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.
E.D.P. Consultants and ors. Vs. Delhi Development Authorities and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-24-1990
Reported in: 42(1990)DLT368
B.N. Kirpal, J.(1) The challenge in this writ' petition is to the acceptance of the tender of respondent No. 5 for carrying out a work of computerization of the lottery accounts of all the five schemes of lottery run by Delhi Lotteries. (2) It is an admitted case that the petitioners had an agreement dated ' 11th November, 1988 with effect from 15th July, 1987, whereby they were given the charge of computerising the accounts and they were to be paid 14 paisa per prize winning ticket and 14 paisa per prize winning counterfoil. The Delhi Lotteries invited tenders for according a fresh contract. Tenders were submitted by the petitioners as well as respondent No. 5. In respect of three schemes the petitioners quoted a rate of 10 paisa and in respect of two schemes they quoted rate of 6 paisa. It was further stated in the offer of the petitioners that if the sale of five lotteries went up to 18 lacs then there would be a price reduction of half paisa which would be given to all the single d...
Sajjan Singh Vs. Director General, Medical Services, Army Head Quarter
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-24-1990
Reported in: 1991(20)DRJ62
P.K. Kartha, J. (1) The grievance of the applicant pertains to the impugned order dated 10.11.1989, whereby he has been compulsorily retired from Government.service. The application came up for admission on 62.1990, when notice was directed to be issued to the respondents on admission and interim relief. The Tribunal also passed an ex-parte interim order restraining the respondents from giving effect to the impugned order dated 10 1 1.1989. The said order has been extended since then till the case was finally heard on 8-8-1990. The application has not been admitted The pleadings are complete and we feel that it could be disposed of at the admission stage itself. (2) The applicant as appointed as a Lower Division Clerk in 1958 in the Office of the respondents In 1968, he was promoted as Upper Division Clerk in the same office. There in only one post of Clerk in the Station Health Organisation in which the applicant has worked. He completed 30 years of service on 21-2-1988. The impugned ...
Bachan Singh Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-24-1990
Reported in: 1991CriLJ662; 42(1990)DLT424; 1991(31)ECC16
M.K. Chawla, J. (1) In exercise of the powers conferred by Section 3(1) of the Prevention of Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1988 (Central Act 46 of 1988), in short (PIT Ndps Act), Shri Ram Chandran, Secretary to the Government of India, passed an order dated 11-1-90 detaining the petitioner Bachan Singh Wig, with a view to preventing him from engaging in illicit traffic in narcotic drugs. (2) This followed an incident when the petitioner Along with one Shri Ramdevji Shah was found to be in possession of some incriminating documents leading to the recovery of 2404 slabs of hashish concealed in 74 metal boxes in the packings of Iron grills which were meant for export to Baltimor, U.S.A. under shipping bill no. 0766 dated 15-11-89. After interrogation, the petitioner was arrested for the commission of offence u/s 20/23 & 28 of the N.D.P.S. Act read with Section 135(1)(a) of the Customs Act and produced before the Additional Judicial Magistrate, Arunakul...
Collector of Central Excise Vs. Vst Industries
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Aug-23-1990
Reported in: (1991)(52)ELT59TriDel
1. These three appeals emanate from a common impugned order and have common facts and issues. These were heard together and are being disposed of by this common order.2. The facts necessary for the disposal of the appeals are that the Respondents introduced a deposit scheme (during the years 1981, 1982, & 1983). In the Revenue's appeal, among the facts, it is mentioned that in their reply to show cause notice the Respondents mentioned that the scheme was intended to get working capital requirements to be met by the company in a period of "shrinking net realisations" and that they (Respondents here) went on to say that the additional commercial consideration for introducing the interest from the deposit scheme was to cover the risk of credit sales extended to the bulk of customers.3. The Deptt. examined the matter and opined that the interest on the deposit should legitimately form additional element of value for assessement of the cigarettes cleared by the respondents. Therefore, ...
Pujab National Bank Vs. R.K.K.R. International Pvt. Ltd. and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-23-1990
Reported in: 42(1990)DLT357; 1990(19)DRJ213; 1990RLR428
R.L. Gupta, J. (1) This application has been moved on behalf of defendant No. 1 in the original suit under order 9, Rule 13 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure (Code for short) for setting aside an ex parte decree against it passed on 6th October. 1988. 'It is alleged that the defendant/ applicant had not been served with any summons and as such be bad no knowledge of the pendency of the suit before this Court. He bad filed a civil suit bearing No. 1966/85 in this Court which is still pending. On 5th December. 1988. an official of the plaintiff bank informed the Director of the applicant company that a decree had been passed against the applicant and in favor of the bank. This information shocked the Director of the applicant company and accordingly Mr. R.L. Kohli, Advocate, was contacted to enquire as to how a decree had been passed against, the applicant on his back and without any notice Enquiries and inspection of the cause list revealed the factum of the passing o...
Hari Ram Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-23-1990
Reported in: I(1991)ACC2
V.B. Bansal, J.1. Hari Ram, petitioner, was convicted for the offences under Sections 279/304-A IPC and he was sentenced to R.I. for 1-1/2 years under Section 304-A IPC and fine of Rs. 200/- or in default to undergo simple imprisonment for 10 days under Section IPC vide judgment dated 29th July, 1989 and order dated 5th August, 1989 by a metropolitan magistrate, Delhi. He filed an appeal which was dismissed by an Additional Sessions Judge, Delhi on 18th January, 1990.2. Being not satisfied with his conviction and sentence Hari Ram has filed this petition.3. Briefly stated the allegation against the petitioner have been that on 23rd April, 1986 he was driving bus No. DEP 5557 in a rash and negligent manner so as to endanger human life and safety and at about 12.30 P.M. near Punjab Tent House, Nazafgarh Road hit scooter DHM-4324 causing the death of Anil Kumar. FIR No. 165 was got registered by ASI J.C. Sharma who after completing the investigation got the accused-petitioner challaned.4....
income-tax Officer Vs. Davinder Arora
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Decided on: Aug-22-1990
Reported in: (1990)35ITD1a(Delhi)
1. This appeal by the revenue is directed against the order of the learned CIT(A),VI, New Delhi dated 17-1-1985 relating to the asst. year 1980-81. There is only one ground in appeal and that is as under:- On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) erred in directing that the depreciation be allowed @ 40% as against 30% allowed by ignoring the fact that depreciation at the enhanced rate of 40% is allowable in terms of I.T. (5th Amendment) Rules, 1980 for asst. year 1981-82 as the amended rules were effective from 24-7-1980.2. On the above ground, we have heard the parties. The issue really before us is as to the date from which the Income-tax (Fifth Amendment) Rules, 1980 should be considered effective so as to entitle the assessee to claim depreciation @ provided therein which is 40%. In this regard, we have considered the submissions of both the sides, along with the authorities cited. In exercise of the powers conferred by Se...
M/S. Punjab Pen House Vs. M/S. Samrat Bicycle Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-22-1990
Reported in: AIR1992Delhi1; ILR1990Delhi549
ORDER1. Plaintiff has filed the present suit against the defendant under 0. 37 of the Code of Civil procedure (hereinafter called 'Code) on the allegations that the plaintiff is a registered partnership firm carrying on business under the name and style of M/ s. Punjab Pen House with Sh. Mohan Lal Ghai as oneof its registered partner. The defendant had been purchasing goods on credit from the plaintiff from time to time and had also been making the payment of the bills. The defendant is then alleged to have purchased goods by three different bills dated 12-9-87, 17-11-87 and 19-11-87 for a total amount of Rs. 6,17,945.80.The defendant made part payment of these bills leaving a balance of Rs. 5,21,294.50 as on 30-7-1988. The defendant had also issued a cheque dated 23-7-1988 drawn on the Punjab National Bank, Asaf Ali Road towards further part payment. But on presentation the cheque was dishonoured.2. While changing and shifting its registered office from the Union Territory of Delhi to...
Shyam M. Sachdev Vs. the State and Another
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-22-1990
Reported in: 1991CriLJ300
Y.K. Sabharwal, J. 1. The wife of the petitioner was daughter of respondent No. 2. She received burn injuries on 21st March, 1989 and died on 23rd March, 1989. On the statement of her father, respondent No. 2, FIR No. 69/89 under Section 498A/304B, IPC was registered an 25th March, 1989 against the petitioner. The petitioner was arrested on 10th April, 1989. The case has been committed to Sessions. 2. While the committal proceedings were pending, respondent No. 2 filed a complaint under Section 6 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, and Section 406 read with Section 34, IPC against the petitioner and his parents. The complaint was filed on 7th July, 1989, inter alia, pleading that several articles which were given before, at the time of marriage and after the marriage, have been unlawfully and illegally retained by the accused persons who have no right to retain the istridhan of the deceased and it has been prayed that summons be issued to the accused persons for offences under Section 6, D...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. National Steel and General Mills (P.) L ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-22-1990
Reported in: [1991]188ITR571(Delhi)
B.N. Kirpal, J.1. The petitioner is seeking reference of the following question to this court : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was correct in law in holding that the assessed's claim for Rs. 2,86,596 was allowable being incidental to the carrying on of business?' 2. There is a dispute between the assessed and the BHEL. The said BHEL was to be supplied some material within a stipulated period which was not done. On account of this, the said BHEL claimed damages amounting to Rs. 2,86,596 by its letter dated March 27, 1976. Representations were made against the demand by the assessed-company but without any success. The sum of Rs. 2,86,596 was debited to the profit and loss account and deduction was claimed. Admittedly, the transaction between the assessed and BHEL was a business transaction and when the assessed failed to meet with its commitment, it became liable to pay the damages. 3. The question which is sought by the Department is only whet...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- Next ›
- Last »