Delhi Court August 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.
Goshala Marg Residents Association (Regd.) and Another Vs. D.C.M. Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-30-1990
Reported in: AIR1991Delhi334
ORDER1. Plaintiff No. 1 is Goshala Marg Residents Association (Regd.), Kishan Ganj, Delhi and plaintiff No. 2 is Mr. Jyoti Parsad Sharma, who is one of the members of the Association. These two plaintiffs have filed a suit for a declaration that members of the plaintiff association and plaintiff No. 2 are tenants of the defendant with regard to residential accommodation allotted to them and, thereforee, have prayed for permanent injunction restraining the defendants, its employees and agents from dispossessing them from the tenanted premises otherwise than by due process of law. Along with the suit, this application has been moved under 0.1,R. 8 of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter called the Code) with the allegations that there are 185 members of the plaintiff association who are all tenants in different premises allotted to them. They are all employees of the defendant company and the facts pertaining to all these employees are identical in nature. They have the same interest...
Sulochana Uppal Vs. Surinder Sheel Bhakri
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-30-1990
Reported in: 42(1990)DLT379; 1990(19)DRJ208; 1990RLR454
Mahinder Narain, J. (1) This petition under Section 20 of the Arbitration Act has been filed for the purpose of enforcement of the agreement to sell dated 8-10-1989, executed the parties to the suit whereby the respondent is alleged to have agreed to sell plot bearing No. 0-11/41, Lajpat Nagar, New Delhi, to the petitioner.(2) It is stated in this petition that in the said agreement there is an arbitration agreement between the parties. The clause relating to arbitration is in the following terms : 'THAT in the eventuality of any dispute in between the parties, on any matter concerning this agreement, or any matter incidental thereto, the same shall be referred to an Arbitrator appointed mutually, as per the Indian Arbitration Act, in force and the award of the Arbitrators so appointed, shall be final and binding on between the parties thereto.'(3) I had put io Mr. R.K. Makhija, learned counsel for the petitioner, at the time when the matter came up for admission on 9-8-1990, that in v...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Dalmia Dairy Industries Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-30-1990
Reported in: [1991]188ITR611(Delhi)
B.N. Kirpal, J.1. The question involved in this case is whether the interest on fixed deposit was taxable on accrual or cash basis. The assessment year in question is 1978-79. We are informed by learned counsel for the respondent that the fixed deposit matured on November 7, 1977, relevant to the assessment year 1979-80, the accounting year ending on September 30, 1978, and that tax has been paid on receipt basis on the whole of the amount of interest received by the respondent. It is further stated that this assessment of tax on receipt basis has been accepted by the assessed and is not under challenge. 2. In view of the aforesaid, there is no reason as to why any reference should be called for because the question has really become academic. 3. The petition is, accordingly, dismissed. 4. There will be no order as to costs. ...
Nivedita Dina Nath Vs. State and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-30-1990
Reported in: I(1991)DMC11
M.K. Chawla, J.1. On 14-5-85, one Neeta Kamra claiming herself to be the wife of Shri Suhird Kamra filed the complaint under Section 494/495 read with Section 109 I.P.C. in the court of the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, West district, Delhi. In the complaint, she alleged that her marriage with respondent No. 1 was performed at Arya Samaj Mandir, Pankha Road 'C' Block, Janakpuri, New Delhi, in the presence of her family members. After the marriage, both of them have been living as husband and wife at various places including at the house of her parents at Janakpuri, New Delhi. Out of the said wedlock, a girl was born to the petitioner on 21-1-85 at Janakpuri. However, on 4-1-85, her husband left the house with his bag and baggage for good and thereafter never returned. The petitioner has now come to know that respondent No. 1 Suhird Kamra has contacted a second marriage with one Neena Kamra at Putta Parthy, Hyderabad which was attended by his father, mother, sister Miss Monika K...
Puran Mal Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-30-1990
Reported in: (1991)92CTR(Del)34
B. N. KIRPAL, J. :This is a wholly frivolous and unnecessary petition which has been filed which has resulted in our having to unnecessarily spend precious time. The facts are that the WTO included in the hands of the petitioners wealth of Rs. 4,06,389. The appeal was filed to the Assistant Commissioner which was dismissed. Further appeal to the Tribunal was dismissed. The petitioner then filed a petition under s. 27(1) of the WT Act for reference of certain questions of law to this Court. That petition was dismissed. The petitioner has filed a petition under s. 27(3) of the said Act, which is yet to come up for hearing before this Court. Despite this alternative remedy having been availed of by the petitioner and despite the fact that petition under s. 27(3) is pending, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition under Arts. 226 and 227 of the Constitution challenging the same orders which are sought to be impugned on alleged questions of law in the proceedings under the WT Act...
Collector of Customs Vs. Photophone Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Aug-29-1990
Reported in: (1991)(52)ELT284TriDel
1. Collector of Customs, Bombay, has filed an appeal being aggrieved from the order passed by the Collector of Customs (Appeals), Bombay.2. Briefly, the facts of the case are that respondents, M/s Photophone Ltd. had imported Meniscus Lenses vide bills of entry cash No. 773 dated 06-01-1983, No. 730 dated 08-01-1983 and No. 344 dated 04-05-1982. Vide bill of entry No. 773 dated 08-01-1983 400 pieces of Meniscus Lenses were imported for overhead projector. These lenses were unmounted lenses with optical working. These goods had been classified under Heading 90.02 which covers mounted lenses and not unmounted lenses. These were made of glass. Unmounted glass lenses were correctly classifiable under Heading 90.01. Duty was paid and the Assistant Collector had taken the view that the correct classification was under Heading 90.02/90.09 and claim for reassessment under Heading No. 90.01 was not accepted.3. Being aggrieved from the aforesaid order, the respondents filed an appeal before the...
Collector of Customs Vs. Goodyear India Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Aug-29-1990
Reported in: (1991)(51)ELT353TriDel
1. The Collector of Customs (Ap-peals) has filed an appeal being aggrieved from the order passed by Collector of Cus-toms (Appeals) Bombay.2. Briefly, the facts of the case are that the respondents had imported spare parts for tyre manufacturing machinery with two wing rotors for Banbury Mixer vide Bill of Entry Cash No. 2702/4-9-1981 and the respondents had claimed reassessment of the goods free of duty and these were replacements of the goods i.e. defective two wing rotors and these were exported to the suppliers under cover and free Shipping Bill No. 003595 dated 4th September, 1981. The respondents has claimed that the benefit of the Notification No. 80/70-Cus., dated 29-8-1970. The Assistant Collector did not extend the benefit of the said notification and had rejected refund claim. Being aggrieved from the aforesaid order, the respondent filed an appeal before the Collector of Customs (Appeals) Bombay. The Collector (Appeals) had extended the benefit of Notification No. 80/70-Cu...
Kay Bee Enterprises Vs. Collector of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Aug-29-1990
Reported in: (1990)LC635Tri(Delhi)
1. M/s. Kay Bee Enterprises, New Delhi has filed the above captioned three appeals being aggrieved from the order passed by the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals) New Delhi. The Collector of Central Excise, New Delhi had dispensed all the three appeals by common order. The appellants have also filed three Stay Applications. The total duty involved in the above Stay Applications is Rs. 1,85,470.60. Shri A.M.Guha, learned Consultant who has appeared on behalf of the appellant pleaded that the applicant is a small-scale industrial unit and had applied for provisional registration with the Industries Department and the applicants were duly granted Provisional Registration vide their Provisional Certificate dated 13th July, 1987 which appears as Annexure-A with the Appeal Memo. He further relied on a Trade Notice No. 26/87 dated 28th April, 1987 of Bombay I Collector, in terms of which it was decided that Provisional Registration from the State Government's authorities could be accepted...
Bharat Commerce and Industries Ltd. Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-29-1990
Reported in: II(1990)BC522; (1990)88CTR(Del)113; 42(1990)DLT482; [1991]188ITR277(Delhi)
Santosh Duggal, J.(1) The challenge in this writ petition filed by the assessed is directed in respect of demand of interest, by notice issued under section 156 of the Income tax Act, 1961 (for short 'the Act') on 29th July 1988. The interest has been levied, and demanded under two heads : (1) Sum of Rs. 6,44,0551- for the period 1-4-1981 to 30-6-1982 under section 215 of the Act, (2) Rs. 4,98,488!- for the period 29-10-1984 to 29-7-1988 under section 220(2) of the Act. The assessment year under reference is 1981-82. (2) The facts, in so far as these have a bearin'g on the issues raised in this petition are to the effect that the assessed has adopted calendar year as the accounting year, ending 31st of December, and thus the accounting year for the assessment period under reference ended with 31st December 1980. As per the schedule fixed by section 211 of the Act, the advance tax was payable on or before 15th June, 1980, 15th September 1980 and 15th December 1980, respectively. The pay...
C. Ummer Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-29-1990
Reported in: 1990CriLJ2610; 42(1990)DLT39
M.K. Chawla, J.(1) On 4th November. 1989. Shri C. Ramachandran. Secretary to the Government of Kerala (Home Department) directed the detention of the petitioner in Central Prison, Trivendrum, with a view to preventing him from abetting the smuggling of goods, while exercising powers conferred by Section 3(l)(ii) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, (hereinafter referred to as the Cofeposa Act). The detention of the petitioner for a period of one year from 10-1-90 has since been confirmed by the aforesaid Authority on 17-3-90 consequent upon the receipt of the opinion of the Advisory Board. (2) The petitioner has challenged the order of detention and the order of confirmation by way of filing the present writ petition on numerous grounds, one. of them being that the following vital and material documents which would have swayed the mind of the detaining authority one way or the other were suppressed and not placed before it. The documents a...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- Next ›
- Last »