Delhi Court September 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.
Anil Kumar Bishnoi Vs. Inspecting Assistant
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Decided on: Sep-20-1990
Reported in: (1991)39ITD413(Delhi)
1. The assessee, an individual, carrying on the business of dewatering of sites, had preferred his appeal, aggrieved by the order of CIT(A) dt. 1-7-1987, in not allowing the deduction of Rs. 2,40,746 as terminal allowance in respect of the dewatering equipment washed away in the flood and in treating the compensation received from the insurance company towards the loss of the dewatering equipment as income under Section 41(2) of the I.T. Act and as capital gains under Section 45 of the Act, in case, the amount exceeded the written down value of the equipment.2. Sh. Ganesan, the learned counsel for the assessee submitted that, the assessee carried on the business of dewatering the various construction sites and for this business, he received his service charges and also the rental for the dewatering equipment. The assessee, in the previous year relevant to the asst. year under appeal, was dewatering the construction site at Maharani Barrage, Tripura and at Bhim Barrage, Bihar. On 26-4-...
Sarvesh Kumar Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-20-1990
Reported in: 42(1990)DLT395; II(1990)DMC583; 1990(19)DRJ222
V.B. Bansal, J. (1) Sarvesh Kumar petitioner has moved this application under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for release on bail for the offence under Section 302 Indian Penal Code in Fir 161/90, Police Station Krshan Nagar, Delhi. (2) Uma, a resident of village Kasganj. Etah (UP) was married to the petitioner on 16th February. 1990. After her marriage she started residing with the petitioner, her husband at Delhi. (3) During the night between 30th April and 1st May, 1990 Smt Uma received burn injuries at the house of the petitioner She was removed to L.N.J. P. Hospital by her father-in-law Harkishan at 2 20 A.M. of 1st May, 1990. She sustained 85 per cent burns and died in the hospital on 3rd May, 1990. After the registration of the case the petitioner hai been arrested and at present is in custody challan has already been filed and the case is pending before I he learned Metropolitan Magistrate. (4) Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that it is an unfortu...
Municipal Corporation of Delhi Vs. Delhi Municipal Karamchari Ekta Uni ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-20-1990
Reported in: 43(1991)DLT202; [1991(62)FLR616]
Arun B. Saharya, J. (1) By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged an award dated 21st of March, 1987 made by the Industrial Tribunal No. Iii, Delhi. (2) The award has been made on a dispute between the parties in respect of a circular No. 3267/DOI dated 22nd of December, 1975 issued by the petitioner-corporation directing that no municipal employee shall be allowed to act as a defense assistant in more than one case during a year. (3) Employees of the Corporation, so far as conduct of enquiry and disciplinary action is concerned, are governed by the Delhi Municipal Corporation (Control & Appeal) Regulations, 1959. Regulation 8 prescribes the procedure for imposing penalty. Clause (5) of Regulation 8 is relevant for the present purpose and is set out below :- '(5)The Disciplinary Authority may nominate any person to present the case in support of the charges before the Inquiring Authority. The municipal officer or other municipal empl...
Company Law Board Vs. Ganesh Flour Mills Company Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-19-1990
Reported in: [1991]72CompCas459(Delhi)
Y.K. Sabhirwal, J. 1. Company Petition No. 45 of 71 has been filed by the Company Law Board under sections 397, 398 read with sections 401 and 402 of the companies Act, 1956 (for short, 'the Act'), against Ganesh Flour Mills Co. Ltd. and others. The prayers made in the petition are as under : (a) remove the present board of directors, respondents Nos. 2 to 9, from the office of directors; (b) appoint an administrator or administrators or persons on the board of directors or to pass an appropriate order for the regulation of the conduct of the company's affairs in the future; (c) termination of the agreements entered into between the company and respondents Nos. 10, 11 and 14 appointing them as purchase and selling agents on payments of commission at 3/4 percent. With retrospective effect from the date of execution of the said agreements; (d) termination of the agreement for payment of 1/2 percent. commission to Shri Kripa Narayan and his brothers on the loans advanced to the company...
The Manager, Arya Samaj Girls Higher Secondary School and anr. Vs. Sun ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-19-1990
Reported in: 43(1991)DLT139; 1991LabIC1822
Arun B. Saharya, J. (1) By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners have prayed, inter alia, that a writ of certiorari maybe issued for quashing an order dated 26th of May, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as the impugned order) made by the Delhi School Tribunal. (2) On 4th of September, 1976, respondent No. 1 was appointed as temporary Principal of the Arya Samaj Girls Higher Secondary School, hereinafter referred to as the School. Certain irregularities committed by her were noticed by the Managing Committee of the School. The Managing Committee constituted a Disciplinary Committee for taking disciplinary action against her under Rules 118 and 120 of the Delhi Education Rules, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules). (3) TWENTY-FIVE charges were framed against respondent No. 1. She was called upon by a notice dated 24th of December, 1977 to submit a written state- ment of her defense. She was placed under suspension during enquiry. An Enquiry Off...
