Delhi Court February 1991 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.
Sukhmal Kumar Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-21-1991
Reported in: [1991]190ITR205(Delhi)
1. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned order of the Commissioner of Income-tax dated March 16, 1990, annexure 'A'. The petition was disposed of by the learned Commissioner rejecting the petitioner's contention that he was served with a notice of hearing for October 28, 1985, on October 26, 1985. The learned Commissioner did not decide the matter on merits. Besides rejecting the petitioner's contention that the notice of hearing was served on October 26, 1985, the learned Commissioner further observed that, moreover, at this distance of time, he saw no point in interfering as there was no reasonable hope that the required evidence would not be produced the petitioner failed to produce on all earlier occasions. Such an expression was not called for without giving the petitioner an opportunity of producing evidence. Whether the petitioner would be successful in producing the evidence cannot be looked into without giving an opportunity for that. Thus, for this re...
Vasant Surgico Medical Centre Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Municipal Corporation of D ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-21-1991
Reported in: 44(1991)DLT165; 1991RLR278
Mahinder Narain, J.(1) By my order dated 18-12-1990 I directed that The Zonal Engineer of the M.C.D. should be present in Court .along vith the sanctioned building plan today and also directed that written statement be filed by the M.C.D.(2) Zonal Engineer is not present in Court nor Is counsel for the defendant present. On 18.121990 counsel for the M.C.D, stated that though orders of this court granting time to the M.C.D. for filing the written statement bad been communicated to M.C.D. yet no steps were taken and no instructions were given to the counsel to file the written statement inasmuch as the M.C.D. has not filed the written statement despite repeated opportunities, being given to file the written statement on 19.3.1990, 2.5.1990, 3.8.1990, 7.11.1990. 12.11.1990 and 18.12.1990 no written statement has been filed.(3) In the circumstances I think the instant case is a fit one where I should exercise the powers under Order 8 Rnl.e 10 Civil Procedure Code .and decree the suit.(4) T...
Rai Singh Vs. State and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-21-1991
Reported in: 43(1991)DLT530
V.B. Bansal, J.(1) Rai Singh has filed this revision petition against his conviction under Section 7 read with S. 16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (hereinafter to be referred to as the Act) and the sentence of S.I. for six months with a fine of Rs. 1000.00 or in default to undergo further S.I. for three months. (2) Briefly stated the facts leading to the filing of this revision petition are that the petitioner Rai Singh was running a Kiryana shop at premises No. 1A/2 Underhill Road, Delhi and was keeping different articles including red chillies for sale. On 5th September, 1973 Food Inspector S.D. Sharma visited the aforesaid shop and found the petitioner displaying different articles for sale. He was unable to produce any license for running the said business. Food Inspector S.D. Sharma after disclosing his identity and intention of purchasing a sample of red chillies for analysis purchased 450 grams of chillies for Rs. 2.70 P. The purchased chillies were put in six...
Leelaram Vs. State and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-21-1991
Reported in: 43(1991)DLT509; 1992RLR38
V.B. Bansal, J.(1) This order will dispose of Criminal Revision of the petitioner Leela Ram, thereby challenging his conviction under Section 7 read with Section 16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act 1954, (hereinafter referred to as the Act) and the sentence of rigorous imprisonment for six months with a fine of Rs. ICOO.00 or in. default of payment of fine to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for three months for having sold Ajwayan which on analysis was found to be adulterated. (2) Briefly stated the facts leading to the filing of this revision petition are as under: (3) Leela Ram petitioner was running Kiryana business in shop No. 7, Old Market, Malviya Nagar, New Delhi. M.L. Sharma Food Inspector accompanied by Food Inspector T.R. Tuli visited the business premises of the petitioner on 26th December, 1975 at about noon time where he was present. The Food Inspector expressed his desire of purchasing a sample of Ajwayan out of the different articles displayed for sale at...
Mohinder Singh Bindra Vs. M.R. Jalan
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-21-1991
Reported in: 47(1992)DLT173
C.L. Chaudhary, J. (1) This revision petition under Section 25B of Delhi Rent Control Act is directed against the judgment dated.29.5.1986 passed by Shri B.B. Chaudhary, Additional Rent Controller, Delhi.(2) The petitioner filed a petition for eviction against the respondent under Section 14(1)(e) read with Section 25-B of Delhi Rent Control Act,The case pleaded by the petitioner was that the petitioner was residing at Jabalpur with his family. The petitioner Along with the members of his family wanted to shift his residence from Jabalpur to Delhi. It was stated that they were living at Jabalpur in a tenanted premises and they had no business involvement left at Jabalpur. The petitioner, M.S. Bindra was a heart-patient and the medical facilities regarding heart-ailment at Jabalpur were not adequate and the petitioner would have much better facilities at Delhi. The petitioner and the members of his family have business involvements in Delhi. Both the sons of the petitioner have been mar...
Pran Nath Gandhi Vs. Makrand Sarup
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-21-1991
Reported in: 44(1991)DLT120
B.N. Kirpal, J. (1) The respondent had filed a suit against the petitioner here in for an injunction in the year 1966. An ad interim ex parte injunction was granted by the Subordinate Judge restraining the petitioner from raising any construction in the premises which were under the tenancy of the petitioner. (2) it appears that during the pendency of the suit an application was filed on 20th May, 1968 under Order 39 rule 2A alleging that the petitioner here in had committed a breach of the order of injunction. (3) By order dated 5th October, 1978 the said suit was dismissed. The injunction which had been granted earlier was also vacated. It, however, appears that no formal orders were passed on the application under Order 39 rule 2A. Thereafter the plaintiff filed two applications under Section 151 Civil Procedure Code . praying that the application under Order 39 rule 2A be decided. These applications were filed on 29th January, 1979 and 22nd January, 1980, namely, long after the dec...
Collector of Central Excise Vs. Perfect Engineers
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Feb-20-1991
Reported in: (1991)LC277Tri(Delhi)
1. Collector of Central Excise, Indore, has filed an appeal being aggrieved from the order passed by the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), New Delhi. The said appeal was received in the-Registry on 21-5-1990. Simultaneously a stay application was also filed. A notice of hearing dated 23-5-1990 was sent by registered A.D. Post and the stay application was listed for hearing on 26-6-1990. When the matter came up for hearing on the said date, the Revenue was represented by Shri M.S. Sawhney, SDR and the Bench had pointed out that in terms of Rule 28 of the CEGAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982, the stay applications should have been supported with an affidavit and on the request of the SDR the matter was adjourned to 3rd August 1990 and the Bench further ordered that a copy of the order passed on 26-6-1990 be sent to the Collector of Central Excise, Indore and to the Chief Departmental Representative, CEGAT by name to ensure that "such lapses do not occur in future, and the valuable time of...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Bharat Carbon and Ribbon Mfg. Co. P. Lt ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-20-1991
Reported in: (1991)95CTR(Del)78; [1991]192ITR221(Delhi)
B.N. Kirpal, J. 1. The petitioner seeks reference of the following two questions to this court : '(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was correct in law in confirming that a contingent liability which is not acknowledged even as a debt by the assessed qualifies for deduction under the Income-tax Act (2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was correct in law in holding that the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of India Molasses Co., Pvt. Ltd. : [1959]37ITR66(SC) are not applicable to this case and the case is covered by the principles laid down in Kedarnath Jute Mfg. Co., Ltd. : [1971]82ITR363(SC) by ignoring the material fact that excise duty in this case is neither determined nor owed as a debt by the assessed but is merely a contingent liability not provided for in the books of account ?' 2. It appears that carbon paper was subjected to excise ...
Tata Projects Limited Vs. N.E.i. Projects (India) Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-20-1991
Reported in: 1991(1)ARBLR419(Delhi); 1991(20)DRJ379
D.P. Wadhwa, J. (1) These arc two applications filed in the petition (though registered as Suit) under Section 20 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act' or even the 'Arbitration Act'). First- application is by the petitioner and is under Section 41 read with Schedule 11 of the Act and also under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 and Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short the 'Code'). The other application is by the respondent filed under Section 41 read with Schedule Ii of the Act and Order 39 Rule 4. Order 38 and Section 151 of the Code.(2) The petitioner filed the suit and the application on November 27, 1990. When this came up before me for admission on November 29, 1990, I passed the following order : 'THIS is a petition under Section 20 of the Arbitration Act. As I look at the relevant clause relating to settlement of disputes by arbitration, the award may be ultimately a foreign award. However, at this stage. I will leave the question open, and iss...
Parkash Singh Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-20-1991
Reported in: 43(1991)DLT532
V.B. Bansal, J.(1) By way of this Revision Petition Parkash Singh has challenged his conviction under section 9(1)(a) of the Opium Act and sentence of rigors imprisonment for three months with a fine of Rs. 500.00 or in default to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for one month. He was convicted on 21st February, 1979 and the order of sentence was passed on 5th March, 1979 by a Metropolitan Magistrate. His appeal was also dismissed by an Addl. Sessions Judge Delhi on 9th April, 1979. (2) Briefly stated the facts leading to the filing of this revision petition are that on 16th November, 1977, S.I. Rajpal Singh, who was accompanied by police officials Dewan Singh, Bhopal Singh and Devinder Nath, while on patrol duty, organized a raiding party and from the military colour 'Jhola', which the petitioner was carrying, 450 gms of opium besides 9.100 kg. of Charas was recovered. 50 gms was separated as sample and thereafter the sample and the remaining opium were converted into separate pa...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »