Delhi Court March 1999 Judgments
Home Cases Delhi 1999 Page 3 of about 205 results (0.021 seconds)Maninder Kaur Vs. State and ors.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1999IVAD(Delhi)153; 2000CriLJ3111; 79(1999)DLT727; II(1999)DMC199; 1999(50)DRJ31
ORDERS.N. Kapoor, J. 1. By order dated 5th November, 1996 passed by learned Metropolitan Magistrate summoned respondents No.2 to 4, namely, Mohinder Singh (father-in-law), Gurbachan Kaur (mother-in-law) and Jaswinder Kaur (sister-in-law) for offence under Section 498-A IPC and Mohinder Singh and Gurbachan Kaur for offence under Section 406 IPC. This order has been set aside by the impugned order. The complainant Maninder Kaur feeling aggrieved has filed this petition for reversing the impugned order and restoring the order of the learned Metropolitan Magistrate.2.1. The brief facts giving rise to this revision petition are as under: 2.2. The petitioner was married to Surjeet Singh on 12th June, 1987. The husband along with his parents started harassing the petitioner for they were not satisfied with the dowry. One daughter Raminder Kaur was born on 5th June, 1989. The atrocities increased. The petitioner lodged an FIR. Her statement was recorded. In her statement the petitioner categor...
Tag this Judgment!Kanwar Gajender Pal Singh Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1999IIIAD(Delhi)27; 78(1999)DLT844; 1999(49)DRJ303
ORDERN.G. Nandi, J.1. In this petition under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code (hereinafter referred to as 'the Code') the petitioner prays for the setting aside of the order dated 3.12.1997 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Delhi in Criminal Revision Petition No.61/97 confirming the order dated 1.5.1997 passed by the trial Court rejecting the request by the petitioner (accused) for his acquittal/discharge on the ground that no progress has been made in the prosecution of the case titled State versus Kanwar Gajender Pal Singh under Sections 341/342/34 IPC pending in the Court of learned Metropolitan Magistrate. 2. It is suggested from the record that the petitioner (accused) moved an application before the trial Court praying for the discharge/acquittal relying on the directions in the case of 'COMMON CAUSE' a Registered Society, through its Director v. Union of India 1996 J.C.C. page 503, by the Supreme Court. The trial Court rejected the application seeking di...
Tag this Judgment!Sita Ram Vs. Union of India
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1999IVAD(Delhi)503; 79(1999)DLT10; 1999(50)DRJ326
Usha Mehra, J. 1. A notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter called the Act) was issued on 27th January, 1984 in order to acquire land situated in Villages Amberhai, Matiala, Palam, Togan Pur, Shahbad Mohd. Pur, Sahupur, Bharthal, Loharheri and Bagrola, for the planned development of Delhi known as Pappankala Residential Scheme.2. In the present appeal we are concerned with the acquisition of land in Village Amberhai. The Land Acquisition Collector determined the market value of the land of A-Block land in Village Amberhai at Rs. 13,000/- per Bigha and at Rs. 11,000/- per Bigha for B-Block land, beside other statutory benefits. The appellant felt aggrieved and preferred reference under Section 18 of the Act.3. Shri S.M. Aggarwal, learned Additional District Judge in LAC No. 812/88 decided on 2nd April, 1993, assessed market value of the land in Village Amberhai at Rs. 36,400/- per Bigha. 4. Appellants have felt aggrieved by the determination of the marketva...
Tag this Judgment!Shiva Leasing Co. Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1999IIIAD(Delhi)6; 79(1999)DLT148; 1999(49)DRJ289
ORDERN.G. Nandi, J.1. In this petition under Section 482 Criminal Procedure Code (herein referred to as Code), the petitioner pending inquiry/trial prays for the release of vehicle bearing No.DL-5C 5644, allegedly involved in the transaction of illicit liquor. 2. The learned Metropolitan Magistrate vide his order dated 16.9.97, rejected the application under Section 451 of the Code, of the present petitioner for the release of the car pending trial. 3. The petitioner carried the said order to the court of Sessions by way of criminal revision No. 86/97. Learned Addl. Sessions Judge holding that the order under Section 451 of the Code being interlocutory in nature criminal revision petition under Section 397(1) of the Code would not be maintainable in view of the bar contained in Sub section (2) of section 397 of the Code and refrained from entering into the merits of the contentions advanced by the petitioner. 4. Section 451 of the Code deals with the custody and disposal of property pe...
Tag this Judgment!Veena Rangnekar and anr. Vs. State and Others
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1999IIIAD(Delhi)682; 85(2000)DLT21; 2000(53)DRJ435
ORDERS.N. Kapoor, J.1. This petition under Section 397 Cr.P.C. read with Section 482 and 401 is directed against order dated 9th September, 1998 relating to framing of charges against the petitioners under Sections 430/336/337/34 IPC. 2. Briefly stated the facts given in the petition are as under: 2.1. The complainant was tenant of the petitioner No.1. There was some dispute relating to electricity charges, as booster pump was connected with the electric meter of the tenant and bother were using booster pump. On 23rd August, 1996 petitioner No.2 Sh. Sharif Rangnekar son of the land lady petitioner No.1 threatened the tenant complainant that he would connect the motor line to upstairs meter and from that point of time they would have only dry wash. At the instance of the land lord two other persons tampered with the wiring and switch board of the booster bump on 23rd August, 1996 at about 11.40 AM. At about 1.45 PM the daughter of the complainant was heating water in a vessel over a hot...
Tag this Judgment!Magnum Films Vs. Motion Picture Association and ors.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1999IIIAD(Delhi)650
ORDERK.S. Gupta, J.1. This appeal by M/s. Magnum Films, plaintiff-appellant is directed against the order of learned single Judge dated 16th December, 1998 dismissing I.A. No. 7412/98 and allowing I.A. No. 8079/98 thereby vacating the ad interim injunction order dated 26th August, 1998. 2. Suit for declaration and permanent injunction was filed by the plaintiff, inter alia, alleging that it is a firm carrying on business of Film distribution, exhibition and exploitation of Cinematographic films in the territories of Delhi and U.P. Defendant No. 1 - Respondent No. 1 is an Association and as per the rules framed by it, no person can distribute films unless the same is got registered with it. Membership of defendant No. 1 is a must whosoever wants to carry on film trade in the territories of Delhi and UP. Defendant No. 2-respondent No. 2 is a film producer and produced film titled RAJAJI. Defendant No. 3-Respondent No. 3 is also carrying on business of film distribution, exhibition and ex...
Tag this Judgment!Veena Rangnekar Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 2000CriLJ2543; ILR1999Delhi190
ORDERS.N. Kapoor, J.1. This petition is directed against an order framing of charge for offences under Section 186 and Section 342 IPC. 2. Brief facts of the present petition are as under :- 2.1. On 23rd August, 1996 SI Sunil Srivastava, SI Baljit Singh, Rajendra Singh, Sr. Scientific Assistant Gr.I and Mr. Ravi Kumar, Scientific Assistant CFSL, Lodi Road, New Delhi came to A/6, Gulmohar Park, New Delhi in connection with investigation of the case FIR No. 731/96 under Section 430/336/337 IPC. When these persons reached the first floor. SI Sunil Kumar informed Smt. Veena about the purpose of their visit to check the fresh electric wiring and leakage of current due to electrocution of the daughter of Sh. V.N. Narayan after disclosing identity of each one of them. All these persons were allowed to go inside the room after removing their shoes. The electric switch and the fresh wiring in the bed room were seen. Sh. Ravindra Kumar and Sh. R.K. Tyagi also came up to the first floor to assist...
Tag this Judgment!Nanak Chand and ors. Vs. Vinod Kumar JaIn and anr.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1999IIIAD(Delhi)435; 79(1999)DLT205; 1999(49)DRJ582
J.B. Goel, J.1. This criminal revision is directed against order dated 5.10.1996 passed by the learned Addl. Session Judge (ASJ) whereby charges against all the petitioners under Section 147/149/323 IPC, under Section 452 against accused No. l to 4 and under Section 356 IPC against accused Davender have been framed in a complaint case.2. The learned MM vide his order dated 16.5.1994 had committed the complaint case to the learned Session Judge under Section 323 of the Code as a cross case arising out of Police case in FIR No. 121/92 of P.S. Mansarover Park, Delhi involving inter alias offence under Section 308/34 IPC had already been committed to that Court.3. Briefly, the facts are that one Vinod Kumar Jain had filed a complaint before the learned Magistrate for proceeding under Sections 308/452/323/147/148/149/506 IPC against six accused/petitioners in connection with an occurrence which had taken place at about 10.15 P.M. on 9.7.1992 at the house of the complainant at 2892 Ram Nagar...
Tag this Judgment!iqbal Chand Khurana Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax
Court: Delhi
Reported in: (2001)70TTJ(Del)16
ORDERB. R. Jain, A.M.This appeal has been preferred by the assessed against the order of the learned Commissioner (Appeals)-V, New Delhi for assessment year 1984-85.2. In various grounds the assessed has disputed the additional demand of Rs. 3,07,312 being the interest recalculated under section 217 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, by virtue of rectification under section 154 of the Act and not adjusting seized amount of Rs. 8 lakhs as well as a sum of Rs. 1,97,140 being the TDS on winning of lotteries before calculating interest under section 217 of the Act. The assessed in the alternative claimed interest from 2-5-1985 to 12-2-1987, on the amount utilised by the department.3. The facts of the case are that during the course of search an amount of Rs. 8 lakhs in cash was seized on 2-5-1985. The assessment in this case was originally completed on 28-11-1986, at an income of Rs. 1,03,39,966. By virtue of an appeal affect under section 250 on dated 26-2-1988, the income was reduced to Rs. 91...
Tag this Judgment!Collector of C. Ex. Vs. Peico Electronics and
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1999)(65)ECC82
1. Question involved in this appeal filed by the Revenue is whether "Lead Glass Tubings and Rods" manufactured by the respondents herein are classifiable under Tariff Heading 7008.10 as contended by the respondents or under Tariff sub-heading 7001.90 as contended by the Revenue.2. The Lower Appellate Authority has held that rods and tubings (unworked) are only covered under Tariff Heading 70.01. Therefore, in order to get classified under the said entry the rods and tubings should be unworked and not worked.3. The process undertaken by the respondents after drawing through mandril, annealing, cutting glass tubings, are glazing and diameter sorting out to cutting of glass tubings. It cannot be said that the rods and tubings involved herein have been worked upon. Glazing and diameter sorting are the two extra processes that were undertaken by the respondents on the product under consideration. It has been held in some cases the process of siliconising is also undertaken by the responden...
Tag this Judgment!