Delhi Court March 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.
Raj Kumar Gupta Vs. Union of India
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-31-1992
Reported in: 1992(60)ELT522(Del)
ORDERV.B. Bansal, J. 1. On 23rd January, 1991 Shri Mahendra Prasad, Joint Secretary to the Government of India, an officer specially empowered the Sec. 3(1) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 (for short the Act) directed that Raj Kumar Gupta r/o 16-A, Kamla Nagar, Delhi - 7 be detained and kept in custody in the Central Jail, Tihar, New Delhi with a view to preventing him from smuggling goods. 2. This order was served upon Raj Kumar Gupta on 28th March, 1991 when the grounds of detention along with the documents relied upon were served upon him. Raj Kumar Gupta made a representation dated 22nd April, 1991 against his detention but received no reply and so he filed this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India read with Sec. 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure praying for issuance of writ of habeas corpus or any other appropriate writ for quashing the order of detention and his release forthwith. 3. It would...
R.S. Avtar Singh and Co. Vs. National Projects Construction Corporatio ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-31-1992
Reported in: 47(1992)DLT599; 1992(23)DRJ184
Usha Mehra, J. (1) Shri T.S. Murthy, the sole arbitrator was appointed to adjudicate the matter between M/s. R.S Avtar Singh and Co. v. M/s. National Projects Construction Corporation Ltd. He made and published his award on 31st July, 1990 and filed the same in this Court. Notice of the filing of the award was issued to both the parties. M/S.R.S. Avtar Singh & Co. did not file objections. However, the respondent/NPCC has filed the objections inter alias on the grounds that: 1.The arbitrator has misconducted himself and the proceedings by depriving the objector reasonable opportunity of hearing and also by omitting to record the minutes of the meeting held on 25th May, 1990. 2.The arbitrator has ignored the material document i.e. the final bill while publishing the award. The arbitrator acted behind the back of the objector by asking the petitioner to purchase the stamp paper on 25th May, 1990 while the proceedings were still going on. 3.The arbitrator has ignored the admitted facts reg...
The Simbhaoli Sugar Mills Ltd. and anr. Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-31-1992
Reported in: AIR1993Delhi219; 1992(22)DRJ594; 1992RLR277
Sat Pal, J.(1) In this writ petition the petitioner has challenged the letter of intent granted by the Government of India to one Mr. K.K. Bajoria (respondent No.5 in the writ petition) on 7th August, 1990 for the purposes of establishing a new sugar factory at a place called Agauta, District Bulandshahr, U.P. with crushing capacity of 250 Tonnes Cane Crushing Per Day (hereinafter referred to as 'I'CD').(2) The tact of the case as briefly stated are that the petitioner is a company registered under the Companies Act, 1956 and is having a sugar factory at Simbhaoli, District Ghaziabad, U.P. Prior to 1982 the licensed crushing capacity of the petitioner's factory was 2000 TCD. In the year 1982 this crushing capacity was raised to 2750 TCD. On 29th December, 1989 Government of India granted license to the petitioner for expansion of its crushing capacity from 2750 Tcd to 5000 TCD. It may be pointed out here that in June 1990 the petitioner had filed an application for further expansion of...
Khursheed Begum and anr. Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-31-1992
Reported in: 48(1992)DLT207
V.B. Bansal, J. (1) By way of this application the petitioners have challenged the order dated 4th July 1991 of Additional Sessions Judge, New Delhi thereby imposing a penalty of Rs. 2 lacs on each of them. (2) Counsel for the petitioners states that the allegation against the petitioners has been that they stood sureties for Khial Asghar and undertook to pay Rs. 2 lacs each to the State in case of default in appearance before the Court. However, the accused absented and non-bailable warrants against the said accused remained un-executed. Bail bonds were forfeited and penalty has been imposed upon the petitioners vide impugned order dated 4th July 1991. (3) Learned Counsel for the petitioners has submitted that there has been a violation of the mandatory provisions by the learned Trial Court inasmuch as no opportunity has been given to the petitioners to show cause against the imposing of the penalty after the order of forfeiture and impugned order has been passed, imposing the penalty...
Oswal Agro Furane Ltd. and anr. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-31-1992
Reported in: 1992(39)ECC126
Sat Pal, J.1. In this writ petition the petitioner has challenged the amendment dated 14th October, 1991 to the Export (Control) Order, 1988 issued by the Ministry of Commerce, Office of the Chief Controller of Imports & Exports, New Delhi, whereby it was stipulated that exports shall be allowed against registration-cum-allocation certificate issued by the Agricultural & Processed Food Export Development Authority, New Delhi, (hereinafter referred to as 'APEDA') and notice dated 15thOctober, 1991 issued by APEDA fixing the minimum export price of non-basmati rice as US Dollars 231 F.O.B. per Metric Tonne.2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the Punjab State Industrial Development Corporation, (in short PSIDC), which was a Punjab Government Undertaking, submitted an application dated 9th/22nd July, 1982 to the Government of India, Ministry of Industry, Department of Industrial Development, New Delhi for grant of industrial license to manufacture furfural 6000 MT per annum an...
Super Cassettes Industries (P.) Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Decided on: Mar-30-1992
Reported in: (1992)41ITD530(Delhi)
Every unfavourable order or merely change of opinion does not render the order erroneous and prejudicial.The courts have been always taking a serious view of the action of the Commissioner and have more than once have held that section 263 must be invoked only when there is error and which error has caused prejudice to the revenue. Section 263 is not for the purpose of correcting every unfavourable order, is not for jurisdictional correction or for review of subordinate's order. Since the Commissioner has only proposed to take a different view from the one taken by the assessing officer, and section 263 is not being intended for change of opinion, the action of the Commissioner is set aside.1. The assessee, a company engaged in the business of manufacturing of pre-recorded audio and video cassettes, as also blank audio and video cassettes, has filed this appeal aggrieved by the action of the Commissioner under Section 263 of the Income-tax Act. The assessee has raised as many as thirt...
Arun Kumar Sharma Vs. Ram Phool Singh and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-30-1992
Reported in: II(1992)BC38; 47(1992)DLT65
J.K. Mehra, J.(1) ADMIT.(2) By this judgment I will dispose of three Civil Revision Nos. 703,838 and 839 of 1991 since common question arises in these petitions.(3) The case of the petitioner is that the promissory notes as well as receipts were issued without consideration and were given in blank to one Chander Shekhar who had agreed to get the premises vacated from the tenants of the petitioner and the amount was to be collected by Chander Shekhar but was ultimately to be paid to the tenants on the premises being vacated. The petitioner further states that in the meantime the petitioner got the premises aviated by entering into appropriate deals with the tenants directly. In thecircumstances, there was no occasion to make the payments to the said tenants through Chander Shekhar. The receipts as well as promissory notes were issued according to the petitioner in blank and when the deal did not go through the said Shri Chander Shekhar he put up the names of seven parties to institute 7...
Yudhvir Chander Arora Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-30-1992
Reported in: 47(1992)DLT163
D.P. Wadhwa, J.(1) This is a habeas corpus petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. The petition has been filed through the wife of the detenu. There are three respondents. First respondent is Union of India through the Secretary, Ministry of Finance, Deptt. of Revenu;the second respondent is the Administrator Union Territory of Delhi and the third respondent is the Superintendent, Central Jail, Tihar. The petitioner was detained on the authority of the order dated 19.1.90 issued by the Administrator, Union Territory of Delhi in the exercise of powers conferred upon him under Section 3(1) read with Section 2(f) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 (to cut short 'theAct') on his satisfaction that it was necessary to detain the petitioner with a view of preventing him from smuggling goods and preventing him from engaging any transporting, keeping smuggled goods and also from preventing from dealing in smug...
Adarsh Murgai Vs. Delhi Administration Etc.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-27-1992
Reported in: 1992RLR228
Usha Mehra, J.(1) [ED. facts : Plaintiff sued Defts. for injunction alleging that she bought suit land from owner by a registered sale deed on 1.1.86 and land was mutated in her name on 22.6.87 and she was given possession which fact was confirmed by entries in Khatauni Paimaish and Khasra Girdawri and she was living in Punjab and then in England and returned in July, 1989 and found that Adm (Rev.) had ordered entry of name of Deft. no. 3 against the said judicial pronouncements, some of which have been noticed in the Karnataka authority and more recently by the Supreme Court in Krishna Ram Mahale v. Mrs. Shobha : AIR1989SC2097 . (2) The sum total appears to be that relief of injunction being a relief in equity, the court would not aid a person who himself is guilty of doing a wrongful act and has trespassed into suit property recently; or where the owner has acquiesced or been a party to his induction. The real owner is entitled to defend illegal occupation of his property and may thr...
Badami Devi Vs. Sher Singh and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-27-1992
Reported in: 47(1992)DLT486; 1992(22)DRJ509; 1992RLR276
(1) 'WHETHER tender or payment of advance rent by a tenant in compliance with the provisions of Section 15 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958, before the Rent Controller would be a valid tender or not?', is the main point for consideration before me in this appeal.(2) Learned counsel for the appellant-landlord relies on the decision of the Supreme Court in Shri Vidya Prachar Trust v. Pt. Basant Ram, : [1970]1SCR66 , but fairly concedes that there are two later judgments of the Supreme Court which go against the landlord. See: Duli Chand v. Moman Chand : AIR1979SC1307 and Mangat Rai v. KidarNath, : [1981]1SCR476 .(3) While in Duli Chand's case (supra) the decision in Vidya Prachar Trust (supra) was distinguished, but in Mangat Rai''s case (supra) that decision had specifically been considered not laying down good law. It has been held in Mangat Rai (supra) that the deposit of rent whether with the Rent Controller or under Section 31 of the East Punjab Relief of Indebtedness Act, 1934, ...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »