Delhi Court April 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.
Vinod Kumar Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-11-1989
Reported in: 38(1989)DLT228
Charanjit Talwar, J.(1) The appellant, Vinod Kumar, was convicted for an offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code by Sbri P.C. Jain, Additional Sessions Judge, Delhi vide his judgment dated the 31st August. 1987. By a separate order of the same date, the trial court sentenced the appellant to undergo life imprisonment. (2) Mr. P.P. Grover, learned counsel for the appellant, on 6th September, 1988 made a statement before us that he was confining the appeal only to the nature of the offence made out by the prosecution against the appellant. His statement, which we have noticed in the minutes of the proceedings of that date was 'the appellant is accepting the finding of the Sessions Judge on merits of the case, According to him the case made out against the appellant falls within the provisions of Part Ii of Section 304 of the Indian Penal Code.' Thus it is not necessary for us to assess the case of the prosecution on merits. (3) The appellant was a young man of about...
Mohd. Saleem Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors. (No. I)
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-11-1989
Reported in: 1989(24)ECC210
P.K. Bahri, J.1. This petition has been brought under Article 226 of the constitution of India read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, for issuance of a writ of habeas corpus or any other writ for quashing the order of detention dated July 11, 1988, passed by respondent No. 2 under Section 3(1) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act (for short 'COFEPOSA Act') and also the declaration dated August 4, 1988, issued under Section 9(1) of the COFEPOSA Act.2. Facts leading to the passing of the impugned orders, in brief, are that on June 14, 1988, the petitioner had come in an Air India Flight No. AI 890 from Dubai enroute to Bombay and the flight had landed at the IGI Airport, New Delhi and the petitioner was stated to be occupying seat No. 22 B and as the petitioner was suspected to be carrying contraband like gold and watches, so he was asked in the presence of witnesses whether he was carrying such contraband to which he replie...
Sat Pal Bakshi Vs. Durga Dass and Others
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-10-1989
Reported in: [1989]66CompCas40(Delhi)
M.K. Chawla, J.1. On August 7, 1982, Shri Sat Pal Bakshi, an employee of M/s. Association Traders and Engineers Limited, filed a petition/complaint under sections 406, 409 and 418 of the Indian Penal Code against the Managing Director, four directors, the Deputy Manager (Finance) and the Chartered Accountant of the company. His case is that accused No. 1 issued a circular, No. GM/S?75, dated August 1, 1975, inviting security deposits from the employees of the company. The complainant, in compliance with the said direction, deposit a sum of Rs.440 with the company, vide receipt dated August, 1, 1975. The accused never deposited the security money in the Post Officer Savings Bank Account or in any scheduled bank as provided in section 417 of the Companies Act. The company thus knowingly and with mala fide intention contravened the terms of the agreement as well as the provisions of the Companies Act. On or about August 18, 1980, the complainant made a written demand for the return of his...
Puran Chand Nagia Vs. the Aviation Employees Cooperative House Buildin ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-10-1989
Reported in: 1989(2)ARBLR207(Delhi); 38(1989)DLT188
Y.K. Sahbarwal, J. (1) The work of construction of Roads-Storm Water Drains etc. was awarded by Respondent-Society to the petitioner on 26th December 1972. The contract admittedly contains an arbitration agreement. Petitioner seeks filing of the arbitration agreement in court and reference of disputes enumerated in Para Ii of the petition to arbitration. This contract is subject matter of Suit No. 200-A/81. (2) In Suit No. 201-A/81 the work in question is construction of Sewerage work in the Colony of the Aviation Employees Cooperative House Building Society at Shahdara, Delhi. The said work was awarded by the respondent-Society to the petitioner on 28th May 1973. Admittedly this contract also contains an arbitration clause similar to the one which is subject matter of Suit No, 200A/81. In this suit also petitioner seeks filing of the arbitration agreement and reference of disputes enumerated in Para 11 of the petition to arbitration in accordance with the arbitration clause. (3) There...
Kishori Lal Kishwar Vs. Gurbax Singh and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-10-1989
Reported in: II(1989)ACC152
S.B. Wad, J.1. In an accident caused by truck number MHB-3819 on 14-4-1980 to the scooter No. DLZ-8797 being driven by the appellant he was badly injured and suffered grievous injuries, deep wound left ankle and other wounds over the body. The Tribunal had awarded a sum of Rs. 7,000/- by way of compensation. The counsel for the appellant has submitted that in spite of the fact that the appellant suffered immense pain, agony--both physical and mental, remained under the treatment of hospital for a long time and also for the fact that he had suffered permanent ulcer of his left foot, the Tribunal had awarded only Rs. 7,000/-. His further submission is that the appellant was under the treatment of large number of Doctors, Government and private, and even after Tribunal's award in 1979 he remained under the treatment of various hospitals. The treatment it very expensive. The conveyance charges for going to Doctors/hospitals are also very heavy. After the injury he was suspected of gingerin...
Wealth-tax Officer Vs. Priya Holding (P.) Ltd.
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Decided on: Apr-07-1989
Reported in: (1989)29ITD641(Delhi)
1. The short and interesting question in this Revenue appeal is whether the Commissioner of Wealth-tax (Appeals), New Delhi was justified in vacating the addition of Rs. 1,93,127 made in the assessment as cost of land and building under construction to the assessable wealth of the respondent, which is a private limited company, and for which the valuation date was 31-12-1984.2. The WTO made the addition by observing that since the building had not yet been completed and not been used for business purposes, the assessee's claim of exemption in relation to the said assets could not be accepted.3. The CWT(A) allowed the assessee's appeal and deleted the addition of Rs. 1,93,127 by accepting the contention that since the industrial plot was purchased by the company in public auction from Delhi Development Authority in November 1983 and the building after construction was used for industrial purposes Clause (vi) of Section 40(3) of the Finance Act, 1983 came to the assessee's rescue and th...
indu Engineering and Taxtile Ltd. Vs. Delhi Development Authority
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-07-1989
Reported in: 1989(2)ARBLR318(Delhi); 1989CriLJ1950; 39(1989)DLT14; ILR1989Delhi378
C.L. Chandbry, J. (1) Petitioner was awarded a contract for the supply of cast iron spigot and socket soil waste and vent pipes by D.D.A. (herein-after called the respondent). The case of the petitioner is that the terms and conditions on which supplies were contracted were revised by writing incorporated in the agreement executed on 14/05/1981 between the parties.Certain disputes arose between the parties out of the execution of thecontract.(2) The engineer member of D.D.A. by his order dated 14.12.1984appointed Shri Banarsi Dass, Superintending Engineer, Dda to decide the matter and make an award regarding the disputes between the parties.The Arbitrator entered upon the reference and after hearing the parties made his award on 16/05/1985. The award of the Arbitrator is reproduced for the sake of convenience and reference :-S. No. Claim` DisputeAward1.Claimants claim a sum of Arbitrator is to The claim is fullyRs. 21420.41 on account determine whether justified to the of sales tax @ 4...
The Motor and General Finance Ltd. Vs. Hira Parsad Kesri and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-07-1989
Reported in: 1989(2)ARBLR44(Delhi); 1989(17)DRJ36
C.L. Chaudhry, J. (1) The Motor & General Finance Ltd., hereinafter referred to as the petitioner has filed this petition under Section 20 of the Arbitration Act seeking permission to file the arbitration agreement in court and for reference of dispute for arbitration in terms of the arbitration agreement. It is stated in the petition that the petitioner purchased a motor vehicle bearing Engine No. 692. DOI. 1.5591 I Chassis No. 344.073.1.48433 from M/s. Tata Engineering & Locomotive Co. for Rs. 1,70,310.40. Thereafter the said vehicle was hired to respondent No. I under the hire purchase agreement dated 12-2-83. Respondent No. 2 has stood as guarantor for and on behalf of respondent No. I for due performance of the terms of the agreement. The vehicle was thereafter registered under registration No. BRZ-7636. The hire purchase agreement dated 12-2-83 was for a total sum of Rs. 2,43,610.40.00 inclusive of chassis value, hire charges and insurance charges, etc. Out of this amount respond...
Hyder Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-07-1989
Reported in: 39(1989)DLT159
P.K. Bahri, J. (1) In this writ petition filed under Article 226 of the. Constitution of India read wish Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the petitioner has challenged the detention order dated 11/05/1988, passed under Section 3(1) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 (for short 'COFEPOSA Act')and a declaration dated 1/06/1988, passed under Section 9(1) of Cofeposa Act.(2) 13 grounds have been raised in this writ petition for challenging the impugned orders but Mr. Rohit Kochhar, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, confined the challenge only to four grounds and has given up all other grounds.(3) The first ground raised is that the representation dated 18/07/1988, made by the detenu to the Central Government was not dealt with due promptitude. In the counter-affidavit filed by Shri C. Rajan, Under Secretary, on behalf of the CentralGovernment, it has been mentioned that the said representation was received ...
Shyam Khanna Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-07-1989
Reported in: ILR1989Delhi617b
P.K. Bahri, J. (1) In this writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Consasitution of India read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the petitioner has challenged the detention order dated May 11, 1988, passed under Section 3(1) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 and a declaration dated June 1, 1988, passed under Section 9(1) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 (for short 'COFEPOSA Act').(2) Thirteen grounds have been raised in this writ petition for challenging the impugned orders but Mr. Rohit Kochhar, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, confined the challenge only to four grounds and has given up all other grounds.(3) The first ground of challenge is that the representation made to the Central Government by the detenu which is dated May 30, 1988, came to be rejected only on July 20, 1988, hence, there has occurred unexplained and undue delay in ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »