Delhi Court December 1992 Judgments
Browse smarter
Turn browsing into brief-ready notes
Open any judgment and get a structured AI Brief in seconds — plus Semantic Search when you need to hunt by meaning, not keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed — log in to pick up where you left off.
Management of M/S. Jor Bagh Distributors Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Workmen as Repr ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-28-1992
Reported in: [1997(75)FLR382]
Devinder Gupta, J. 1. In this writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India award, annexure P-8, dated 28-12-1992 passed by respondent No. 2, the Presiding Officer, Labour Court VII, Tiz Hazari, Delhi is under challenge at the behest of the management of M/s. Jor Bagh Distributors Pvt. Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the Management). 2. On receipt of a report submitted by the Conciliation Officer under Section 12(4) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), the Secretary (Labour), Delhi Administration, on being satisfied that an industrial dispute existed between the Management and its workmen, represented by the Mercantile Bank Association (for short 'the Union') and that the same deserved to be referred for adjudication to a Labour Court, constituted under the Act, in exercise of powers conferred by Section 10(1)(c) and Section 12(5) of the Act, referred for adjudication to the Labour Court the following dispute : 'Whether the ...
Rajrani Sehgal Vs. Parshottam Lal and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-18-1992
Reported in: 47(1992)DLT192; 1993(25)DRJ338; 1992RLR126
Santosh Duggal, J. (1) The appellant Smt. Rajrani Sehgal is one of the daughters of deceased Shri Godar Mal, respondent No.1, Dr. Parshottam Lal, being the son. The said Shri Godar Mal died on 14th February, 1980 and shortly thereafter a petition for grant of probate/letter of administration under the provisions of section 276/ 278 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 (for short 'the Act') was filed by respondent No.1 on the basis of a will, dated 9th September, 1974 alleged to have been executed by his late father, bequeathing all his moveable and immoveable properties to him. All the daughters of the deceased including the present appellant were imp leaded as respondents; two of whom, namely appellant Smt. Rajrani and Smt. Shakuntla, respondent No.5 in the petition filed objections to the grant of probate/ letter of administration in favor Dr. Parshottam Lal, The other two daughters Smt. Shanti Devi and Savitri Devi and legal heirs of a pre-deceased daughter named Smt.Bimla Devi did no...
K. Narendra Vs. Riviera Apartments (P) Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-18-1992
Reported in: 1993(25)DRJ72
Sat Pal, J. (1) Since common question arise's in both the appeals the same are being disposed of by this common judgment. (2) While RFA(OS) 9 of 1991 is directed against the judgment and decree dated 5th, December, 1990 in Suit No.243 of 1980, RFA(OS) 10 of 1990 is directed against the judgment of the same date in Suit No-607 of 93 1979, both passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court. The aforesaid two suits were consolidated vide order dated 26th November, 1980 passed by the learned Single Judge and the main judgment was rendered in Suit No.243 of 1980. (3) The facts, relevant for the purpose of deciding these two appeals briefly stated, are that the appellant is the holder of lease-hold rights in respect of property known as 6, Tolstoy Marg, New Delhi, granted by the President of India in terms of a perpetual lease commencing from 29th May 1957. Vide an agreement dated 25th July, 1972 (Exhibit P1) entered into between the appellant (seller) and the respondent (purchaser), the ap...
M.P. Jaipuria (Huf) Vs. Income-tax Officer
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Decided on: Dec-17-1992
Reported in: (1993)44ITD728(Delhi)
1. This is an appeal of the assessee challenging the order dated 16-1-1987 of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) as opposed to facts and law of the case.2. The facts of the case are briefly these: The assessee, a resident having the status of Hindu undivided family and the accounting period ending with 3-11-1975 for the assessment year 1976-77 filed on 30-8-1976 its return showing an income of Rs. 20,500. The husband settled one-third part of bungalow No. 8, Prithvi Raj Road, New Delhi, by a Trust Deed dated 11-11-1974, executed between him as the settlor or the author of the Trust and the trustees being HUF consisting of himself and his wife, thereby, creating a Trust known as Mahavir Prasad Jaipuria Family Trust, for the benefit of the cestui qui trust, being the two sisters of the settlor, one sister-in-law of the settlor and three Private Limited Companies of which the Settlor is one of the shareholders and directors. In the preceding assessment year 1975-76 as the Assessing...
Sarbjit Singh Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, New Delhi
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-16-1992
Reported in: 49(1993)DLT705
(1) Mr. Mahinder Narain, J.-With respect to the assessment year1976-77, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal has referred the following questions of law to this Court : '(1)Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Officer had jurisdiction to make assessment u/Sec.143(3) and whether his order dated 30.03.1979 was a nullity inlaw?(2) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) had the right or jurisdiction on 19.07.1979 when he passed the order to extend the period of limitation to pass draft assessment order which had expired on 31.03.1979?(3) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) was justified in law insetting aside the assessment and directing the Income-tax Officer to make fresh assessment by taking recourse to Section 144B of the Act ?'(2) For the purpose of decision of this reference, it is necessary to refer to the provisions of Section...
R.L. Sood Vs. Income Tax Officer.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-16-1992
Reported in: (1994)49TTJ(Del)282
ORDERN.D. RAGHAVAN, J.M. :This is an appeal of the assessed challenging the order dt. 28th Oct., 1988 of the CIT(A) as arbitrary and illegal.2. The facts of the case are briefly these :The assessed, a resident, having the status of individual and the accounting period ending with 31st March, 1982 for the asst. yr. 1982-83 filed on 17th Feb., 1983 his return declaring Nil income. The assessment was completed under s. 144 computing the total income at Rs. 1,48,050. While doing so the Assessing Officer did not allow exemption under s. 54(1) of the Act in regarding to capital gains amounting to Rs. 2,40,000 on sale of property at East Patel Nagar sold for Rs. 2,75,000 on 22nd Sept., 1981, because the Greater Kailash Property claimed to have been purchased was only under an agreement of sale though dt. 25th Sept., 1981 but not under a sale deed being in registered only on 26th Feb., 1985 beyond statutory period. On appeal, the CIT(A) confirmed the assessment order. Hence the instant record ...
Asstt. Commissioner of Vs. Allied Motors (P.) Ltd.
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Decided on: Dec-15-1992
Reported in: (1993)45ITD566(Delhi)
1. The following ground is raised in the Revenue's appeal directed against the order of Commissioner of Wealth-tax (Appeals):- The CWT (Appeals) erred on facts and in law to hold that a building under construction with inadequate plant and machinery was a factory which was used by the assessee on 30-6-1983 in terms of Section 40(3)(vi) of Finance Act, 1983, even though the factory building was completed subsequently and factory went into production on 30-12-1983.2. The respondent in this case is a Private Limited Company and the assessment year involved is 1984-85, the valuation date being 30th June 1983.3. The Finance Act, 1983 by means of Section 40 revived the levy of wealth-tax in the case of closely held companies w.e.f. assessment year 1984-85. In other words, this is the first year of assessment after reintroduction of wealth-tax on such closely held companies.4. The respondent, company filed a return of wealth on 22-8-1986 declaring wealth of Rs. 1,48,268. The WTO, in the cour...
Dinesh Kumar Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-15-1992
Reported in: 1993CriLJ898
1. Dinesh Kumar was prosecuted under S. 20, Part II and S. 21 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotrophic Substances Act (hereinafter called as 'the Act'). He was tried, sentenced and convicted by the Additional Sessions Judge, New Delhi vide his order dated 27th February, 1990 thereby sentencing him to undergo R.I. for a period of 10 years and fine of Rs. 1,00,000/- in default of payment of fine further R.I. for a period of one year. 2. It is against the said conviction and sentence that the present appeal has been filed inter alias on the grounds that provisions of Ss. 42, 50 and 55 of the said Act have not been complied with. That there were vital and material discrepancies in the statement of the witnesses which creates a doubt in the story set up by the prosecution and finally the alleged eye witness was a stock witness. This very Investigating Officer had used him as a witness in number of cases. 3. In order to appreciate the contention raised by the petitioner one must know the fact...
Dinesh Pal Vs. University of Delhi and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-15-1992
Reported in: 49(1993)DLT373
Mahinder Narain, J. (1) The facts giving rise to this petition have been stated by brother Jaspal Singh, J. as also the contention raised by theparties.(2) As stated by brother Jaspal Singh, what needs to be adjudicated upon is the eligibility condition of the necessity of securing 55% marks by a holder of bachelor degree from the Punjab University after studying for 14years to obtain the bachelor degree.(3) I am unable to accept that one year additional study ought to lead to a discount of 5% in the bachelor degree examination marks, that a person who has spent 14 years to secure a bachelor degree should be penalised by necessity of having additional 5% marks.(4) In my opinion, as I have held in the case of Jaishree Ravi v.University of Delhi, C.W.P. 2603/92 decided on 14/12/1992 it is not permissible to lay down the eligibility condition of 50% marks in bachelor degree examination as a condition precedent to taking the entrance examination, the prescription of 55% marks in bachelor d...
Gurmeet Kaur Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-15-1992
Reported in: 1993(1)Crimes558; 1993(25)DRJ421
Usha Mehra, J. (1) The detention order was passed against Smt. Gurmeet Kaur, the petitioner herein by the respondent under Section 3 read with Section 2 of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 (hereinafter called as the 'COFEPOSA ACT'). The said order was passed by Mr. M.U. Siddiqui, Deputy Secretary (Home) Delhi Administration, dt.23.9.1991. This order was passed with a view to preventing her from smuggling goods. Along with the detention order, the grounds of detention were also served on her of the same date.(2) The facts of case are that Smt. Gurmeet Kaur arrived at I.G.I. Airport on the intervening night of 21st/22nd April, 1991. She was apprehended because she was found in possession of gold weighing 1399.500 grams. She was booked under Section 135 of the Customs Act. She made a statement under Section 108. She was produced before the Magistrate on 22nd April 1991 and was remanded to judicial custody. While in custody the order of ...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »