Delhi Court November 1982 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
Smt. Mridula Bhaskar Vs. Ishwar Industries Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-03-1982
Reported in: [1985]58CompCas442(Delhi); 1983RLR213
M.N. Goswamy, J.1. In this petition under ss. 433, 434, 439 and 450 of the Companies Act, 1956, the winding up of M/s. Ishwar Industries Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as 'the company') has been sought on three grounds. Firstly, that the company is unable to pay debts, secondly, that the affairs of the company are being conducted in a manner prejudicial to the interests of the general body of the shareholders and, finally, that the financial position of the company is deteriorating at quite a fast pace and this had raised a grave apprehension in the minds of the shareholders and creditors of the company. It is alleged that the company has even exceeded the maximum borrowing power which, according to the resolution of the company, is Rs. 1.25 crores. 2. It is well settled that a prima facie case has to be made out before the court can take any action in the matter. Even admission of a petition which will lead to advertisement of the winding-up proceedings is likely to cause immense injur...
State of Bank of India Vs. O.P. Gupta and Others
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-03-1982
Reported in: AIR1983Delhi214; [1984]56CompCas404(Delhi)
D.K. Kapur, J.1. The State Bank of India filed a suit for the recovery of Rs. 52,357.51 based on cash credit facilities granted to the defendants-respondents. The said defendants had also deposited the title deeds in respect of house property No. 87, Dholi Piao, Mathura, allegedly for the purpose of furnishing a guarantees as collateral security for the advance. This suit was decided on the original side of this court. 2. Following the Division Bench decision of this court in Suit No. 51 of 1968, State Bank of India v. Himalayan Exporters, decided on November 20, 1970, it was held by the learned single judge that this court had no jurisdiction to entertain the suit. 3. The plaintiff has appealed and the learned has pressed that this matter should be placed before a larger Bench for re-considering the decision of the Division Bench aforementioned. We have carefully considered the contention and we find no reason to differ from the judgment of the said Division Bench. 4. It is not necess...
Harprashad and Co. Ltd. Vs. Sudarshan Steel Rolling Mills and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-03-1982
Reported in: AIR1983Delhi128; [1985]58CompCas531(Delhi); 23(1983)DLT34; 1983(4)DRJ131
B.N. Kirpal, J.(1) This appeal arises from the order passed on an application under older 39 Rules 4 and 5 Civil Procedure Code . moved by the appellant wherein it had sought permission to invoke bank guarantee which had been furnished by the respondent.(2) It appears that the appellant was trying to negotiate with the Iranian State Railways for the supply of certain goods. In order to be able to negotiate the proposed contract the appellant, it seems, approached the respondents in order to ascertain for itself as to whether it would be in a position to make the supplies.(3) Some understanding between the parties was apparently arrived at. This is reflected in a bank guarantee dated 14th July, 1976 in favor of the appellant by the Punjab National Bank, Shahdara, Delhi, which had been furnished at the instance of the respondent. The relevant portions of the bank guarantee, with which we are concerned in the present case, read as under: 'WITH reference to contract made between Iranian St...
Kanta Parshad Sharma Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-03-1982
Reported in: 23(1983)DLT218
Avadh Behari Rohatgi, J. (1) The petitioner was a Sub-inspector. He was posted at the Roshanara Police Station. On 9-7-71 he arrested at Maurice Nagar a person named Din Dayal. Din Dayal was prosecuted under Ss. 112/ 117 of the Bombay Police Act. The case against him later on was withdrawn. (2) Din Dayal after his arrest made a complaint on 12-7-71 that he was maliciously arrested and was compelled to pay a bribe of Rs. 250.00 to the petitio (3) On 4th November, 1971, Mr. A.A. Khwaja, Additional District Magistrate passed an order. He directed that the inquiry be made by a police officer. After the completion of the inquiry under the Punjab Police Rule 16.38(1) by the inspector of the vigilance branch, the Superintendent of Police enquired whether necessary action under Punjab Police Rule 16.38(2) shoulde taken against the petitioner or not. On24-7-1972MissVinecta Singh, Additional District Magistrate, made an order under Punjab Police Rule 16.38(2) that the petitioner be dealt with de...
Kuldip Kaur and ors. Vs. Prakash Chand Khurana and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-03-1982
Reported in: AIR1983Delhi328; 23(1983)DLT131; 1983(4)DRJ80
Sultan Singh, J. (1) Shri Prakash Chand Khurana respondent mortgaged his property at plot No. 27, Rajindra Park, Pusa Road) New Delhi with Shri Harnam Singh Sachdev, for a sum of Rs. 22,000.00 vide registered Mortgage Deed dated 17th January, 1970. The Mortgage Deed contained an arbitration clause. Disputes arose and thereforee, Shri Harnam Singh Sachdev on 9th December, 1971 filed an application under section 20 of the Arbitration Act for reference of the disputes to the................................ ............... ......... ............... ..................named arbitrator.Shri Krishan Lal Dhall s/o. Shri Anant Ram Dhall, 5/39, W.E.A. Karol Bagh, New Delhi. The Court vide order dated 6th April, 1977 accepted the application and referred the matter to the said arbitrator. During the pendency of arbitration proceedings the time for making the award expired and applications were made from time to time under section 28 of the Arbitration Act for extension of time. Last such applicati...
Shiela Tandon Vs. Om Parkash Suri
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-03-1982
Reported in: 23(1983)DLT208
Leila Seth, J.(1) This revision petition is directed against the judgment and order of the Additional Rent Controller, Delhi dated 6th May, 1980. By the said order the eviction petition of the appellant-landlady filed under Section 14(l)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958, hereinafter referred to in short as 'the Act'), was dismissed. (2) On 9th October, 1975, the appellant filed the eviction petition. On 22nd October, 1975 the summons were issued for 18th December, 1975. They were served on the respondent on 26th October, 1975. (3) By Act 18 of 1976, Chapter Iiia was inserted in the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958, with effect from 1st December, 1975. The summary trial procedure was Introduced. Section 25B provided, inter alia, that if the landlord was asking per recovery of possession under Section 14(l)(e), summons had to be served in the form specified in the Third Schedule. The tenant had then to apply for leave to defend and only after it was granted could a written statement be...
Nawal Kishore Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-02-1982
Reported in: 1983(1)Crimes943; 23(1983)DLT178; 1983RLR146
Avadh Behari Rohatgi, J.(1) These are five appeals from the order of the Additional Sessions Judge dated February 20, 1981. This judgment will govern them all. (2) These five appellants namely, Muksh, Dewan Ghand, Munim Kumar, Kishan Lal and Nawal Kishore were tried for offences under Sections 395/397 of the Indian Penal Code. They were found guilty. They were convicted. Each of them was sentenced to eight years rigorous imprisonment. From their conviction and sentence they appeal to this court. (3) These are the facts. On November 23, 1977 at about 9.15 p.m. a robbery was committed at the shop of Dr. L.D. Malhotra in Beedan Pura, Karol Bagh, New Delhi. Dr. Malhotra lodged a first information report on November 24, 1977 at 11.00 a.m. He complained that at his clinic on November 23, 1977 at night when he had finished his day's work and was leaving two persons entered his shop. One of them requested him to give some medicine to his companion who was wrapped in a white sheet but whose fac...
i.T.C. Limited and anr. Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-02-1982
Reported in: 1983(12)ELT1(Del); ILR1983Delhi352
B.N. Kirpal, J.(1) In the writ petition the challenge is to the levy of excise duty on the outer shell (in which a slide has been inserted) which is being regarded by the Excise Authorities as a container within the meaning of Tariff Item No. 17(4) of the First Schedule to the Central Excises and Salt Act. 1944. (2) In the petition it was, inter alia, contended that the said levy is being made by the Excise Authorities in pursuance of a directive contained in a letter dated 7th April 1982 issued by the Central Board of Excise and Customs to all the Collectors of Central Excise. In the said letter it was stated that the aforesaid printed shells are in the nature of printed boxes and were classifiable under Triff Item 17(4) and would not beentitled to any exception under Notification No. 66182-CE. At the time of preliminary hearing, it had been contended that in view of the said directive it will be futile for the petitioners to avail of the alternative remedy under the Act as the appell...
Nand Kishore Bagrodia and ors. Vs. Siemens India Ltd. and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-02-1982
Reported in: ILR1982Delhi607
(1) This is a suit brought by Nand Kishore Bagrodia and others against the Siemens India Ltd. and the Municipal Corporation of Delhi for declaration as under : '(A)that a decree for declaration be passed in favor of the plaintiffs against the defendant No. 2 that defendant No. 2 is not entitled to club and join the two items of income i.e. income from the suit property by way of rent and the hire charges for the air-conditioning plant and the action of defendant No. 2 is a nullity ab initio and that the plaintiffs are not liable to pay any tax much less house tax on the income of hire charges from the air conditioning plant installed in the suit property ; (B)that a decree for permanent injunction be passed in favor of the plaintiffs against defendant No. 2 restraining defendant No. 2 from claiming any amount of tax on the hire charges from the air-conditioning plant installed in the suit property and from recovering a sum or Rs. 2,77,830.00 in accordance with the notice dated 6-1-197...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- Next ›