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.
Tek Chand and Sons Vs. Union of India
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-12-1990
Reported in: 1991(1)ARBLR140(Delhi); 42(1990)DLT597; 1990RLR538
Mahinder Narain, J.(1) MR.GHANSHYAM Singh, Deputy Secretary (S.I.) in the Department of defense Production and Supplies, Ministry of defense, has appeared in Court. He apologised for the communication addressed to the Court. He states that he has done so in ignorance. He has been directed to ensure that the things like this, should not happen in future. When court summons, the person should respond either personally or through counsel, and not to send communication to court. (2) In this petition under Section 20 of the Arbitration Act, reply has been filed by the respondent. It is stated in the reply that in terms of clause 16 of the Contract, Col. K.N. Joshipura has been appointed as sole arbitrator vide letter dated 27-6-1990 to hear and decide the disputes and differences between the parties. (3) In view of this statement in the reply, inasmuch as the arbitration agreement is admitted to exist, disputes are admitted to exist, I direct that the agreement between the parties be filed,...
Kuldip Singh and Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-12-1990
Reported in: 42(1990)DLT629; 1991(20)DRJ356
C.L. Chaudhry, J. (1) By this writ petition the petitioner has challenged the detention order dated 7-12-1989 passed by Commissioner of Police, Delhi under Section 3(2) of the National Security Act. 1980. By the said order it was directed chat the petitioner be kept in Central Jail, Tihar, Delhi. It is mentioned in the detention order that the petitioner is an active criminal of the area of Police Station Saraswati Vihar. Delhi, who has indulged in acts of violence, murder attempt to murder, riots, robbery, wrongful confinement, abduction, .Mack on public servant, criminal intimidation. house trespass and offence punishable under the Arms Act. It is also mentioned in the detention order that the petitioner was involved in many criminal cases in the area of Union Territory of Delhi The following cases were referred therein us background to show the criminality of the petitioner : (1) P.S. Punjabi Bagh, Fir No. 250 dated 21-6-1982 under Section 302/34 Indian Penal Code, in which case the...
S.N. Chaturvedi Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-12-1990
Reported in: 43(1991)DLT22
B.N. Kirpal, J.(1) Rule D.B. (2) The might of the bureaucratic attitude is clearly evident in the present case. We are sorry to note that senior officers of the Armed Forces who have rendered commendable service for the country have been driven to Court in order to seek redress against apparent injustice which has been done to them. (3) Briefly stated, the facts are that the petitioner, as on 1st January, 1986, was serving as an Air Vice Marshal in the Indian Air Force. On that date his pay had been fixed at Rs. 5900.00 . There were two officers who were junior to him, namely. Air Commodore P.D. Adlakha and Air Commodore M.W. Desai. They were, prior to 1st January, 1986, getting less pay than the petitioner. (4) With effect from 1st January, 1986 the Fourth Pay Commission Report was given effect to by a decision of the Central Government, with certain modifications. As a, result thereof the pay of different category of officers had to be fixed. As a result of the decision of the Centra...
K.K. Mehra Vs. Registrar of Companies
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-12-1990
Reported in: [1991]71CompCas669(Delhi)
Sapra, J. 1. By the present application filed under Section 446 of the Companies Act, 1956 (hereinafter called 'the Act'), the petitioner prays that this court be pleased to call for the files of Cases Nos. 9459/ 5 of 1981, 9460/5 of 1981, 9460/5 of 1981, 9462/5 of 1981, and 8521/5 of 1981, titled Registrar of Companies v. Anand Finance (P.) Ltd., now pending in the court of the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Delhi, and quash all the proceedings.2. Briefly, the facts are that a creditor filed a petition, being Company Petition No. 34 of 1966, against Anand Finance Private Ltd., hereinafter referred to as 'the company', for its winding up, on the ground that it was unable to pay its debts.3. During the pendency of the petition for winding up, a scheme of arrangement, between the creditors and the company, was approved by this court, vide order dated July 29, 1968, whereby 65 per cent. of the amount due to the creditors was to be paid within a period of two years and for the b...
Sanjay Chandiram Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Oct-11-1990
Reported in: (1991)(31)ECC312
1. The appeal arises out of an Order-in-Original No. S. 37 (Misc.-A)-1/90 A of the Collector, Calcutta.2. The case of the appellants is that he is the proprietor of M/s. Shiv Shankar International and they have imported six million yds. of Zip Rolls of type CF No. 5 from DPR Korea origin from M/s. Greenland Textile Pvt. Ltd. One consignment of 7,60,000 yds. Zip Rolls was released after paying the customs duty vide Bill of Entry dated 6-9-1989. The balance of 4 consignments of Zip Rolls in 400 packages (8 lakh yds.), 400 packages (8 lakh yds.), 400 packages (8 lakh yds.) and 380 packages (7.60 lakh yds.) were shipped in the month of November,1989 vide Bill of Lading dated 7-11-89. Bills of Entry Nos.1236 dated 20-11-89, 1654 and 1655 dated 28-11-89 and 1237 dated 20-11-89 were filed. Assessments were completed on Bills of Entry Nos.1236 and 1237 on 23-11-89. The goods, however, were detained under Sec.110 of the Customs Act. Aggrieved by the detention of the goods, the appellants appro...
Data Base Industries Vs. Income-tax Officer
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Decided on: Oct-11-1990
Reported in: (1991)36ITD209(Delhi)
1. This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against an order of the Commissioner of Income-tax, Delhi-VII, New Delhi, passed under Section 263 of the Income-tax Act, setting aside the assessment made by the Income-tax Officer and directing him to make a fresh assessment.2. In brief the relevant facts are that the assessee a firm which comprised of some resident and some non-resident partners purchased one Computer imported from abroad and leased it on hire to M/s Tata Consultancy Services on a monthly rent. The terms of the lease were reduced to writing under an Agreement dated 2-5-1980 between the partners of the assessee-firm and M/s Tata Consultancy Services. The hire charges fixed was Rs. 35,000 per month. There was also a provision to pay an advance of Rs. 2,00,000 to be adjusted against monthly instalments of the hire rent. The assessee claimed, inter alia, that it was carrying on the business leasing out of its Computer on a monthly rent and, therefore, it was entitled to ...
Pradeep Narang Vs. Inspecting Assistant
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Decided on: Oct-11-1990
Reported in: (1991)36ITD325(Delhi)
1. We find it convenient to dispose of these two appeals by a common order. The assessee is an individual. He owns a property which he valued for the two assessment years at Rs. 1,64,000. The WTO, however, did not accept this valuation as correct. He found that, in the prior assessment years, the value of this property was fixed at Rs. 10,06,000. He adopted the same value and completed the assessment.2. The assessee appealed. It was submitted before the CIT (Appeals) that, on the facts, the WTO ought to have referred the matter to tjhe Valuation Officer and the non-compliance with this mandatory requirement had vitiated the proceedings. It was submitted that, in case the WTO did not make a reference to the Valuation Officer, it could be presumed that he has chosen to accept the value declared by the assessee and so he had no option to change the valuation. Reference was made to the Board's Circular which gave instructions to the officers to this effect. The CIT(Appeals) accepted the a...
TIn Box Co. Vs. Income-tax Officer
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Decided on: Oct-11-1990
Reported in: (1990)35ITD473(Delhi)
1. These are three applications by the assessee under Section 254(2) of the Act directed against an order dated 30-8-1988 passed by a Bench of this Tribunal in ITA No. 739(Del.)/88 for assessment year 1984-85 praying that certain mistakes that have crept in the aforesaid order be rectified.2. We have heard the learned counsel for the assessee and the learned Departmental Representative and have perused the material placed before us. We will first deal with the assessee's application that was filed in this Tribunal on 5-1-1989 and is now registered as M.A. No.89(Del.)/90. In the aforesaid appeal it was contended on behalf of the assessee that the assessing officer had not given a proper opportunity of hearing regarding an addition of Rs. 15,85,197.83 p made by him to the assessee's income on the basis of the discrepancy in the trading results as disclosed in the trading and profit & loss account submitted with the return and the trading results as disclosed in the books of accounts...
Oil and Natural Gas Commission Vs. Union of India Others
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-11-1990
Reported in: [1991]188ITR368(Delhi)
ORDER1. We have heard learned counsel for the parties at length. It appears that the cause of action, if any accrued to the petitioner within the territorial jurisdiction of the High Court at Allahabad. The petitioner is seeking to challenge the proceedings taken under the Income-tax Act including the orders passed under section 263 by the Commissioner of Income-tax at Meerut. Though the Union of India and the Central Board of Direct Taxes have been imp leaded as respondents in this writ petition, there is no relief claimed against the said two respondents. In our opinion, this court has no territorial jurisdiction to decide the points raised in this writ petition. We, thereforee, direct that the petition be returned to the petitioner by the Registry immediately so as to enable the petitioner to file the writ petition in the Allahabad High Court, if the petitioners so desire. The interim orders granted by us will continue for a period of one week. Mr. Jain opposes our continuation to t...
Runa Parwal Vs. Cassia Chattels (Pvt.) Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-11-1990
Reported in: 1993(1)ARBLR48(Delhi); ILR1991Delhi348; 1990RLR534
P.K. Bahri, J.(1) Shri R. G, Gaggar, sole arbitrator, had filed the petition under Sections 14 & 17 of the Indian Arbitration Act praying that the award dated December 15, 1988, be taken on the record and after notice of filing of the award is served on the parties, the same may be made a rule of the court. (2) The notice of the filing of the award was served on both the parties, namely, Smt. Aruna Parwal and M/s. Cassia Chattels Pvt. Limited but no objection's to the award have been filed. A doubt was expressed by me on perusing the contents of the award as to whether the award was .liable to be registered compulsorily in view of Section 17 of the Indian Registration Act I have heard the arguments for deciding this point. (3) The arbitration agreement shows that both the parties had agreed to refer the following dispute for decision of the arbitration : 'THE quantum of compensation? to be paid in terms of money to Smt. Aruna Parwal for handing over the vacant possession and all her ri...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »