Delhi Court April 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.
National thermal Power Corporation Ltd. Vs. Union of India and Others
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-25-1991
Reported in: (1991)96CTR(Del)140; [1991]192ITR187(Delhi)
B.N. Kirpal, J. 1. The challenge in this writ petition is essentially to the virus of section 115J of the Income-tax Act. Before dealing with the contentions raised, we would like to express our astonishment at the fact that it is a Government corporation which is seeking to challenge the validity of an Act passed at the instance of the Government. Be that as it may, it has been contended that section 115J is vocative of articles 14 and 19 of the Constitution. The averments in this regard is extremely vague, to say the least. It has been stated that this section discriminates against limited companies while, in identical circumstances, other assesseds like partnerships and sole proprietorships are lift untouched by section 115J. No particulars have been given with regard to other categories of assesseds which have been left out. In order to make out a case under article 14, names of the other assesseds, their income and other particulars should have been given. Be that as it may, under...
Municipal Corporation of Delhi (Desu) Vs. Asian Art Printers
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-25-1991
Reported in: 1992(2)ARBLR98(Delhi); 44(1991)DLT390
M.C. Jain, J.(1) These eight appeals are directed against the judgment dated November 21, 1990 delivered by the learned Single Judge whereby the eight petitions under Section 20 of the Arbitration Act treated as suits (Suit Nos. 2026, 2233, 2286, 2273, 2291, 2348, 2642 and 2646 of 1990) were allowed and a direction was given that the arbitration agreements be filed in Court and the learned Single Judge appointed Shri Dalip Singh, Advocate as the sole arbitrator and referred the dispute for his decision. (2) The dispute that has been referred relates to the question as to whether under the tariff issued by the appellant for the year 1990-91, the appellant can charge minimum guarantee charges in addition to the actual consumption charges. (3) According to the learned Single Judge the dispute is covered under Clause 15 of the agreement. The respondent is a consumer of mixed load (HT) and the tariff in respect of mixed load (HT) regarding demand charges and another charges is as under :- M...
M.D. International Inn and anr. Vs. K.L. Sethi
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-25-1991
Reported in: 44(1991)DLT439; 1991RLR319
Santosh Duggal, J. (1) In this revision petition, the order passed by the trial judge is under challenge, whereby leave to defend the suit was declined The suit was under the provisions of Order 37 Cpc, based primarily on a cheque dated 8th September, 1989 for Rs. 27.600.00 , and also on a written contract between the parties, whereby the plaintiff in the suit had undertaken construction work for the defendants, and the mode of payment was settled by means of the said agreement. . (2) According to the plaintiff's case, as per terms of the agreement 20% of the total contract amount was payable to the plaintiff after completion of pit and shaft up to the terrace level. The allegation was that he had completed his work, and then called upon the defendants by means of letter dated 29th August, 1989 to release payment of 20% clearly staling that the work had been completed up to the stage of terrace as per terms of the agreement. It was thereafter that the cheque dated 8th September, 1989 w...
Ravinder Kapoor Ravi Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-25-1991
Reported in: 1991(3)Crimes741; 44(1991)DLT492; 1991(21)DRJ82
V.B. Bansal, J. (1) - Ravindra Kapoor @ Ravi s/o Shri Sadhu Ram was tried for the offence under Sec. 21 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short the Act) by an Additional Sessions Judge, New Delhi. The allegations against him had been that on 29th September 19S6 at 7.00 P.M. at parking place near Kapur Di Hatti and in the area of P.S. Connaught Place was found in possession of 350 grams of Heroin. He was convicted for the said offence and sentenced to R.1. for 10 years with a fine of Rs. 1 lac or in default to undergo R.1. for two years by an Additional Sessions Judge, New Delhi vide judgment and order dated 19th April, 1990.(2) Peeling aggrieved from his conviction and sentence Ravinder Kapoor has filled this appeal.(3) Briefly stated the facts leading to the filing of this appeal are that on 23-9-1986 S I. Lakshmi Chand (Public Witness 2),S.I. Surinder Singh PW4 Si Om Prakash (Public Witness 8), Asi Jagpal Singh, Constable Harbir Singh (Public Witness 7)...
Harish Chandra (India) Pvt. Ltd. Vs. the Corporation Bank and Others
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-24-1991
Reported in: AIR1992Delhi279
ORDER1. I have heard arguments for deciding these three applications.2. The suit has been brought seeking permanent injunction restraining the defendants from encashing the bank guarantee No. 17 of 1988 dated November 12, 1988, issued by defendant No. I in favor of defendant No. 2 and from forfeiting the amount of Rs. 9.42 lakhs under the said bank guarantee and also restraining defendants 2 and 3 from opening the second sealed enve lope under which the tender documents were submitted by the plaintiff except before the Hon'ble Court or in the presence of any officer to be appointed by this Court.3. Defendant No. I is the Corporation Bank which had issued the bank guarantee. Defendant No. 2 is the Superintending Engineer of Andhra Pradesh, who had invited the tenders, and had opened the tenders and defendant No. 3 is the Government of Andhra Pradesh. In fact, the Superintending Engineer is not a legal entity for being imp leaded as a defendant and it is only defendant No 3, Government o...
Bharat Bhushan Vs. H.B. Portfolio Leasing Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-24-1991
Reported in: ILR1992Delhi193
P.K. Bahri, J. 1. In this suit seeking a declaration that the plaintiff was and continues to be a director of the defendant-company and also for declaring that the plaintiff has not incurred any disqualification under section 283(1)(g) of the Companies Act, thereby vacating the office of the director of the defendant-company and for a perpetual injunction restraining the defendant from holding that the plaintiff has vacated the office as director and also restraining the defendant from obstructing the plaintiff from discharging his duties and from exercising his powers and privileges as a director of the defendant-company, the plaintiff has moved the application for grant of an interim injunction till the disposal of the suit restraining the defendant from holding that the plaintiff has vacated the office as director and restraining the defendant from obstructing the plaintiff from discharging his duties and exercising his powers and privileges as a director of the defendant-company. 2...
Sri Ram and ors. Vs. Union of India
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-24-1991
Reported in: 45(1991)DLT663
Sunanda Bhandare, J.(1) This Regular First Appeal is directed against the judgment and decree of the Additional District Judge dated 17th May, 1984 passed in L.A.C. No. 216/79. (2) The land of the appellants comprising of Khasra Nos. 414 (0-8) 422/1 (0-6), 423/2/1 (2-13), 425/2/1 (1-12), 426/1 (1.9), 428/1/1 (2-0) admeasuring 8 big has 9 bids was situated in the Revenue Estate of Village Ali, was acquired vide Notification under Sections 4, 6 and 17 of the Land Acquisition Act dated 10th April, 1973. The Collector vide his award dated 29.11.1973 fixed the market value of the land at Rs. 3.500.00 per bigha and allowed 6% per annum interest on the market value from 27.5.1970 because the appellants were dispossessed from the land three years before actual date of issue of notification dated 10.4.1973. Being dissatisfied with the award, the appellants filed a petition for reference under Section 18 of the Act claiming market value at the rate of Rs. 12,000.00 per bigha besides damages, int...
Manglam Cement Co. Ltd. and anr. Vs. Assistant Collector and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-23-1991
Reported in: 47(1992)DLT313
C.M. Nayar, J.(1) This Letters Patent Appeal is directed against thejudgment of the learned Single Judge dated 3.5.1989 in a writ petition filedunder Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The brief facts are asfollows:(2) Appellant No. 1 is a company incorporated under the CompaniesAct 1956 and is engaged in the manufacture of cement having a totalcapacity of manufacture of 4 lacs tonnes of cement in a year.The factory of the appellant was established in the year 1980-81 andstarted production of cement thereafter. A Press Note was issued by theGovernment of India on 28.2.1982 announcing certain benefits to newly installed cement units. Under the scheme announced in this Press Note, the existingcement units were required to supply 66.6% of their installed capacity as levycement at a controlled price, however the new units which started commercialproduction after 1.1.1982 and units which were designated as sick units wererequired to give 50 /o of their installed capacity as levy ceme...
M.P. Rawla Vs. S.D. Tyagi
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-23-1991
Reported in: 44(1991)DLT434
P.N. Nag, J.(1) This revision petition has been directed under Section 25B(8) of the Delhi Rent Control Act against the order dated 20th April, 1987 passed by Shri AX. Garg, Additional Rent Controller, Delhi whereby the petition for eviction of the tenant-respondent on bonafide grounds under Section 14(l)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act has been dismissed. (2) The brief facts set out in the petition for ejectment are that the petitioner owns a house No. G-14, Lajpat Nagar, New Delhi. In 1976 when he was transferred to Delhi, while he was working in Northern Railway as a Senior Signal and Telecommunication Engineer, the petitioner-landlord filed a petition for ejectment of the another tenant, viz.,Shri R.C.Sehgal, of the first floor of the aforesaid house and he got possession thereof on 1st May, 1977 and the petitioner was living on the first floor till then. However, he chose not to file eviction petition against the present respondent-tenant at that time. After getting possession of...
Collector of Customs Vs. Ajanta Offset Packaging Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Apr-22-1991
Reported in: (1991)(56)ELT771TriDel
1. These appeals have been filed against the order Nos. 627-628-DLH/84, dated 16th May, 1984 passed by the Collector of Customs (Appeals), New Delhi. Since the issue in both these appeals is common, they are being disposed of by a common order.2. The facts of the case in brief are that on 17-12-1982 the respondents entered into a contract with the local agent of the German suppliers for the import of Chromograph C-399 colour spanner. The condition of the contract was that the equipment was to be initially imported on behalf of the supplier for display in Pamex TF '83 exhibition to be held in January, 1983 in New Delhi and after closure of the exhibition it was to be cleared for delivery to the respondents after completion of Customs formalities. In pursuance of the contract the respondents established a letter of credit on 21st December, 1983 in favour of the suppliers. On arrival of the goods by air at New Delhi they were cleared free of duty for exhibition purposes against Bill of E...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »