Court : Delhi
$~ * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Reserved on:31. t January, 2019 Pronounced on:15. h March, 2019 + W.P.(C) 4374/2018 & CM No.16982/2018 ACTION COMMITTEE UNAIDED RECOGNIZED PRIVATE SCHOOLS ........ Petitioner Through: Mr. Sunil Gupta, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Kamal Gupta and Ms. Pragya Agrawal, Advs. versus DIRECTORATE OF EDUCATION AND ANR Through: Mr. Ramesh Singh, SC ..... RESPONDENTS for GNCTD with Mr. Chirayu Jain and Ms. N. Goyal, Advs. Mr. Khagesh B. Jha, Ms. Shikha Sharma Bagga, Advs. for Justice for All Reserved on:6. h February, 2019 Pronounced on:15. h March, 2019 + W.P.(C) 13546/2018 & CM APPL. 52763/2018 (for stay) MOUNT CARMEL SCHOOL SOCIETY AND ANR ....... Petitioners Through: Mr. Sunil Gupta, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Romy Chacko, Mr. Vedanta Varma, Mr. Chandan Kumar Mandal, Mr. Akhil Kumar Gola and Ms. Mannat Sandhu, Advs. versus DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION AND ORS. ........ RESPONDENTS Through: Mr. Ramesh Singh, SC with Mr. Santosh Kumar Tripathi, ASC for W.P.(C) 4374/2018 & W.P...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : ILR1978Delhi536
S. Rangarajan, J.(1) This judgment in Murder Reference No. 1of 1977 will dispose of not only Cr. Appeals No. 43/77 and 44/77 (filedby Sunil Batra), 68/77 and 123/77 (filed by VipinKumar Jaggi and Ravinder Nath Kapur, respectively), 186/77and 187/77 (filed by Shahwar Mohd. Khan), but also Cr. Appeal No. 164 of 1977, referred by the State seeking to enhance the sentence onthe other three appellants except Sunil Batra (who will hereafter bereferred to as Sunil). For purposes of convenience Vipan Kumar JaggI will hereafter be referred to V. jaggi, the name which appears frequently:CD/78-2in evidence; Ravinder Nath Kapoor will hereafter be referred loas Ravi and Shahwar Khan as Shahwar only.(2) Sunil has been convicted under Sections 120-B, 302, 396 as wellas under S. 395 read with Ss. 397 and 398 1. P. C. for having causedthe death of both Bansi Ram and Ram Niwas, the gun man and thedriver, respectively, of the green coloured van of the Union Bank ofIndia, Chandni Chowk (bearing No. Dhb 76...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : [1979]118ITR958(Delhi)
Prakash Narain, J. 1. By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner challenges the issue of a notice under Section 148 read with Section 147 of the I.T. Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), by the ITO. It has been prayed that holding the issue of the said notice to be illegal and without jurisdiction the same may be quashed and a writ of prohibition or in the nature of prohibition be issued to the respondents restraining them from taking any action under the impugned notice including making of reassessment of the petitioner's total income. It has also been prayed that the respondents be restrained from issuing any further notice under Section 142 or under Section 143 of the Act for the purpose of making reassessment and such other or further orders be passed as may be appropriate in the case. 2. The assessment year in question is 1962-63. According to the petitioner, it is a partnership firm carrying on business of commission agents in dry...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : (1980)15CTR(Del)84; ILR1980Delhi427; [1982]136ITR679(Delhi)
V.S. Deshpande, J.(1) General OBSERVATIONS. The immediate context of the consideration of this writ petition is the issue of notice to the petitioner assessed by its Income-tax Officer under section 148(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (the Act), because he had 'reason to believe' within the meaning of section 147 of the said Act that the income of the assessed had escaped assessment. The petitioner challenges the validity of this notice on the ground that no material existed on which the Income-tax Officer could have reason to believe that its income had escaped assessment and consequently the notice was issued without jurisdiction. The Income-tax authorities have raised the preliminary objection that the writ petition is not maintainable because appeals would lie under section 246 against the order of reassessment made under section 147 and as this remedy is provided for by the Income-tax Act the present writ petition for the redress of any injury or alleged injury suffered by the peti...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : 17(1980)DLT353; 1980RLR84
S. Ranganathan, J. (1) This is a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India seeking to revise an order passed by the Competent Authority on 25-5-1973 under Section 19 of Slum Areas (Improvement & Clearance) Act (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'), granting permission to the second respondent in the writ petition to institute eviction proceedings against the 4th respondent in respect of the back portion of shop No. 1515/70 Shanker Niwas, Bhagirath Place, Delhi.(2) The main premises belongs to the Life Insurance Corporation of India, the second respondent in this writ petition (hereinafter referred to as the landlord') had taken the shop on rent from the Life Insurance Corporation of India. It is common ground that the landlord let out the back portion of the premises in 1951 to M/s Bhagwan Dass & Company which was admittedly a partnership firm at the relevant time. On 8-5-1971 the landlord desired to evict the said tenant and hence filed a petition for permission to inst...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : 17(1980)DLT404; ILR1979Delhi571
V.D. Misra, J.(1) Kuljeet Singh @ Ranga and Jasbir- Singh @ Billa have been convicted by an Additional Sessions Judge, Delhi, under section 302/34, Indian Penal Code, and sentenced to death for having committed the murder of Gee'a and Sanjay. Both of them have also been convicted under sections 365/363 read with section 34, Indian Penal Code; under sections 366/363 read with section 34, Indian Penal Code, and under section 376 read with section 34, Indian Penal Code. Each of them has been sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for five years under the first count as well as the second, and to rigorous imprisonment for seven years under the third count. Jasbir Singh @ Billa has also been convicted under section 27 of the Arms Act and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for one year. All the sentences have been directed to run concurrently. Ranga and Billa have filed separate appeals against their convictions and sentences. The trial court has also submitted the proceedings to the High Court ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : [1980]50CompCas456(Delhi); ILR1981Delhi249
Sachar, J.(1) Is the Central Government under a legal obligation to give a hearing to the undertaking before making a reference under sub-section (1) of section 31 of the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Act (to be called the Act) to the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Commission (to be called the Commission) for an enquiry and report is one of the main questions that calls for decision in these three Writ Petitions namely C.W. 782/74, C.W. 547/74 and C.W. 1309/73, which were heard together. Another question of law that arises relates to the scope and extent of power of the Central Government and the Commission respectively and the areas that are carved out to each of them which reference is made under section 31 of the Act. The main restions of law being common to all the petitions will bo disposed of by this order. There were certain special facts relating to each petition which were argued by their counsel in their respective petitions and we shall deal with tho...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : [1984]55CompCas375(Delhi)
S.B. Wad, J. 1. On October 1, 1981, I have passed an order appointing an administrator for the Motion Pictures Association and he has assumed charge. Ordinarily, I would have passed a reasoned order if there was sufficient time left for me. But the counsel for some members of the executive committee was so persistent in my passing an immediate order that there was no alternative. He filed a separate C.A. for the purpose. His complaint was that the business of crores of rupees is affected and the management has come to a grinding halt. He also complained that the petitioners were avoiding early orders being passed. My illness and intervening holidays delayed the matter a little. The reasons for the order are now stated. 2. Motion Pictures Association is a company under 25 of the Company Act, controlling distribution and exhibition of Hindi Films (mostly) in the Northern region. The management and the working of the company are the subject-matter of innumerable proceedings in this court ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : 1983(12)ELT258(Del)
Sachar, J. 1. This group of petitioners was heard together as common points arose in all these petitions. The arguments were addressed in C.W. 2131/1982. A part from details as to the quantity to be imported and the dates there is no difference and the judgment in this case will govern the other writ petitions also. 2. The petitioners import defective/secondary grade stainless steel circles. The said material is broadly used in the consumption of industries engaged in the manufacture of the utensils in the country. By Section 12 of the Customs Act, 1962 (hereinafter to be called the 1962 Act) duty of Customs shall be levied at such rates as may be specified under the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 (hereinafter to be called the 1975 Act). Goods having been received the petitioner presented their bill of entry for clearance to the Customs Authorities. The petitioners claim that they were entitled to clear the goods by paying rate of duty under entry No. 73.15(1) in the schedule to 1975 Act, wh...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in : (1984)(16)ELT579TriDel
1. This combined order relates to the 15 appeals listed in the Annexure. Some of these are against the Orders-in-Original of the Collector of Central Excise, Hyderabad or the Additional Collector of Central Excise, Hyderabad; some are against the Orders-in-appeal of the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), Madras or the Appellate Collector of Central Excise, Hyderabad; and one is against the Order-in-Appeal of the Central Board of Excise and Customs. Some of the appeals have been filed directly to the Tribunal, whereas the others have been transferred to it under the provisions of Section 35P of the Central Excises and Salt Act. All these 15 matters (henceforth referred to as "appeals") are being dealt with as appeals to the Tribunal under Section 35B, Central Excises and Salt Act, as amended.2. Since there are common issues involved in all these appeals (with some differences in individual cases, which will be referred to in their appropriate place), they were heard together, and a...
Tag this Judgment!