Delhi Court March 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.
Kala Aggarwal Vs. Suraj Prakash Aggarwal and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-27-1992
Reported in: 48(1992)DLT218; II(1992)DMC67; 1992(23)DRJ22
Dalveer Bhandari, J. (1) The petitioner had filed a petition under Article 32 of the Constitution of India for issuance of an appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature of habeas corpus before the Supreme Court of India. The petitioner prayed for the custody of her two minor children who, according to her, are in illegal custody of the respondents, because the custody was granted to the petitioner by a divorce decree dated 10.2.1988 passed by the Judge Don Koon of the Judicial District Court, 255, Judicial District ' Dallas County, Texas, U.S.A. (2) This petition came up for admission hearing before the Supreme Court on 1st May, 1991. On that day, the Supreme Court ordered that this petition shall be transferred to this Court, and dealt with as the one under Article 226 of the Constitution in accordance with law. That is how this petition is being dealt by this court. (3) The petitioner alleged that their two minor children, daughter Sonika now aged about 12 years and son Ravi ...
Dabur India Ltd. Vs. Delhi Administration and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-26-1992
Reported in: 48(1992)DLT660; 1993(44)ECC101
B.N. Kirpal, J.(1) The petitioners, apart from other Ayurvedic medicines also prepare Mrit Sanjivni, Mrit Sanjivni Sura, Mrit Sanjivni Sudha and Vrihad (Maha) Darakshasav. These are stated to be medicinal drugs but it is an admitted fact that they contain more than 40 per cent proof alcohol and the same are also misused, by some persons, and taken as intoxicating beverages.(2) The anxiety not to be subjected to any control, even if it be for the benefit of the community at large, has led to the filing of a bunch of writ petitions by manufacturers of alcoholic medicinal preparations.(3) The challenge in these writ petitions is primarily to the two Notifications dated 3rd March, 1987 and 5th March. 1987 issued by the Administrator of the Union Territory of Delhi and by the Commisisoner of Excise, respectively, the effect of which is that intoxicating spirituous preparations including Ayurvedic medicines, containing more than 25 per cent proof alcohol have been brought within the purview ...
Mohinder Kaur Vs. Sudarshan Krishnamurthy and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-26-1992
Reported in: 47(1992)DLT63; 1992(23)DRJ179; 1992RLR274
Gokal Chand Mital, C.J.(1) ADMIT. Shri Panna Lal Suri is the owner of the land in dispute about which there was an agreement of sale with Smt. Sudershan Krishna Murthy and Dr. B.S. Krishna Murthy. Smt. Sudershan Krishna Murhty and Dr. B.s. Krishna Murthy filed a suit for specific performance against Shri Panna Lal Suri, but while the suit for specific performance was pending Shri Panna Lal Suri agreed to sell 7/8th share of the same property to Smt. Mohinder Kaur. Soon after the agreement was entered into by Shri Pana Lal Suri in favor of Smt. Mohinder Kaur, Smt. Mohinder Kaur moved an application under Order I Rule 10 read with Order 22 Rule 10 and Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure for impleading her as a co-defendant in suit to safe-guard her interest on the basis of the agreement of sale referred to above. The said application was opposed by the plaintiff and a Learned Single Judge of this Court by order dated 29th July, 1991 dismissed the application saying that she was ne...
R.C. Bhardwaj Vs. Ram Parkash Sharma Etc.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-26-1992
Reported in: 1992RLR218
Gokal Chand Mital, C.J.(1) ADMIT. The Plaintiff has 1/6th share in the suit property and sought partition. The plaintiff valued the 1/6th share at Rs. 15,000.00 and on that basis gave jurisdiction to Subordinate Judge, 1st Class, who up to Rs. 25,000.00 could try the suit. On behalf of the defendants objection was raised that in a suit for partition the value of the entire property has to be taken for the purposes of jurisdiction and on plaintiff's own showing the value of the property to be partitioned would come to Rs. 90,000.00 and the jurisdiction for a suit of the value of Rs. 90,000.00 at that time was in the High Court but nowadays with the District Judge, who may try the suit himself or may hand over the same to Additional District Judge The trial court upheld this objection and held that the jurisdiction to try the suit is with the District Judge as the suit property is valued at Rs. 90,000.00, as per the finding recorded after taking evidence on record. It was ordered that th...
B.S. Verma Vs. Delhi Administration and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-26-1992
Reported in: 48(1992)DLT49; 1992(23)DRJ211
S.C. Jain, J. (1) In this writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, an order dated 29th February, 1984/1st March, 1984 passed by the Director of Education, Delhi Administration Delhi, respondent No.2 which purports to place the petitioner, Mr. B.S. Verma under suspension with immediate effect and non-payment of any salary or allowance to the petitioner from May, 1983 has been challenged being illegal, without authority and without Jurisdiction. (2) As per the averments made in this writ petition Shri B.S. Verma, the petitioner was initially appointed as a Principal of the Shahid Udham Singh Samarak Uchattar Madhayarnik Vidiayals. Shashtri Nagar, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the School) on his accepting appointment to that post offered to him vide orders dated 13th May, 1978. At that stage the School was up to Secondary standard and the post held by the petitioner was designated as Vice Principal on the directions of the Delhi Administration to do so. The ...
Syndicate Bank Vs. Kumar Industries and Others
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-25-1992
Reported in: [1993]76CompCas591(Delhi)
Usha Mehra, J.1. Syndicate Bank, through Shri N. S. Karjagi, the principle officer and attorney of the plaintiff, has instituted the suit against Messrs. Kumar Industries, through its proprietor, Shri S. C. Gupta, an also against the guarantor, Smt. Suman Gupta, for the recovery of Rs. 1,24,613.89. 2. According to the plaintiff, defendant No. 1 through defendant No. 2 approached the plaintiff-bank for the grant of an overdraft limit of Rs. 27,000 and a loan of Rs, 20,000 for purchase of machinery and a loan of Rs, 13,000, for a which defendants NO, 2 execute the documents as borrower and defendant No. 3 executed the documents as guarantor. The agreed rate of interest to be charged for the overdraft limit was 4.5 per cent per annum above the bank rate with a minimum of 13.5 per cent per annum compounded quarterly. The defendants had been jointly and several liable to repay these loans. They had acknowledged their liability up to July 19, 1979, but have failed to repay the outstanding am...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Sant Lal Kanhaya Lal and Co.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-24-1992
Reported in: [1994]205ITR392(Delhi)
B.N. Kirpal, J.1. At the instance of the Commissioner of Income-tax, the Tribunal has referred the following question to this court : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was legally correct in holding that the present case is a case of succession under section 188 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, and not continuation of the firm as contemplated under section 187 of the Act ?' 2. In the statement of case, the Tribunal has recited the facts as given by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) which are as follows 'For the year under consideration, two returns were filed by the assessed-firm, one for the period ending February 6, 1971, and the second for the period ending October 19, 1971. Admittedly, the assessed-firm for the first period, was constituted under a partnership deed dated November 7, 1970. There were eight major partners having diverse interests in the profits and losses of the firm. Four minors stood admitted to the benefits of that partne...
Sarla Devi Singhania Vs. Commissioner of Wealth-tax
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-24-1992
Reported in: [1993]200ITR580(Delhi)
1. The petitioner seeks reference of the following two questions to this court : '1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Hon'ble Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench 'E', was justified in holding that the sum of Rs. 23,309 representing the amount of compensation initially awarded and which remained in dispute till August 23, 1982, and which was received on April 5, 1984, was includible in the net wealth of the assessed for the assessment year 1977-78 for which the relevant valuation date is March 31, 1977 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Hon'ble Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench 'E', was justified in rejecting the assessed's claim for exclusion of Rs. 7,890 being the balance standing to her credit in the compulsory deposit account on the relevant valuation date by virtue of its being in the nature of a right to receive annuity and hence not being liable to be regarded as an asset ?' 2. As regards question No. ...
Debi Ram Vs. Devi Chand
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-24-1992
Reported in: 46(1992)DLT705; 1992RLR203
S.C. Jain, J.(1) -THE facts giving rise to this second appeal are that Devi Chand, respondent herein alleging himself to be the owner-landlord of the premises forming part of house No. 2372, Gali No. 177, Ganesh Pura, Tri Nagar, Delhi, filed an eviction petition against Shri Debi Ram appellant herein under Section 14 of the Delhi Rent Control Act on the ground of non-payment of rent. The Addl. Rent Controller vide his detailed judgment dated 29.1,1977 held that a default had been committed by the tenant appellant herein in terms of Section 14 in not paying or tendering legally recoverable rent to the landlord respondent herein within 2 months of the service of notice of demand. As it was the first default, so the benefit under Section 14 of the Delhi Rent Control Act was given to the tenant subject to the condition that the tenant should comply with the modified order under Section 15 to the effect that he should pay or deposit arrears of rent from 12.12.1974 up to the date of order at...
D.S. Chadha and ors. Vs. Gian Singh and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-24-1992
Reported in: I(1993)ACC492
D.K. Jain, J.1. This first appeal under Section 110-D of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') is directed against the award of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal') dated 30th January, i980, whereby a sum of Rs. 22,080/- has been awarded in favor and of the appellants-claimants. The appellants claim that they should be awarded compensation in the sum of Rs. 1,00,000/-.2. Briefly stated, the facts giving rise to this appeal are that on 16th June, 1973 at about 11.30 a.m. Jagjit Singh Chadha along with one Kanwaljit Singh Chadha was traveling on a scooter bearing No. WBN 8586 on the Mall Road towards Khyber Pass, when at a distance of about 50 yards from T point of University Road a bus bearing No. DLP 118 came from the opposite direction on to the wrong carriageway of the road, with the result that their scooter had a collision with the said bus. Jagjit Singh Chadha, pillion rider, sustained grievous injurie...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »