Delhi Court October 1992 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.
Shri NagIn Chand JaIn Vs. Union of India and Others
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-16-1992
Reported in: 49(1993)DLT560; 1993(42)ECC214
ORDER1. This petition has been moved by one Nagin Chand Jain for issue of a writ of habeas corpus under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India for issue of a direction for release of the petitioner and for quashment of the detention order dated 2-1-1992 passed against him under section 3(1) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 (hereinafter referred to as COFEPOSA for the sake of brevity). 2. Brief facts which gave rise to the present petition are as under that on receipt of an intelligence that a huge quantity of contraband silver was being transported to Delhi by Mahindra Jeep bearing registration No. MP-09A-9007, the officers of Directorate of Revenue Intelligence, Delhi Zone intercepted the said vehicle on Delhi Mathura Road, Sarai Khwaja Police Check Post at about 16.00 hrs. on 16-12-1991 along with its two occupants namely Shri Subhash Chandra Bhandari and Shri Dinesh Sharma. On search of the said vehicle it resulted in the...
Atma Devi Vs. Harbhajan Singh
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-16-1992
Reported in: 48(1992)DLT603
P.K. Bahri, J.(1) The appellant, Atma Devi, has filed this appeal seeking setting aside of the judgment and decree dated May 15, 1980 by which suit brought by the respondents seeking relief of specific performance of the agreement of sale has been decreed. (2) The facts leading to the filing of this appeal, in brief, are that the appellant had purchased a Government built quarter bearing municipal No. 4A/37, Old Rajinder Nagar, New Delhi with leasehold rights of the land measuring 85. 9 sq. yds. vide Lease Deed dated July 16, 1959. Vide agreement (Ex. P-l) dated January 8, 1976 the appellant entered into an agreement for selling the said property in favor of Harbhajan Singh, his brother Jaswant Singh and their mother Bhagwanti for a total sale consideration of Rs. 65,000.00 out of which Rs. 15,000.00 were paid before the Sub-Registrar at the time of execution of the receipt (Ex. P-2) which was duly registered on the said date. (3) Shri Santokh Singh, PW-1bad brought about the said tran...
Sunil Raj and Co. Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Municipal Corporation of Delhi and anr ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-16-1992
Reported in: 48(1992)DLT621; 1992(24)DRJ521; 1992RLR553
P.K. Bahri, J.(1) The short question which arises in this writ petition is as to whether the petitioner is liable to deposit the disputed property tax in respect of the assessment year commencing from 1986 before his nine house-tax appeals filed before the District Judge under Section 169 of the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act (hereinafter called the Act') can be heard. The matter is now covered by the judgment of the Supreme Court in Shyam Kishore & Others Vs . Municipal Corporation of Delhi & Another, : AIR1992SC2279 .(2) Before we analyze the aforesaid judgment we may briefly give the facts of this case. The petitioner took on perpetual lease a plot of land measuring 2200 sq. yards vide perpetual lease deed dated February 7. 1981 and building plans were sanctioned in August 1984 and the construction of building was commenced in October 1984 and it was completed in 1986. A notice dated March 27, 1986 issued under Section 126 of the Act was served on the petitioner proposing to increa...
Amrik Singh Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-16-1992
Reported in: 1992(24)DRJ379
J.K. Mehra, J.(1) This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner feeling aggrieved on his being ignored for promotion from Inspector Grade Ii Inspector Grade 1. The contentions urged at the bar on both sides indicate that the petitioner was not considered for promotion and in preference his juniors, namely respondents 5 to 8 were promoted. All these gentlemen have since retired. It is contended by Mr. Dhir that the ACRs for the year 1981 and 1982 were spoiled and he got adverse remarks as a consequence of personal vindictiveness and bias which Mr. G.D. Shukla entertained against the petitioner. It is further contended by Mr. Dhir that in respect of year 1982, the adverse remarks which are noted at the back of the last page were never communicated to him and even the remarks which were communicated were so communicated after a considerable delay of about 6 months whereas according to rules any adverse report should be communicated as soon as possible and as per the internal instruc...
Ravi Gupta Vs. Vidya Wati
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-16-1992
Reported in: 48(1992)DLT625; 1993RLR300
Santosh Duggal, J.(1) This revision petition under Section 25-B(B) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958, (for short 'the Act'), has been filed after petitioner's application for leave to contest the petition was declined. The eviction petition had been filed by the landlady under the provisions of Section 14D of the Act, pleading that she was landlady of premises : bearing No. B-368, Nirman Vihar. Delhi, which were let out to the petitioner herein in the year 1981, and that she was a widow. She has set out in detail the reasons as to why she sought vacant possession, stating that the demised premises were the only property owned by her, and that these were let out to the tenant for residential purposes, and now she required them for her own residence as she had no other alternative reasonable accommodation. She further pleaded that she had been constrained to hire a rented accommodation in Delhi consisting of one room only with a small kitchen situated in a congested locality and the sa...
