), 152(4-19), 153(4-3), 154(6-6), 155(0-6), 156(1-10) and 157(3-5), total measuring 56 bighas 8 biswas, village Chandrawali, Shahdara, Delhi, to the extent of half share each.3. The aforesaid land was notified u/s 4 of the Land Acquisition Act on 13.11.1959 and was acquired under award No.1542 of village Chandrawali. References under section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act were filed by both the aforesaid co-sharers of the land. The two references, being LAC No.709/65 and 651/1964 were decided by Shri F.S.Gill, the then A.D.J., Delhi by a common ...

G.S. Dahiya (Unsound Mind) Vs. Union of India

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 1998VIAD(Delhi)835; 1998(48)DRJ751

ORDERK. Ramamoorthy, J. 1. The wife of Mr.J.S.Dahiya who has been declared unsound mind has filed this writ petition claiming the following reliefs:- 'In view of the facts and circumstances stated above, it is most respectfully prayed that your Lordships may be graciously pleased to: (i) Issue writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ directing the respondents to grant disability pension and suitable compensation; (ii) Further directing the respondents to promote the petitioner to the rank of Store Chief Petty Officer, w.e.f.1.9.1988 as per IN-52 (Order for Promotion), issued by Bureau of Sailors, Bombay, with all the consequential benefits accrued thereof;' 2. So far as the promotion aspect is concerned, it cannot be considered because the petitioner is of unsound mind. Regarding the disability pension, the Medical Board while examining the petitioner had fixed the disability pension at 40% and recommended the payment of disability pension @ Rs.188/- per month. 3. In the counte...

K.P. Grover and ors. Vs. the Indian Road Construction Corpn. Ltd.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 1999(48)DRJ270

K. Ramamoorthy, J. 1. The petitioners 55 in number have prayed for the following reliefs:-'In view of the aforesaid, and in the interest of justice, it is, thereforee, most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to issue a writ, order and/or direction in the nature of; (i) certiorari/for quashing the letter/communication dated 26th April, 1991, by way of which the respondent No. 1 has refused to implement the re-revised pay scale of Rs. 1640-2900 in the case of the petitioners by stating that the revision of this case arc not applicable to the petitioners: AND (ii) mandamus thereby directing the respondents to forthwith grant/implement the re-revised pay scale of Rs.1640-2900 for Assistants redesignated as Senior Accountants, Senior Assistants and PA/Senior Stenographers in Indian Road Construction Limited i.e., respondent No.1 with effect from January 1, 1986.' 2. The case of the petitioners could be stated briefly in the following terms: 3. The first respondent ...

Girdhari Lal Sharma Vs. M.T.N.L.

Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi

A.P. Chowdhri, President: 1. Mr. Girdhari Lal Sharma, complainant approached District Forum-I by two complaints No. 1342 and 2266 both of 1993 with the grievance that his telephone remained dead for long periods and was not set-right despite repeated complaints as per following details :PeriodNo. of DaysNo. of calls in FNMR13.2.1993 to 25.2.1993121124.3.1993 to 3.4.199311221.5.1993 to 11.10.199316028The complainant claimed rental rebate for 180 days and Rs. 10,000/- as compensation. District Forum-I disposed of both the cases by order dated 16.6.1994. On a consideration of the FNMR, the District Forum held that it was satisfied that the telephone remained dead for about 180 days as alleged by the complainant and was, therefore, entitled to rental rebate for the said period. As against the claim of Rs. 10,000/- as compensation, the District Forum allowed Rs. 3,000/-. Admittedly, no appeal was filed against the order. In fact, the opposite party-MTNL, paid the amount of compensation by c...

Collector of C. Ex. Vs. Gujarat Vaccum Coaters Pvt. Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1999)(105)ELT429TriDel

1. The issue involved in this appeal is the classification of Selenium Coated Drums. The impugned order held it to be classifiable under Heading 85.41 in view of the fact that it is a photo-sensitive semi-conductor device which is usable in several products. The order also relied on Note 2(a) of Chapter 90 which reads as under:- "Parts and accessories which are goods included in any of the headings of this Chapter or of Chapter 84, 85 or 91 (other than heading No. 84.85, 85.48 or 90.33) are in all cases to be classified in their respective heading." 2. The Revenue contends in its present appeal that this item is purely used in photocopying machines. Arguing the appeal, Sh. S. Nunthuk, Id.JDR submits that Rule 2(b) of Chapter 90 is more appropriate to the classification of the product as it is solely or principally used in photocopying machines and other instruments, apparatus covered by Chapter 90. He also submits that the respondent is selling the goods only to photocopy machine manu...

Dsm Sugar (Asmoli) Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1999)(107)ELT242TriDel

1. This case was posted for hearing of the stay application. After hearing both sides it appeared that at this stage itself the main appeal could be disposed. Both sides agreeing, this was done after granting unconditional stay and waiver of the duty confirmed amounting to Rs. 3,56,953.00.2. The appellants intended to manufacture sugar. Towards this purpose they purchased a number of machines and accessories etc. During December, 1994 on such machinery etc. acquired by them Modvat credit under Rule 57Q amounting to Rs. 35,44,546.59 was taken. A show cause notice was issued on 1-6-1995 in which the following allegations were made : 1. Some of the materials received did not qualify under Rule 57Q nor was it used for specified purposes. 2. Materials for handling baggasse was not eligible inasmuch as baggasse did not attract any duty. 3. Some of the goods were used in erection/fittings/manufacture of the capital goods without following the provisions of Rule 57(a)(4). In manufacturing the...

Collector of C. Ex. Vs. Jupiter Chemicals

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2003)(162)ELT1162TriDel

1. This appeal from the Revenue was argued by Shri T.A. Arunachalam, JDR. The respondents vide their letter, dated 27-6-98 desired the disposal on merits.2. The single issue involved is whether an invoice issued in March, 94 by M/s. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd., Mathura, was the document enabling Modvat credit to be taken or not. In his order, the Assistant Commissioner held that such documents were not prescribed either under notification 15/94-C.E., or under 16/94-C.E., nor were they covered under Rule 57H(1) and the notifications issued thereunder. He, further, observed that the term 'invoice' would relate only to that issued by a registered person under rule 57GG. Against this judgment, the assessees went to the Commissioner (Appeals). The Commissioner (Appeals) held that the issuing person was a PSU, that the duty paid character of the inputs was not disputed, that the receipt of the inputs and their utilisation was.......accounted. He observed that merely on technicalities, the c...