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.
Gargi Khanna and anr. Vs. Arun Carpets and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-15-1992
Reported in: 1992(24)DRJ510
P.N. Nag, J.(1) The petitioner let out premises No. D-17, defense Colony, New Delhi to the respondent through their Managing Partner Mrs. Kamini Sodhani vide registered lease deed dated 27,9.1992 for a period of two years commencing from 1st October, 1972 for residential purpsoe. Since the respondent did not vacate the premises, the petitioner Filed an, eviction petition under Section 14(l),(a), (c),(d),(e),(h),(j)of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 for eviction of the respondents. During the pendency of the eviction petition, the parties arrived at a compromise and a compromise application was filed before the learned Additional Rent Controller on 4.1.1978. The Additional Rent Controller on 6.1.1978 disposed of the eviction petition in terms of the compromise. The respondents failed to hand over the vacant possession and also did not pay the amount agreed by them towards the damages for the use and occupation of the premises even after the period agreed to by the petitioner had expire...
Madan Mohan Vs. K.M. Menon and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-15-1992
Reported in: 1993(2)ALT(Cri)4; I(1993)BC185; [1994]79CompCas710(Delhi); 1993CriLJ2654; 1993(1)Crimes1167; 50(1993)DLT33; 1993RLR119
Usha Mehra, J.(1) Shri Madan Mohan, the petitioner herein, has assailed the order of the Metropolitan Magistrate dated 6/12/1991 on the ground that the Magistrate fell in grave error in observing that the cheque issued by the drawer cannot be presented more than once in order to attract the provisions of Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act (hereinafter called as the 'Act').(2) In order to appreciate the contentions of the parties, the brief facts are that the petitioner along with his son is the owner of the premises situated in 0-4, Swastik Bhawan, Ranjit Nagar, Commercial Complex, near Satyam Cinema, New Delhi-8. The respondents took this commercial premises of the petitioner on tenancy on a monthly rent of Rs. 137.00persquare feet made of Rs. 12.00. The rent for structure of the premises ofRe. l.00 as the rental for the fittings and fixtures therein. The tenancy was made for 33 months. The rent agreed to be paid every month came tors.3,744.00andRs.624.00. The respondent iss...
Municipal Corporation of Delhi Vs. Khacheru
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-15-1992
Reported in: 49(1993)DLT727; 1993(25)DRJ21; (1993)ILLJ351Del; 1992RLR524
P.N. Nag, J.(1) In this writ petition, the petitioner, Municipal Corporation of Delhi, (hereinafter referred to as the Management) has sought for a writ of certiorari seeking quashing of the impugned Award dated 15th may, 1990 passed by Shri G.P. Mittal, Presiding Officer, Labour Court No. VII. Tis hazari, Delhi holding that the respondent No. 1 (herinafter called the Workman) had not himself abandoned the employment but his services were terminated by the Management which was illegal as well as unjustified and consequently the Workman was held to be entitled to be reinstated with full back wages and continuity in service. (2) The facts leading to the filing of this writ petition are that vide notification No. F.24(1405)/76-Lab. dated 17.1.1977, the Secretary (Labour), Delhi Administration made a reference to the Labour Court to settle the dispute between the Management and the Workman about the termination of services of the Workman. Reference was couched in the following language:- '...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. O.P. Seth
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-14-1992
Reported in: [1993]201ITR635(Delhi)
ORDER--Returned income disclosed as rental income from property taxed--CIT invoking s. 263 as ITO made no enquiry as to whether the plot had been let out or not--Improper in the absence of any facts to come to such conclusion.HELD :Before the raid was conducted in October, 1983 returns of income had been filed for the asst. yrs. 1982-83 and 1983-84 and the rent from the plot in question was disclosed. By the ITO taxing the alleged receipt of money could not be said to have acted prejudicially to the interest of the revenue because if there was no genuine letting he would have had to delete the said receipt from the total income of the assessed. Had the raid taken place before the filing of the returns the position might have been different but when income has been returned and the same is taxed by the ITO, even without any enquiry then, the burden is on the department to show that even the taxing of the returned income is prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. There is no such fin...
Sharda Bhandari Vs. Ananya Electroniks Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-14-1992
Reported in: [1993]78CompCas167(Delhi); 48(1992)DLT723; 1993RLR63
Y.K. Sabharwal, J.(1) Petitioner, who is a widow, claim winding up of M/s. Ananya Electronics Ltd. and for short 'the Company') on the ground that the company is unable to pay its debts. Briefly, the case of the petitioner is :- (2) The petitioner had to let out factory premises No. C-170, Okhla Industrial Area, Phase-1, New Delhi, to the Company because her husband who had built the premises for starting a factory was murdered before he could start the factory. The petitioner had a minor son to support and having no other source of income gave the premises comprising of basement and ground to the company on monthly rent of Rs. 17,004.40 with a clause for enhancement of rent by 15/o after three years. The company at the time of taking the premises on rent in March 1985 paid two months rent to the petitioner in advance. Thereafter the company did not make payment of any rent to the .petitioner. The petitioner had earlier filed C.P. 76 of 1987 seeking winding up of the company on the sam...
Dlf United Limited Vs. Municipal Corporation of Delhi
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-14-1992
Reported in: 49(1993)DLT666; 1993(25)DRJ24
R.L. Gupta, J.(1) This plaintiff-appellant filed three civil suit Nos.295 to 297 of 1972 challenging assessment for three separate years ending on 31.3.69, 31.3.69 and 31.3.68 respectively and parleyed for grant of perpetual injunction restraining the respondent Mcd from recovering and Realizing from the appellant property tax levied on the remaining part of' the land except Block E of Greater Kailash II. The suits were dismissed by a common judgment and decree dated 23.4.73. The appellant filed three separate appeals which were also dismissed by a common judgment and decree dated 18.2.75. Aggrieved against the aforesaid judgments and decrees the appellant has come up in second appeal. ' (2) The facts common to all the three suits are that the appellant is a colonising Company. It submitted a lay out plan of Greater Kailash Ii to the Corporation under Section 313 of the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act (in short 'Act') for sanction. The lay out plan was sanctioned vide resolution No. 24...
Sudesh Sharma and anr. Vs. Raghubir Kaur Bhatia and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-14-1992
Reported in: 48(1992)DLT567
Santosh Dnggal, J.(1) The appellants in this second appeal are two daughters, now married, of the original tenant, Shri Shiv Kumar Sharma, who died on 28th May 1982. (2) A brief resume of the facts reveals that the respondents, who are owners/landlords of the premises being shop No. 23/10, East Patel Nagar, New Delhi, filed an eviction petition on the ground of non-payment of rent in March 1985, impleading the widow and three sons of the deceased tenant as respondents. The said respondents contested the matter, but after hearing the parties and taking note of the pleadings, an order under Section 15(1) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (for short 'the Act') was passed. Pursuant to non-compliance of the order, on the part of the respondents, passed under Section 15(1) of the Act, an order u/Section 15(7) striking out the defense of the respondents was passed on 19.3.1986, followed by an eviction order, on the ground of non-payment of rent, passed on 21.4.1986. (3) The appeal filed by ...
Rattan Lal Sahdev Vs. Krishan Kumar and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-14-1992
Reported in: 49(1993)DLT41
D.K. Jain, J.(1) The plaintiff his filed the present suit for partition and separation of his 1/4th share in the immoveable property bearing No. 3,Netaji Subhash Marg, Darya Ganj, New Delhi after the respective shares of the plaintiff and defendants Nos. 1 to 4 have been defined and determined.(2) Along with the suit, the plaintiff filed an application, being 1. A.No. 1538/89, under order 39 Rules 1 & 2 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure for grant of ad-interim injunction in his favor. On the said application, an ex-parte ad-interim injunction order was passed on 23/02/1989, whereby the defendants were restrained from making anyalteration, selling, mortgaging, disposing or parting with possession and letting out any part of the property in question. On being served with the notice in the application, defendants Nos. 2 and 3 moved an application being I.A. No. 1788/90, under order 39 Rule 4 read with Section 151 Civil Procedure Code for vacation of the said ex-parte in...
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Hindustan Times Ltd. and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-14-1992
Reported in: (1993)109CTR(Del)1
GOKAL CHAND MITAL, C.J. :The applications filed by the writ petitioners under s. 256(1) of the IT Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) have been dismissed by the Tribunal as being time barred on the ground that the Chief CIT was served with a decision of the Tribunal made under s. 254 of the Act and the date of service on the Chief Commissioner would govern the limitation for filing of the application under s. 256(1) of the Act. This decision of the Tribunal is being impugned in these writ petitions.2. As a common question of law arises all these writ petitions are being disposed of by this common judgment.3. The point which arises for consideration is covered by two decisions of this Court in CIT vs. Arvind Construction Co. Pvt. Ltd. (1992) 193 ITR 330 and J. K. Synthetics Ltd. vs. ITAT (1992) 193 ITR 333. Since the learned counsel for respondent No. 2 insisted that the matter requires further consideration, particularly in view of the observations made by the Supreme Court ...
Rohit Talwar and ors. Vs. the Municipal Corporation of Delhi and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-13-1992
Reported in: 1992(24)DRJ473; ILR1993Delhi459; 1993RLR57
D.P. Wadhwa, J.(1) The petitioners numbering six by this petition filed under Article 226 of t(2) The petitioners contend that the land use of the property bearing No. D-1097 and of their houses as well is residential and it cannot be used for commercial purposes or use and that will be contrary to the Delhi Development Act, 1957 (DD Act), the rules and regulations framed there under, under the Master Plan, the Zonal Plan and the Layout Plan of the colony, all being statutory in nature. They further contend that use of the property in question for any other purpose except residential is again illegal and contrary to the provisions of Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957 (DMC Act). (3) The immediate cause for filing this petition was that the third respondent was going to commence the full-scale commercial activity in the property in question in the nature of safe deposit lockers which would not only be against the provisions of the Dd Act and Dmc Act but also would result in a public ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »