Delhi Court December 1989 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.
Ram Singh Vs. State and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-05-1989
Reported in: 41(1990)DLT28
Charanjit Talwar, J. (1) The petitioner herein Ram Singh is standing trial under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code in the court of an Additional Sessions Judge, Delhi. That case .was pending before Shri Lokeshwar Prashad, one of the Addl. Sessions Judges, who had examined a number of prosecution witnesses. On 31st August, 1989, during the pendency of the trial, by an administrative order, the Sessions Judge withdraw the said case Along with a number of other cases pending in the court of Shri Lokeshwar Prashad and assigned them to the court of Shri S.L. Bhayana, a newly appointed Additional Sessions Judge. The petitioner being aggrieved of the order of 31st August, 1989 has challenged the same on the ground that it violates mandatory provisions of Section 409 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. (2) There is no dispute regarding the facts. It is admitted by Mr. Sodhi that trial had in fact started and it was during its pendency that the impugned order was passed w...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Goodyear Tyre and Rubber Co.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-04-1989
Reported in: [1990]184ITR369(Delhi)
B.N. Kirpal, J.1. This judgment will dispose of I.T.C. Nos. 104 to 109 of 1983 pertaining to the assessment years 1972-73 to 1977-78. 2. Briefly stated, the facts are that the respondent is an American company which is non-resident and had entered into an agreement for the supply of technical know-how, etc., with Goodyear India Ltd. This agreement which was initially entered into in the year 1961 expired in September, 1972. An application was made to the Government of India for granting approval to the extension of the said agreement. 3. The accounting year of the respondent is the calendar year. thereforee, for a period of three months in the calendar year 1971 relevant to the assessment year 1972-73 and thereafter till 1976 when the approval of the Government of India was obtained, the respondent company did not include in their return any royalty which had been agreed to be paid to it by the Indian company. However, a note was added in the covering letter to the return which was fil...
Delhi Adarsh Financiers P. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Delhi- ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-04-1989
Reported in: [1990]184ITR428(Delhi)
Kirpal, J.1. In respect of the assessment year 1976-77, the petitioner had sought reference of the following five question of law before the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal : '(i) Whether the final assessment order declared as a draft assessment order dated March 5, 1983, by Mr. D. N. Sachdeva, Income-tax Officer, is a proper order under section 143(3)/144B/129 of the Income-tax Act when the assessment order dated March 29, 1979, was time-barred having been served on April 7, 1979 (2) Whether the application of (sic) section 144B order merged with draft assessment order as final is good in law under the income-tax Act when it is describe as a 'draft order' (3) Whether the Income-tax Officer was justified in law and fact in treating the illegal and void dated March 29, 1979, as correct in law to follow further proceeding in law consequently invalid (4) Whether the addition made in the trading account on cash accounting basis without any error or omission is illegal and void and be deleted...
GodwIn Chimozie Omwuru Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-04-1989
Reported in: 1990CriLJ1566; 1990(2)Crimes521; 40(1990)DLT322
P.K. Bahri, J.(1) The Petitioner-detenu has filed this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, seeking quashment of the detention order dated February 17, 1989, passed by Respondent No. 2 under Section 3(1) of the Prevention of Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1988,with a view to preventing the petitioner from engaging in possession, concealment and abetting in the export from India of narcotic drugs. (2) Various grounds have been urged in support of the petition but it is not necessary to refer to all those grounds because this petition is liable to succeed on a very short ground.(3) It has been pleaded in para 12 in ground 'M' that the petitioner bad made a written representation dated April 7, 1989, to the Advisory Board wherein he had made a request that his co-detenus who were to appear also before the Board on that day be examined as witnesses in rebuttal but the Board has n...
Escorts Limited Vs. Modern Insulators Ltd. and Another
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-02-1989
Reported in: AIR1989Delhi345; [1989]66CompCas621(Delhi)
B.N. Kirpal, J.1. This is yet another case where an attempt has been made to see that a commitment made by the bank to a beneficiary by virtue of a bank guarantee is not honoured despite the position in law being well- settled and, possibly, also well-understood by all the parties. 2. Briefly stated, the facts are that a contract has been entered into between the plaintiff and defendant No. 1 on May 9, 1986, whereby the plaintiff was to supply to defendant No. 1 one 1000 KVA diesel generating set which included one 1000 KVA Kirloskar Cummins Diesel Engine and other items. It was a part of the contract that the plaintiff was to erect and commission the said generating set. This set was warranted against any defect due to bad workmanship or defective material for a period of 24 months from the date of dispatch or 5,000 hours from the date of installation, whichever was earlier. Other parts had different periods of warranty. It is not necessary to give any further details at this stage. 3...
B.M. Chanana Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-01-1989
Reported in: 40(1990)DLT113; 1990(18)DRJ55; 1990RLR68
B.N. Kirpal, J.(1) Important question which arises in this writ petition is with regard to the interpretation and the validity of some of the provisions which have been newly added to Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 as a result of the amendment, by Act 57 of 1988.(2) The petitioner became a tenant of respondent No. 3, on 1-5-1977 in respect of residential flat owned by the said respondent No. 3. On 15-7-1987 the respondent No. 3 filed a petition for eviction of the petitioner inter alias on the ground that respondent No. 3 required the said premises for his own use and for use of the persons dependant upon him. After the petition under Section 14(1)(e) read with Section 25B of the Rent Control Act was filed the petitioner applied to the Rent Controller for leave to contest the petition. On 26-5-1988 respondent No. 3 conceded the said application and leave to contest was granted.(3) Respondent No. 3 is employed in the Northern Railway and is a Government servant. The Parliament passed the ...
Gulab Tulsyani Vs. Delhi Administration Through Lt. Governor and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-01-1989
Reported in: 1990CriLJ1055; ILR1989Delhi482
Santosh Duggal, J. (1) The petitioner, Gulab Tulsyani, a member of the Delhi Judicial Service, has challenged his prosecution for an offence under section 5(2) read with section 5(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act (for short 'the Act') and section 161 of the Indian Penal Code vide criminal case No. 16/87 by means of this Criminal Misc. (Main) petition filed under section 482 Criminal Procedure Code . Besides raising questions of fact, he contends that the sanction recorded by the Administrator of Delhi for his prosecution in terms of section 6 of the Act, was invalid and without jurisdiction for the reason that there was no recommendation of the High Court of Delhi or consultation with the same before recording of the sanction and that in view of the provisions of Article 235 of the Constitution of India, vesting absolute control in the High Court in respect to members of judicial service, the prosecution based on such a sanction was not sustainable, and liable to be quashed. (...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- Next ›