Delhi Court November 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.
Devendra Kumar JaIn Vs. Polar Forgings and Tools Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-03-1992
Reported in: [1995]84CompCas766(Delhi); 49(1993)DLT552; 1992(24)DRJ598
Y.K. Sabharwal, J.(1) Petitioner seeks winding up of M/s. Polar Forging and Tools Ltd. (for short 'the company') on the ground that the company is unable to pay its debts. In short the case of the petitioner is as under:- PETITIONER as per the order placed by the Company supplied to the company furniture during the period from September 1989 to December 1989 and submitted bills aggregating a sum of Rs.5,25,707.60 inclusive of sales tax, packaging and forwarding charges and freight. The company paid Rs. 4,05,000.00 to the petitioner including payments made before commencement of supply and thus a sum of Rs. 1,20,707.60 was still due and payable by company to the petitioner. The final payment was required to be made by the company to the petitioner latest by the end of January 1990 for the reason that the supplies were completed in December 1989 and the period of 30 days thereafter expired sometime in January 1990. According to practice and usage of the market the petitioner is entitled ...
Sultan Singh and anr. Vs. Amar Natjh and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-03-1992
Reported in: 49(1993)DLT244; 1992(24)DRJ647
Gokal Chand Mital, J. (1) In order to appreciate the controversy, the following pedigree table may be kept in view : Banwari Lal = Roop Devi Murari Lal = Memo Devi Amar Nath Dewan Chand Sultan Singh Shiv Raj Singh (2) Banwari Lal was the Karta of the joint Hindu family and the joint Hindu family had substantial joint Hindu property and business. On 27th March, 1942, Banwari Lal died, leaving behind, his wodow, Smt. Roop Devi and three sons, namely, Murari Lal, Amar Nath and Dewan Chand. Murari Lai was the eldest son and, thereforee, he became the Karta. On 10th July, 1942, the coparcenary was dissolved and on 26th June, 1943 a deed of settlement/partition was executed between the coparceners and their mother, Smt. Roop Devi, as on partition of joint Hindu family, besides some cash, she was given the ownership of a three storeyed house on plot No. 49, Block G, Lekhram Road, Darya Ganj, Delhi. In plot, the erstwhile, Hindu und'vided A family had held perpetual lease hold rights. The tran...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Shankar Trading Co. P. Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-03-1992
Reported in: [1993]200ITR534(Delhi)
1. In respect of the assessment year 1975-76, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal has stated the case and referred the following two questions to this court :'1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was correct in setting aside the order passed under Section 263 by the Commissioner of Income-tax 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was correct in holding that the order of the Income-tax Officer had got merged with the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) and, thereforee, the Commissioner has no jurisdiction to revise the said assessment order?' 2. Briefly stated, the facts are as follows :The Commissioner of Income-tax noted on going through the records of assessment that the assessed had introduced cash credits in the names of Bansidhar Ram Gopal and Kishan Lal Prehlad Rai Saraf who had been doing hawala business. The Income-tax Officer had made the assessment without making detailed investigations into the genui...
Sultan Singh and anr. Vs. Union of India
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-03-1992
Reported in: 49(1993)DLT478; 1992(24)DRJ647a; 1993RLR1
Gokal Chand Mital, C.J. (1) In order to appreciate the controversy, the following pedigree table may be kept in view: Banwari Lal = Roop Devi | | | +---------------------------------------------+ | | | Murari Lal = Memo Devi Amar Nath Dewan Chand | +------------------+ | | | | Sultan Singh Shiv Raj SinghBanwari Lal was the Karta of the joint Hindu family and the joint Hindu family had substantial joint Hindu property and business. On 27th March, 1942, Banwari Lal died, leaving behind, his widow, Smt. Roop Devi and three sons, namely, Murari Lal, Amar Nath and Dewan Chand. Murari Lal was the eldest son and, thereforee, he became the Karta. On 10th July, 1942, the coparcenaries was dissolved and on 26th June, 1943 added of settlement/partition was executed between the coparceners and their mother, Smt. Roop Devi, as on partition of joint Hindu family, besides some cash, she was given the ownership of a three strayed house on plot No.49, Block G, Lekhram Road, Darya Ganj, Delhi. In plot, ...
Avijit Bar Vs. B.K. Dey Etc.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-03-1992
Reported in: 1993RLR161
C.M. Nayar, J.(1) [ED. facts : Husband of Deft. no. 2 became tenant in suit premises 29.12.79. He died on 17.3.85 and Deft. No. 2 became tenant. Deft. no. 1, landlord sued her for eviction u/S. 14 of D.R.C. Act on 23.7.90 and a consent decree was passed on 28.8.91 under which Deft. no. 2 agreed to vacate by 15.8.92. Her one son, Deft. no. 3 soon after filed a suit for injunction that they were not liable to vacate suit premises. This suit was dismissed on 8.1.91 for non prosecution. Plaintiff is her 2nd son. He filed instant suit claiming that he, Deft. no. 3 and their mother are tenants-in- common and were necessary parties in eviction case and as they were not imp leaded eviction decree was not binding on them. Plaintiff applied for interim injunction and relied upon. Textile Asso. (I) Bom. Unit vs. Balmohan AIR. 1990. S.C. 20;:3==1991. Raj. L.R. 305.] After detailing above, judgment is : (2) (B). The judgment of the Supreme Court in Textile Asso. (supra) is also of no application. T...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Mahavir Prashad and Sons
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-02-1992
Reported in: [1993]200ITR714(Delhi)
B.N. Kirpal, J.1. In respect of the assessment year 1976-77, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal has stated the case and referred the following question of law to law to this court : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in upholding the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) directing the Income-tax Officer to add only the interest payments to partners totalling Rs. 76,177 and not an amount of Rs. 95,773 ?' 2. Briefly stated, the facts are that, in the relevant previous year, the assessed-firm had paid interest to its eleven partners totalling Rs. 95,773. With about all these partners, the assessed had account in which money had been advanced to them and from these partners the firm had received interest. After adjustment of the interest received by the firm from these partners, the net amount of interest paid to the partners was Rs. 76,177. Proceeding under section 40(b), the Income-tax Officer disallowed the interest paid...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Moti Sagar Kapoor
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-02-1992
Reported in: [1993]200ITR743(Delhi)
B.N. Kirpal, J.1. At the instance of the Income-tax Department, the following question of law has been referred to this court in respect of the assessment year 1971-72 : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is correct in holding that the order of the Income-tax Officer granting interest to the assessed under section 214 cannot be rectified under section 154 ?' 2. Briefly stated, the facts are that the assessed had paid advance tax, within the relevant financial year, but beyond the dates prescribed in the Income-tax Act, 1961. The Income-tax Officer, however, allowed interest of Rs. 25,145 under section 214. 3. Subsequently, the Income-tax Officer came to the conclusion that the advance tax had not been paid in accordance with the provision of section 207 to 213 and, thereforee, payment of interest was not warranted and he passed an order under section 154 withdrawing the amount of interest which had been allowed. The assessed filed an appeal before...
L. Bansidhar and Sons Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-02-1992
Reported in: (1993)109CTR(Del)62; [1993]201ITR655(Delhi)
B.N. Kirpal, J.1. These are two references, one at the instance of the assessed and the other at the instance of Department. The three questions of law referred at the instance of the assessed are as follows : '1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the amount of Rs. 2,49,874 received by L. Bansidhar from the insurance company on account of the insurance policy covering the risk of life of his father, L. Murli Dhar, is correctly treated as ancestral property of the Hindu undivided family of which L. Bansi Dhar is the karta and not the individual property of L. Bansi Dhar 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, dividend income amounting to Rs. 31,921 earned by L. Bansi Dhara from shares of various companies held in the name of L. Bansi Dhar is correctly treated as belonging to the Hindu undivided family of which L. Bansi Dhar is the karta and not to the individual, L. Bansi Dhar 3. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case,...
State (Delhi Administration) Vs. Panna Lal @ Panditji @ Baba @ Sardar
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-02-1992
Reported in: 1993CriLJ852; 1993(1)Crimes351; 48(1992)DLT715; 1992(24)DRJ656
Anil Dev Singh, J. (1) Monstrous acts of kidnapping, rape and murder of innocent .child Nitu, who was barely 2 years old, have been attributed by the prosecution to the accused.(2) Believing the prosecution story the learned Additional Sessions Judge by his judgment and order dated February 7,1992 convicted the accused under Section 302 Ipc and awarded death sentence to him for committing the murder of the said child and has made this reference for confirmation of the same. He has also convicted the accused of kidnapping and raping Nitu and sentenced him to suffer life imprisonment under Section 376, two years rigorous imprisonment under Section 363 Indian Penal Code and five years rigorous imprisonment under section 366 Indian Penal Code Besides the accused was sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.200.00 each under Sections 376 and 366 Ipc, in default whereof to suffer R.I for further periods of one year on each count.(3) The accused has filed an application (Cr.M. No.87 of 1992) under Secti...
Niranjan Lal Vs. Kanta Devi
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-01-1992
Reported in: 49(1993)DLT152
J.K. Mehra, J.(1) This civil revision petition is directed against the order of eviction passed by Shri V.K. Shall, Add). Rent Controller, Delhi, asbe then was, in Eviction Case No. 37 of 1986 whereby the Add). Rent Controller after examining the evidence had come to the conclusion that bonafide need of the landladies had been established and had ordered eviction ofthe petitioner from the premises in dispute shown in the plan Ext. A-5 andbad further directed that the decree of eviction shall not be executedfor a period of six months from the date of the order.(2) The matter was listed for admission before N.N. Goswami, J. on 17/05/1990 when the following order was passed. 'I have heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and I donot find much merit in the petition. However, the Counsel submitsthat the petitioner may be asking for some further time to handover vacant possession of the premises. Let notice issue to therespondent to show cause as to why some further time be notallowed ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »