Court : Delhi
Reported in : 2000(55)DRJ713
Arijit Pasayat, C.J.1. 2nd October Dussthra day of 1987 fell on birthday of Mahatama Gandhi and Lal Bahadur Shastri two of the greatest sons of India and advocated doctrine of 'Ahinsa'. Instead of a joyful day, it turned out to be one of nightmares for the family of Tale Ram. An innocent child who had not even celebrated three birthdays was sacrificed so that a barren woman can get a child; an act of abhorrence difficult to conceive. This primitive belief is unthinkable in the modern jet set twentieth century; but that is what prosecution alleges happened. The act is to say the least diabolic in its conception and cruel in its execution.2. Five persons are said to be responsible for the barbaric act and they are appellants in Criminal Appeals and are the respondents in Murder Reference No. 1 of 2000 which has been made to this Court by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as Trial Judge) who convicted each of the accused for offences punishable under Sectio...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : 2000(56)DRJ231; 2000(72)ECC255
ORDERR.S. Sodhi, J.1. This criminal appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 17.1.1995 of the Addl. Sessions Judge in Sessions Case No.221/1994 arising out of the FIR No.53/92. Police Station Civil Lines under Section 20 of the NDPS Act whereby the learned Additional Sessions Judge held the appellant guilty of the offence under Section 20 of the NDPS Act and thereforee, by order dated 18.1.1995 sentenced him to 10 years RI with fine of Rs. one lac and in default of payment of fine, to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for one year. It is the case of the prosecution that the accused, Ravi Kumar, on 12.2.1992 at about 3 PM at T point Yamuna Marg, Alipur Road, Civil Lines, was apprehended by SI Rajinder Singh, who was present at the Lt. Governor house Court Lane on official duty when Excise staff met him by chance and meanwhile he received secret information that a Nepali boy would come from Budh Vihar and would go to Kashmere Gate along with charas. Information was red...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
1. These appeals have been filed by the assessee against block assessment orders under Section 158BC of the IT Act, 1961. These cases belonged to one group/family in which search and .seizure operations under Section 132 of the Act were conducted on 24th Aug., 1995, and were concluded on 28th Aug., 1995. This group was engaged in the business of garments export, purchase and sale of farm houses, etc.Since they are connected cases and common grounds are involved, they were heard together and are decided by this consolidated order, 2. The first common ground of contention of the assessee in these cases except in the case of Mrs. Lavina Bhatia is that the search and seizure operations conducted in their cases under Section 132 of the Act were improper, invalid and illegal because there was no information in possession of the Director of Income-tax (Inv.}/Dy. Director of Income-tax (Inv.) for reasonable exercise of powers under Section 132 of the Act. It is also contended that since the s...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
1. These appeals have been filed by the assessee against block assessment orders under Section 158BC of the IT Act, 1961. These cases belonged to one group/family in which search and seizure operation under Section 132 of the Act were conducted on 24-8-1995 and were concluded on 28-8-1995. This group was engaged in the business of garments export, purchase and sale of farm houses etc. Since they are connected cases and common grounds are involved, they were heard together and are decided by this consolidated order.2. The first common ground of contention of the assessee in these cases except in the case of Mrs. Lavina Bhatia is that the search and seizure operations conducted in their cases under Section 132 of the Act were improper invalid and illegal because there was no information in possession of the Director of Income-tax (Inv.)/Dy. Director of Income-tax (Inv.) for reasonable exercise of powers under Section 132 of the Act. It is also contended that since the search was invalid...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : [2001]79ITD340(Delhi)
ORDERSikander Khan, A.M These appeals have been filed by the assessed against block assessment orders under section 158BC of the Income Tax Act, 1961. These cases belonged to one group/family in which search and seizure operation under section 132 of the Act were conducted on 24-8-1995 and were concluded on 28-8-1995. This group was engaged in the business of garments export, purchase and sale of farm houses, etc. Since they are connected cases and common grounds are involved, they were heard together and are decided by this consolidated order.2. The first common ground of contention of the assessed in these cases except in the case of Mrs. Lavina Bhatia is that the search and seizure operations conducted in their cases under section 132 of the Act were improper invalid and illegal because there was no information in possession of the Director of Income-tax (Inv.) / Deputy Director of Income Tax (Inv.) for reasonable exercise of powers under section 132 of the Act. It is also contended...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Patna
1. This transfer Application has been registered on receipt of the Title Appeal No. 29/93 from the Court of II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Darbhanga. The Title Appeal No. 29/93 was preferred by the Plaintiff applicant against the judgment dated 29.1.77 and decree dated 4.2.77 passed by the II Additional Munsif, Darbhanga, in Title Suit No. 234/93 /11/75 dismissing the prayer of the plaintiff-Applicant for declaration of his dismissal order as void, illegal and mala fide and for his reinstatement in the service.2. The case has a chequred career. The plaintiff-applicant, Kameshwar Jha, was appointed as a Postal Clerk in Darbhanga Division on 28.12.1954. A criminal case was lodged against him for booking parcel of contraband articles on 6.7.59, and he was put under suspension. In this criminal case, a final form was submitted, but the suspension order passed against him was not revoked. Subsequently, an another criminal case was lodged against him with the allegation of submi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Patna
P.K. Sinha, J.1. This application under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. has been filed by the petitioner Satyendra Prasad Singh praying therein to quash the entire criminal proceeding including order of cognizance recorded by Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Muzaffarpur dated 16.9.1988 against the petitioner, under Section 20 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substance Act, 1985 'the Act' in short) in Custom Case No. 25 of 1987.2. In nutshell, the prosecution case is that on 20.2.1987 some persons on motorcycle were chased by Custom Officials but they fled away leaving behind motorcycle, from search of which three pockets of Nepali Ganja weighing 15 kg. were recovered. It was found that the petitioner was the owner of the motorcycle and was carrying the contraband. The claim of the petitioner is that on 21.2.1987 this petitioner had lodged a case before the Police alleging theft of the aforesaid motorcycle.3. Vide order dated 6.9.1994 learned Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Muzaffarp...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Patna
B.P. Sharma, J.1. The present appeals has been filed against the judgment and order of the subordinate judge II, Danapur in Title suit No. 128/71 on the 9th of july 1993 and 23rd of july 1993 respectively. The plaintiffs had brought a suit for partition of the properties separately described in two Schedules of the plaint. The first Schedule is said to be the ancestral property jointly belonging to both the parties who are the plaintiffs and the defendants having common ancestor. The second Schedule relates to the properties acquired by the Karta of the family in the names of different members of the family including the plaintiffs.2. According to the plaintiffs, two brothers, namely, Tulsi Yadav and Gopi Yadav were the sons of one Kauri Yadav of village Sahar-Rampur in P.S. Naubatpur of Patna District, fulsi Yadav died leaving behind his son Faujdar Yadav and Gopi Yadav died leaving behind his son Ramlal Yadav. Faujdar Yadav also subsequently died leaving behind his sons, namely, pla...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in : (2003)(161)ELT882TriDel
1. As these 4 appeals have arisen out of a common Order-in-Original No.60/97, dated 19-9-1997 passed by Commissioner of Customs, New Delhi, these are being disposed of by a common order.2.1 Briefly stated the facts are that Customs Officers, New Delhi on the basis of message received from Lucknow Customs, seized copper scrap weighing 22,966 kgs. valued at Rs. 34,44,900/- at old Delhi Railway station. The seized copper scrap was booked from Raxaul, a border town, under different parcel way bills in the names of different persons. One Shri Suman Kapoor, Advocate, under letter dated 28-9-1992 claimed the brass scrap on behalf of his numerous clients. He was asked to furnish complete particulars of the consignees but no reply was received from him. On enquiry, the Assistant Collector Customs, Raxaul intimated, under letter dated 28-2-1993 that the identity of consigners could not be ascertained from Raxaul Railway Station in absence of their complete address. Subsequently under different ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Hyderabad
Mrs. Mamata Lakshmanna, Member: 1. The petitioner filed his complaint before the Commission on 5.3.1993 against the opposite parties for deficiency of service and seeks directions to opposite parties to pay it Rs. 5,00,000/- towards damages, loss of future profits and costs. 2. The case is as follows : The complainant wanted to organise a business promotion trip to Kathmandu in May/June, 1992 for 40 chit subscribers. It approached the opposite party No. 1 who assured that tickets for 40 persons by Royal Nepal Airlines from Delhi to Kathmandu on 28.5.1992 and return from Kathmandu to Delhi on 31.5.1992 would be arranged. On the basis of that assurance the complainant made its own arrangement for all the 40 subscribers to travel by Dakshin Express from Hyderabad to Hazrat Nizamuddin Railway Station (New Delhi) on 26.5.1992 and return journey from Hazrat Nizamuddin Railway Station to Hyderabad on 31.5.1992. However, later opposite party informed that it was not possible to get confirmed A...
Tag this Judgment!