Collector of Central Excise Vs. Gujarat Phenolic Synthetics (P)
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Sep-18-1990
Reported in: (1991)(33)LC154Tri(Delhi)
1. In this case the collector of center Excise vadodra initially filed a consolidated appeal (registered as E/A NO 2763/86-C)againts order -in appeal NO M-757-758/BD -367 -368 /86 passed by the collector of central Excise (Appeals ) Bombay issued on 28.8.1986 the collector (Appeals )"s order was received by the Collector of central Excise Vadodara on 4.9.1986 The consolidated appeal was received in the Tribunal (WRB) on 27.11.1986. The Collector (Appeals) had, by the impugned order, disposed of two appeals of the respondents against two orders-in-original dated 13.7.1983 and 23.2.1984 passed by the Assistant Collector of Central Excise. Division-1, Baroda. The Collector (Appeals) proceeded to decide both the appeals by a common order by observing, "Accordingly personal hearing was fixed for 30.12.1985. The appellants vide their letter dated 24. 12.1985 requested to decide the appeals on the basis of the evidence already furnished by them. Accordingly, 1 propose to decide both the appe...
Prem Rice and Gen. Mills Vs. Income-tax Officer
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Decided on: Sep-18-1990
Reported in: (1991)38ITD585(Delhi)
1. Since a common dispute is raised in all these appeals, pertaining to assessment years 1979-80, 1981-82 and 1982-83, whether assessee's claim regarding deductions under sections 80HH and 80J could be allowed when ten or more persons did not work throughout the year all these appeals were heard together and are disposed of by this consolidated order for the sake of convenience.2. There is no dispute about the fact that the assessee which is a registered partnership firm, is engaged in the manufacture/production of rice and for the industry as such deduction is admissible. The only dispute is whether required number of labourers were working in the manufacturing concern of the assessee. For the assessment year 1979-80 when the assessee's claim was not allowed by the ITO, the matter came before the AAC. The AAC allowed the assessee's claim for that year.Then the Revenue came before the Tribunal. The Tribunal set aside the matter to the file of the AAC with a direction to him to readjud...
Brij Bhushan Gupta Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-18-1990
Reported in: 42(1990)DLT537; 1991(20)DRJ31
N.N. Goswami, J.(1) The question referred to the Division Bench by a learned Single Judge of this Court is as to whether Army Welfare Housing Organisation (for short 'A WHO') is a State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India and is such is amenable to writ jurisdiction of High Court.(2) In order to appreciate this question we have looked into memorandum of article of association of the society as A WHO is a society registered under the Societies Act, 1860. The name of the society is Army Welfare Housing Organisation. The registered office of A WHO is to remain within the territory of Delhi and was located in room Nos. 208, 209 and 211, 2nd floor. South Block, Adjutant General Branch, Army Headquarters, New Delhi. The aims and objects of the A WHO are : (A)To promote housing scheme as welfare measure in the army/ ex servicemen to provide cheap houses to them at place of their choice in India and to stare pilot project in Delhi and its selected towns immediately; (...
Seetha Lakshmi Krishnan Vs. Gian Parkash Etc.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-18-1990
Reported in: II(1992)ACC145; 1993ACJ206; 47(1992)DLT70; 1990RLR510
M.L. Varma, J.(1) This is a regular First Appeal against the orderdated 20.5.75 of the. Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Delhi, (hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal) on an application under Section 110A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). This application had been made by the appellants herein claiming compensation of Rs.2,00,000.00in all on account of the death of one Shri S. Krishnan. It was registered as suitNo. 234/70. The Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs. 37,950.00only as compensation. The Tribunal also ordered payment of interest at the rate of 6% perineum from the date of the award till the date of realisation.(2) In this appeal filed on 18.10.75 the award has been challenged on various grounds by the appellants. It is worth-noting that in ground No. 5 of the Grounds of Appeal the appellants took the stand that the compensation payable to them comes to more than Rs. 2,50,000.00 and have claimed that thereforee the Tribunal ought to have awarded t...
Prakash Kaur Vs. Everest Construction Co.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-18-1990
Reported in: 1990RLR506
Mahinder Narain, J. (1) By this order, I propose to deal with the preliminary objection which has been taken by the defendant that this Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the suit. (2) The plaintiff asserts that an agreement was entered into between the plaintiff and the defendant. This agreement was entered into at Bombay on 13 10.1981. This postulated that defendant will sell a flat in a proposed building which was to be constructed at Prabha Devi, Bombay. It is not disputed between the parties that on 13.10.1981 when the agreement was entered into the building was not in existence. At the time of entering into that agreement, plaintiff had paid a sum of Rs. 12,875.00 to the defendant. (3) The pff. asserts that the deft. is denying the existence of the aforesaid agreement, and that the deft. is refusing to specifically perform that agreement, illegally, and the pff. seeks a declaration only that the agreement dated 13.10.1981 continues to exist. (4) The preliminary objection whic...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- Next ›
- Last »