NagIn Chand JaIn Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-16-1992
Reported in: 1993CriLJ2626; 49(1992)DLT560
Mohd. Shamim, J. (1) This petition has been moved by one Nagin Chand Jain for issue of a writ of habeas corpus under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India for issue of a direction for release of the petitioner and for quashment of the detention order dated 2.1.1992 passed against him under Section 3 of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 (hereinafter to as Cofeposa for the sake of brevity).(2) Brief facts which gave rise to the present petition are as under:that on receipt of an intelligence that a huge quantity of contraband silver was being transported to Delhi by Mahindra Jeep bearing registrationNo. MP-09A-9007. the Officers of Directorate of Revenue Intelligence, Delhi Zone intercepted the said vehicle on Delhi Mathura Road, Sarai khwaja Police Check Post at about 16.00 hrs. on 16.12.1991 Along with its two occupants namely Shri Subhash Chandra Bhandari and Shri Dinesh Sharma.On search of the said vehicle it resulted in the ...
Indian Aluminium Cables Ltd. Vs. Ex Sud Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-16-1992
Reported in: 1993(1)ARBLR342(Delhi); 49(1993)DLT367; 1992(24)DRJ352
S.C. Jain, J.(1) The facts giving rise to this a petition &re; that M/S Indian Aluminium Cables Ltd, hereinafter called the petitioner entered into negotiations with M/S Vistas Trading Company having its registered office at 106B, Sainik Farm, New Delhi, authorised agent of respondent M/S Exude Ltd, a company incorporated under the laws if kingdom for purchasing 1500 M.T.of Ec grade of aluminium rod. The terms of these discussions were communicated by Vistas Trading Company to the respondent thought telex dated 14.9.90 (Ex AW1/1) mentioning the material to be supplied, quantity of the material, price and direction for shipment on different dales. The terms of the settlement between the petitioner and Vistas Trading Company, the authorised agent of the respondent were accepted by the respondent and the acceptance was conveyed to Vistas Trading Co. with a copy to the petitioner on 17.9.90 (ExAW1/2). In pursuance of this agreement duly arrived at between the parties regarding the sale of ...
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Punjab and Sind Bank Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-16-1992
Reported in: (1993)110CTR(Del)311
B. N. KIRPAL, J. :In this case one of the two questions of law which have been referred to this Court under s. 256(1) of the IT Act pertains to the allowance of depreciation and development rebate on counters, steel equipment, electrical fittings, calculating machine and cooling equipment. The case of the assessed was that all such items which were valued at less than Rs. 750 each should be allowed depreciation @ 100% and should also be allowed development rebate. This argument found favor with the Tribunal and a reference in respect thereof has been made to this Court.2. While relying upon certain observations in the case of J. Lyons & Co. vs. Attorney General 1944 Chancery 281 it is contended by learned counsel for the Department that the steel equipment and electrical equipment and electrical fittings cannot be regarded as parts of plant and machinery. He also relies upon a decision of the Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs . Bank of India : [1979]118ITR809(Bom) .3. In our opin...
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Jagdish Chand (Through Legal Representa ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-15-1992
Reported in: [1994]207ITR842(Delhi)
B.N. Kirpal, J.1. In respect of the assessment years 1972-73 and 1975-76, the Income-tax Tribunal has referred the case and stated the following question to this court : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in confirming the deletion of the share income of Rs. 24,925 in the assessment year 1972-73 and of Rs. 20,739 in the assessment year 1975-76 from the individual assessments of the assessed in these two year ?' 2. Shri Jagdish Chand was a partner of a firm, Messrs. Madan Lal Jagdish Chand. During the pendency of this reference, Shri Jagdish Chand died and his legal representatives had been brought on record. Shri Jagdish Chand had contended that his income from the said firm should be assessed in the hands of the Hindu undivided family. The order of the Income-tax Officer, for the assessment year 1972-73, was cancelled by the Commissioner of under section 263 of the Act and the Income-tax Officer was directed to pass a fresh order...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Mahalakshmi Sugar Mills Co. Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-15-1992
Reported in: [1993]200ITR275(Delhi)
B.N. Kirpal, J.1. In respect of the assessment year 1965-66, pursuant to a direction issued by this court under section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal has stated the case and referred the following three questions to this court : '1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was legally correct in allowing the assessed a deduction of Rs. 3,96,874 as loss incidental to the business by admitting fresh grounds/evidence which were never raised before the lower authorities 2. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the assessed is entitled to a deduction of Rs. 3,96,874 as loss incidental to the business in the computation of the taxable income 3. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was correct in law in deleting the addition of Rs. 60,085 made by Income-tax Officer in respect of under valuation of the closing stock ?' 2. Briefly stated, the facts as found by the T...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »