Delhi Court May 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.
Joginder Singh Vs. K.C. Johorey and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-29-1991
Reported in: 44(1991)DLT658
D.K. Jain, J. (1) The petitioner has approached this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for quashing of the orders of the Financial Commissioner and Competent Authority (Slum) dated 29th April, 1974 and 6th February, 1973 respectively, declining to grant permission for the institution of the suit or order for eviction of respondent No. 3 from the premises bearing municipal No. 2209, Shankar Gali, Bazar Sita Ram, Delhi. (2) The petitioner is the owner and respondent No. 3 is his tenant in the said premises. The petitioner filed an application under Section 19 of the Slum Area (Improvement ond Clearance) Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) for permission to institute a suit or proceedings for obtaining a decree or order for eviction of respondent No. 3 on various grounds. The main grounds being ; (a) the premises in question was let out for the purpose of residence but the same had been converted by the said respondent into business premises by using the same...
Sayed NizamuddIn Mohamad Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-29-1991
Reported in: 45(1991)DLT175
V.B. Bansal, J. (1) On 20th December, 1989 Ms. Nisha Sahai Achuthan, Joint Secretary to the Govt. of India, Department of Revenue, Ministry of Finance while exercising the powers under Sec. 3(1) of the Prevention of Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) passed an order for the detention of Sayed Farooq Mohd. @ Farrooq @ Sayyed Farooq Isamuddin @ Anand with a view to preventing him from engaging in abetting and transportation of Narcotic Drugs. This order of detention was served upon Sayed Farooq Mohd. on 15th February, 1990 when the grounds of detention along with the documents relied upon in support of the detention were also served upon him. Declaration order dated 1st March, 1990 was issued by K. Prakash Anand, Addl. Secretary to the Government of India, specially empowered officer in exercise of the powers conferred under Sec. 10(1) of the Act. (2) A reference was made to the Advisory Board for opinion and after...
Om Parkash @ Omi @ Fauzi Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-29-1991
Reported in: 1991CriLJ1980; 1991(3)Crimes180; 44(1991)DLT555
S.C. Jain, J. (1) Facts giving rise to this appeal are that on 1.11.1987 at 4.45 p.m., a secret information received by Si Laxaminarain Rao, when he was on patrol duty along with other police officials near Mahipalpur Chowk that one Om Parkash @ Omi @ Fauzi resident of village Bijwasan who was dealing in sale of charas/opium would go to Bijwasan from national highway along with charas. On receipt of this information, Shri Laxami Narain Rao requested some persons from public to join the raiding party but they. refused. As the time was short, a raiding party consisting of police officials was organized and the party proceeded towards national highway near Mahipalpur crossing. Nakabandi was arranged there. At 5.10 p.m. on the pointing of the informer, Om Parkash @ Omi (a) Fauzi was apprehended. He was having a bag in his right hand. The secret information was disclosed to him and it was told to him that they would take his search and that if he so wanted the search could be taken in the p...
Amarnath Chiranji Lal and Co. Vs. Ferro Alloys Corporation Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-28-1991
Reported in: 46(1992)DLT476
Anil Dev Singh, J.(1) -THIS order will dispose of two petitions under Section 20 of the Arbitration Act. 1940 (for short, the Act), which are numbered as.Civil Suit No. 1212-A/91 and 1213-A/91.(2) The facts lie in a very narrow compass. The parties entered into two contracts dated 1.3.1989 and 18.3.1989 whereby the petitioner was to execute the construction work of the following projects of the respondents located at Bhadrak, Orissa: (a) A housing colony comprising 132 units. (b) A school building, including Nun's residence. The work was to be completed within a period of one year. However, the time for completion of the same was extended up to 26th January, 1991. (3) It is alleged in the petition that the work was delayed because of various reasons, some of them attributable to climatic conditions and the other related to man made situations like Ram Janambhoomi and Mandal agitation. It is further alleged that the respondent committed various violations of the terms of the contracts w...
Kavita Trehan and ors. Vs. Balsara Hygiene Products Limited
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-28-1991
Reported in: AIR1992Delhi92; 1991RLR544
Anil Dev Singh, J.(1) Two questions arise in this suit. The first one being whether the suit is liable to;be dismissed in view of Section 69 of the Indian Partnership Act, partnership being un-registered on the date of filing of the suit and in case the suit is to be dismissed, the second question would, be whether the parties are to be relegated to be original situation prevailing on March 27. 1989, the date the suit was and an ex-parte order granted permittiag the plaiatiffs. agents to sell the goods defendant principal. In order to appreciate these questions, it will be necessary to recount the relevant facts.(2) The plaintiffs instituted the present suit against defendant in the court of senior Sub Judge, Chandigarh. In this suit, the plaintiffs, defendant seek a declaration that they being clearing and forwarding agents of defendant have lien over the goods of the latter which were lying in their possession account of their outstanding outstanding commission. Apart from this, the ...
Shakuntala B. Moda Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-28-1991
Reported in: 45(1991)DLT134; 1991(21)DRJ214; 1991(1)DRJ(Suppl)497
Mohd. Shamim, J.(1) Petitioners through the present writ petitions have challenged the legality and the validity of the notifications No. F. 7(2)86 L&B;(l)22025-39,dated 23rd day of December, 1986 issued by the Land and Building Department, Delhi Administration, Delhi under Sections 4 and 17 of the land Acquisition Act, (hereinafter referred to as the Act in order to facilitate reference) where by land measuring 73 bighas.02 bids was situated in village Rangpuri, Delhi, fully detailed in the above said notification belonging to the petitioners was acquired by the Government.(2) All the above petitions are being disposed of through the present judgment as common questions of law and fact are likely to arise while disposing them of.(3) Learned counsel for the petitioners Mr N S. Dalal has vehemently contended before this court that there was no application of mind before (he issue of the impugned notification Neither there is any reason nor justification for the application of the provis...
Track Parts Corporation Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: May-27-1991
Reported in: (1992)(38)ECC155
1. By the impugned order, the Collector of Customs (Appeals) Calcutta, disposed of ten appeals filed by M/s. Track Parts Corporation. However, before the Tribunal only eight appeals have been filed. In response to a query by the Bench, it was clarified by Shri A.S. Sunder Rajan, Consultant for the appellant, that the present appeals were in respect of the matters covered by serial numbers 1 and 4 to 10 of para 1 of the impugned order. In other words, this order does not cover Asstt.Collector's Order Nos. Section 107-827/89 ARS and Section 107-750/89 ARS, both dated 27-11-1989 appearing at serial Nos. 2 and 3 of para 1 of the impugned order.2. The appeals involve a common issue and were, therefore, heard together and are disposed of by this common order. The appellants imported consignments of Hose Assemblies made of vulcanised rubber other than hardened rubber with end fittings. The goods were classified under heading 4009.50 of the First Schedule to the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 (here...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Multiplan India (P.) Ltd.
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Decided on: May-27-1991
Reported in: (1991)38ITD320(Delhi)
1. By this reference application moved under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 the Commissioner of Income-tax, Delhi-II, New Delhi has required the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal to refer the following questions, stated to be questions of law, arising out of its order dated 22nd October, 1990 in ITA No. 800 (Del.)/1989 relating to the assessment year 1984-85, for the esteemed opinion of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi :- 1. Whether, the provisions of Rule 19 of Appellate Tribunal Rules, 1963, entitle the ITAT to straightaway dismiss an appeal filed within the statutory limit, on account of non-appearance of the appellant's representative? 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Id. ITAT is right in law in dismissing the departmental appeal, for default in appearance, by exercising of powers conferred under Rule 19 of the Appellate Tribunal Rules, 1963, ignoring the provisions of Rule 24 of the aforesaid Rules, which specifically provide for expane hea...
Mid East Shipping Co. (P.) Ltd. Vs. Asstt. Commissioner of
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Decided on: May-27-1991
Reported in: (1992)40ITD611(Delhi)
1. This appeal is directed against the order dated 20-3-1990 passed by the Commissioner of Income-tax under Section 263 of the IT Act, 1961.2. For the A.Y. 1985-86 original return was filed by the assessee on 29-11-85 declaring a loss of Rs. 95,210. A revised return was filed on 20-10-1987 declaring a loss of Rs. 1,63,360 and assessment under Section 143(3) was completed by the ITO on 30-12-87 on a total income of Rs. 56,121. The ITO allowed relief to the assessee under Clauses (a) and (b) of Sub-section (1) of Section 80HHC.3. On a perusal of the assessment record pertaining to A.Y. 1985-86 the CIT noticed that in the immediately preceding asst. year 1984-85, there was actually no 'export turnover' for the purpose of Section 80HHC(1)(b). He was, therefore, of the view that the assessee was not entitled to relief at 5 per cent of incremental export turnover. He further noticed that export turnover of Rs. 30,90,692 for the asst.year under consideration was taken to be the incremental t...
Bailister Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-27-1991
Reported in: 47(1992)DLT489
V.B. Bansal, J. (1) By way of this revision petition Bailister has challenged his conviction under Secs. 304-A and 279 Indian Penal Code recorded by a MetropolitanMagistrate, Delhi on 8/10/1986 who was sentenced to R.I. for one year with a fine of Rs. 1000.00 for offence under Sec. 304-A and R.I. for three months with a fine of Rs. 500.00 for the offence under Sec. 279 IPC.(2) On appeal the order of conviction was upheld but the order of sentence was modified inasmuch as the sentence under S. 304-A Indian Penal Code was reduced to nine months.(3) Still being not satisfied the petitioner has filed the present petition.(4) Sho Police Station Civil Lines filed a challan against the petitioner in Fir No. 6 dated 2.1.1979. According to the prosecution story on 2/01/1979 Dd No. 70-A was recorded in P.S. Civil Lines on the basis of the information received from the police control room that Bus No. DLP-6965was involved in an accident near Water Works No. 2, Chandrawal near Majnuka Tila in whic...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »