Delhi Court October 1990 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.
Emkay Glass Works Vs. Income-tax Officer
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Decided on: Oct-31-1990
Reported in: (1991)36ITD141(Delhi)
1. This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order of CIT(A), Agra and the main dispute is relating to assessment of a sum of Rs. 98,607 being the refund of central excise received by the assessee on 24th January, 1983. This amount of refund received by the assessee was in consequence of an order of the Appellate Collector, Central Excise dated 27th January, 1981. The fact of receipt of refund is not disputed. The assessee has disputed its assessability Under Section 41(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. Before the Assessing Officer various contentions had been raised for the claim that the amount of refund is not assessable to tax at all. In the alternative assessee's claim has been that since a notice had been issued to the assessee for recalling the order of the Appellate Collector the amount of refund granted had not become final as on the close of the accounting year and as such the amount if at all assessable would fall in asst. year 1986-87 as the proceedings had b...
Kalra Iron Stores Vs. Faridabad Fabricators (P.) Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-31-1990
Reported in: [1992]73CompCas330(Delhi)
Y.K. Sabharwal, J.1. The winding-up petition (C.P. No. 138 of 1988) has been filed by Kalra Iron Stores seeking an order of winding up of the respondent Faridabad (P.) Ltd. (for short, 'the company') on the ground of the inability of the company to pay the debts due to the petitioner. Para 2 of the winding up petition reads : 'That the petitioner is an iron and steel merchant having his registered office at 19/7, Mathura Road, Opp. Escorts Plant-II, N.I.T. Faridabad, and is engaged in business of supplying all kinds of rods, angles, flats, etc.2. The constitution of the petitioner-firm has not been stated in the winding up petition. It has not been stated whether the petitioner is a sole proprietorship firm or a partnership firm. The petition is supported by an affidavit of Gajindra Kalra. The portion of the affidavit relevant for the present purpose reads thus : 'That I am the partner of the firm and as such fully competent to swear this affidavit. I am well conversant with the facts ...
Miss. Vidushi Duggal and Others Vs. Smt. Darupadi Devi and Another
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-31-1990
Reported in: [1991]189ITR474(Delhi)
P.N. Nag, J.1. In this application under Order VI, rule 17 of the code of Civil Procedure filed by the plaintiff, the plaintiff/petitioner seeks to amend the plaint by incorporating certain amendments in the plaint mentioned by him in the application. These amendments have been necessitated by passing of an Act by Parliament known as 'Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act, 1988, '(hereinafter referred to as the Act). In substance, the plaintiff wants to raise an additional ground in the plaint that defendant No. 1 was holding the immovable property in question as a trustee for plaintiff No. 1 in a fiduciary capacity and for the benefit of plaintiff No. 1 or the plaintiffs. All the amendments sought for are in consequence of such ground. 2. The defendants have opposed this amendment. In fact, Mr. Daljit Singh, counsel appearing for the defendants, has vehemently contended that this application of the plaintiff should not be allowed as such as the amendment introduces a new cause of acti...
Pritpal Singh Vs. Suad Begum and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-31-1990
Reported in: 42(1990)DLT621
M.L. Varma, J.(1) The petitioner has challenged the order dated 9.12.89 passed by Shri P.C.Ranga, Sub Judge 1st Class, Delhi in Suit No.M-17/86. The impugned order had been passed on an application filed under Section 151 Civil Procedure Code . by the petitioner herein which application was dismissed. (2) Some relevant dates and facts may be noticed before proceeding further. The respondents herein had filed a suit being Suit No. M. 17/86. This suit had actually been filed on 5.3.83. On 1.2.84, the suit was dismissed in default. On 3.2.84, an application for restoration of the suit was filed in which the petitioner herein had filed hisreply, and issues were framed. The case was fixed for evidence on the issues framed in this application (for restoration). The next relevant date is 10.1.86. On that date the case is supposed to have been adjourned to 12.3.86. The case, however, was not put up on 12.3.86 but was put up on 14.3.86 as has been noticed in paragraph 6 internal page 4 of Annex...
Sri NaraIn Baralia Vs. Rajeshwar Dayal and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-31-1990
Reported in: 1991(20)DRJ115; 1991RLR75
D.P. Wadhwa, J.(1) In this suit filed in 1982 for winding up the affairs of dissolved partnership, namely. Regal Theatre, by this order I am to decide an application by Mr. Vinay Kumar filed under Order 22 Rule 10 and Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure. This application was filed on 21-9-l987. It is a brief application. It merely states that the applicant has purchased the share of the plaintiff under an agreement dated 10-2-1987 and. thus, having become the absolute assignee of the entire share of the plaintiff, the assignor, he has a right to. tie substituted in place of the plaintiff and to continue the suit. it is also staled,that because of the agreement as such. all rights and interests of the plaintiff in the present suit stand assigned to the applicant.(2) This application has been opposed by the defendants. It has been denied that there has been any assignment of the share of the plaintiff and further that the deed of assignment date 10-2-1987 purports to transfer and ...
S. Anand Deep Singh Vs. Ranjit Kaur and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-31-1990
Reported in: 1991CriLJ996a
R.L. Gupta, J.(1) This petition has been moved under Sections 11 and 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 by the plaintiff/petitioner against the respondents. Petitioner is one of the sons of Late Shri Maninder Singh ('SMS' for short) who was brother of late Kanwal Mohinder Pal Singh ('KMPS' for short) husband of Smt Rarijit Kaur, respondent and father of Km. Kavita Singh, respondent 2. For the appreciation of the contempt petition it would be necessary to note in brief the allegations made in the plaint as well as in is No. 4224189 filed by the plaintiff/petitioner because the contempt is alleged to have arisen on account violation of an order of the Court by the respondents passed in is No. 4224189.(2) Plaintiff and defendant 7 are the sons of late Sms while defendant 6 is his wife. Defendant I who is the wife of Late Kmps, whereas defendants 2 to 5 are the daughters of defendant 1 and KMPS. Defendants 8 and 9 are the daughters of late Sir Datar Singh ('SDS' for short), who was the...
Khazan Singh Vs. Union of India
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-31-1990
Reported in: 42(1990)DLT624; 1991(20)DRJ41
V.B. Bansal, J. (1) A notification unper Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act 1894 (hereinafter to be referred to as the Act) was issued by the Government indicating its intention that the said land was needed turn a public purpose, i.e. for the planned development of Delhi in respect of 16000 acres of land which included the area of 3919bighas 2 his was of village Haiderpur, After completing necessary formalities a notification under Section 6 of the Act was issued on 6lh December, 1986. Land Acquisition Collector considered the claims put forward by the different owners in respect of the land falling beyond Western Jamuna Canal. Award No.13/75-76 was passed by Land Acquisition Collector, Delhi on 28th November, 1975 in respect of land measuring 2316 Bighas 04 Biswas. This land was divided by the Land Acquisition Collector in three categories, namely (1) Abpash including Nehri, Chahi(2) G Abpash including Rosli and (3) Banjar Qadim/Patri Zadid.G.M. Khadda/GM. Bhatta etc. After consid...
Vidushi Duggal and ors. Vs. Darupadi Devi and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-31-1990
Reported in: ILR1990Delhi503; 1991RLR54
P.N. Nag, J. (1) In this application, under Order Vi Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure iei by the plaintiff, the plaintiff [petitioner seeks to amend the plaint by incorporating certain amendments in the plaint mentioned by him in the application. These amendments have been necessitated by passing an Act by Parliament known as Benami Transaction (Prohibition) Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). In substance the plaintiff wants to raise an additional ground in the plaint that defendant No. I was holding the immoveable property in question as a Trustee for the plaintiff No. 1 in a fiduciary capacity and for the benefit of plaintiff No. 1 or the plaintiffs. All the amendments sought for are in consequence of such ground. (2) The defendants have opposed the amendment, in fact Mr. Daljit Singh, counsel appearing for the defendants, has vehemently contended that this application of the plaintiff should not be allowed as such as the amendment introduces a new cause of action ...
Assistant Commissioner of Vs. Raja Ram Santosh Kumar
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Decided on: Oct-30-1990
Reported in: (1991)36ITD87(Delhi)
1. These four appeals by the Revenue for assessment year 1985- 86 pertain to the firm and three partners and as identical issues are involved, these are disposed of by a consolidated order, for the sake of convenience.2. This appeal relates to the firm M/s. Raja Ram Santosh Kumar. The first ground is that the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) was not correct in admitting the appeal against the charging of interest under Sections 139(8) and 215/217 of the Income-tax Act, 1961.3. The learned Departmental Representative vehemently argued that the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) had not considered the case of Allahabad High Court (which was the Jurisdictional High Court) in CIT v. Geeta Ram Kali Ram [1980] 121 ITR 708 (FB). It was also pointed out that the Supreme Court in Central Provinces Manganese Ore Co. Ltd. v. CIT [1986] 160 ITR 961/27 Taxman 275 had neither considered nor overruled the Allahabad High Court decision cited supra. It was, therefore, strongly contended ...
India Supplies and Exports Co. Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union of India
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-30-1990
Reported in: 1991(1)ARBLR144(Delhi); ILR1991Delhi169; 1991RLR51
D.P. Wadhwa, J.(1) This is a petition under Sections 8 and 20 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 (for short the 'Act'). (2) Under a contract, the petitioner was to supply certain quantity of tents to the respondent. The contract was governed by the General Conditions of Contract. Clause 16 thereof provided as under : 'IN the even of any question, dispute or difference arising under these conditions oi any special conditions of contract, or in connection with this contract, (except as to any matters the decision of which is specially provided for by these or the special conditions) the same shall be referred to the sole arbitration of the Secretary, Ministry of defense, Department of defense Supplies or of some other person appointed by him. It will be no objection that the arbitrator is a Government servant, that he had to deal with the matters to which contract relates or that in course of his duties as government servant, he has expressed views on all or any of the matters in dispute or di...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »