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.
Shri. Hem Chand JaIn Vs. Shri Anil Kumar and Others
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-23-1992
Reported in: AIR1993Delhi99; 1992(23)DRJ105A
ORDER1. This revision petition is directed against the appellate order dated 15 Nov. 1990 of the Id. Addl. Senior Sub Judge, Delhi, made in M.C.A. No. 31 of 1990, allowing the appeal against the order dated 6 April, 1987 of a Id. Sub Judge and setting aside the latter's order, made in Suit No. 473 of 1986 on application under O. 39, Rules 1 and 2 of the Civil P.C. (for short the Code) directing to maintain status quo till the decision of the suit.2. Plaintiff, Hem Chand, claiming to be in possession of half portion of ground floor of premises bearing No. 1053, Lal Kuan, Delhi for 23 years doing business in the name and style of M/s Lal Kuan Coal Co., without let or hindrance by the two defendants, Anil and Sunil Kumar or anyone else or paying any rent, filed the suit for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from dispossessing the plaintiff or interfering in his peaceful possession of the portion shown red in the plan annexed with the plaint. An application under Order 39, Ru...
Commissioner of Surtax Vs. Modi Industries Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-23-1992
Reported in: [1993]200ITR325(Delhi)
B.N. Kirpal, J.1. Under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, the Income-tax Tribunal has referred the following question of law to this court : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the entire gross dividend of Rs. 2,51,350 and not net dividend after giving deductions under sections 80L and 80 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, was deductible from the total income of the assessed in computing the chargeable profits in accordance with clause (viii) of rule 1 of the First Schedule to the Companies (Profits) Surtax Act, 1964 ?' 2. The facts, as stated in the statement of the case, are that in respect of the assessment year 1971-72, the relevant previous year having ended on October 31, 1970, the assessed was liable to assessment under the Companies (Profits) Surtax Act, 1964. In respect of this year, the net chargeable profits were computed at Rs. 60,34,958. The assessed had claimed before the Surtax Officer that in computing ...
E.i.D. Parry (India) Ltd. Vs. Baby BenjamIn Thushara
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-23-1992
Reported in: 1992(23)DRJ394
B.S. Yadav, J.(1) This is an appeal against the Order of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Kerala at Thiruvananthapuram, by which they awarded compensation amounting to Rs. 76,500.00 to the present Respondent. Mrs. Baby Benjamin Thushara, who was the complainant before them. (2) The facts are that the present respondent filed a complaint before the said State Commission alleging that on 24th April, 1989, when she sat on the European style closet, installed in her house and which was manufactured by the present appellant, M/s E.I.D. Parry (India) Ltd., it gave way and crumbled into numerous pieces having razor sharp edges. The pieces penetrated into the flesh all along her buttocks and around anal and vaginal canal resulting in multiple injuries. Injuries bled profusely and caused acute pain. She was admitted in the Cosmopolitan Hospital, Trivandrum, where she had undergone protracted surgical treatment to remove the fragments of the closet which had got stuck inside her...
Avtar Singh Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-23-1992
Reported in: 47(1992)DLT465
D.P. Wadhva, J.(1) This Letters Patent Appeal is directed against the judgment dated 10 October 1978 of a learned Single Judge of this Court whereby the dismissed the writ petition of the appellant. In the writ petition the appellant had prayed for quashing of notifications issued under Sections 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short 'the Act') as well as for quashing the award dated 27 July 1973 made under Section Ii of the Act. The learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition principally on the ground that Section 48 of the Act provided the only way by which the Government could withdraw from acquisition of any land.(2) Fact are in brief. The appellant purchased a plot of land measuring about 1200 square yards in Village Taimur Nagar by a sale deed dated 13 February 1958. The land bears khasra No. 809/1/1. A notification under Section 4 of the Act was issued by Delhi Administration on 13 November 1959 respecting land measuring 34070 acres all over Delhi. This includ...
Union of India Vs. Lekhi
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-23-1992
Reported in: 47(1992)DLT59
D.P. Wadhwa, J.(1) All these appeals have been filed under section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (In short 'the Act') seeking setting aside the judgment of the learned Additional District Judge whereby ona reference made to him under Section 18 of the Act, he enhanced the amount of compensation payable to the petitioners. In all these appeals the cross objections have been filed by the respondents therein claiming enhancement of compensation.(2) A notification under Section 4 of the Act was issued on 6/01/1969 for acquiring large chunk of land in village Aali. A declaration under Section 6 of the Act was issued on 12/06/1969. The Land Acquisition Collector gave the award on 27/02/1970 it being award No. 4545 of 1969-70. He divided the land in. three blocks A, and C and respectively awarded compensation @ Rs. 2,775.00, Rs. 1,350.00 and Rs. 600.00 per bigha.On a reference made under Section 18 of the Act the learned Additional District Judge enhanced the amount of compensation for...
Baij Nath Vs. Ansal and Saigal Properties Pvt. Ltd
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-20-1992
Reported in: AIR1993Delhi285; 47(1992)DLT225; 1992RLR299
R.L. Gupta, J. (1) This appeal is directed .against judgment dated 7-1-77 of the learned Single Judge by which he dismissed the suit of the appellant plaintiff for specific performance for an alleged agreement dated 22-4-70 to allot and sell by execution and registration of sale deed in respect of 1400 sq. ft. space on the 13th floor of the building known as 'Surya Kiran' at 19, Curzon Road, New Delhi and to put him in full possession of the said property. (2) The allegations are that he paid a sum of Rs. 55,000 to the respondent towards the purchase price of flat Nos. 3 and 4 to be constructed on 13th floor of the aforesaid building, as part payment vide receipt No. 1130 dated 22-4-70. Later on. however, the appellant was told by the respondent that the plans for the 13th floor might not be approved. So on 18-4-70 appellant wrote to the respondent that in view of uncertainty, the respondent may retain Rs. 5,000 against each flat and refund the balance to the appellant. He further wrot...
Dharmatma Prasad Mishra Vs. Sub Divisional Officer (Electricity) and a ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-20-1992
Reported in: 1992(23)DRJ399
V. Balakrishna Eradi, J. (1) The Complainant in case No. 4 of 1990 on the file of the District Consumers Forum, Basti is the Revision Petitioner before us. The grievance put forward by him before the District Forum was that the Electricity connection to his residence was illegally disconnected by the respond.(2) Summary disposal of a first appeal by the State Commission was not just, fair or proper in law. The District Forum was perfectly justified in awarding Rs. 500.00 by way of compensation to the complainant. The interference made by the State Commission with the award of compensation made by the District Forum, without slating any reason for such interference, was manifestly illegal. The order of the State Commission in so far as it has disallowed the compensation of Rs. 500.00 to the complainant set aside....
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Industrial Engineering Projects Pvt. Lt ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-20-1992
Reported in: (1993)109CTR(Del)73; [1993]202ITR1014(Delhi)
The petitioner seeks reference of the following two questions :'1. Whether, on the facts and in circumstances of the case and considering the terms of the agreement between the assessed and M/s. ETAG in its entirety, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal is right in law in concluding that the arrangement was not a device to defeat certain provision of the income tax law 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal is legally correct in deleting the disallowances under section 37(2A) of the Income-tax Act and rule 6D of the Income-tax Rules, out of expenses incurred by the assessed on entertainment and traveling ?'In our opinion, no question of law arises. Briefly stated, the facts are that the assessed had an agreement with M/s. ETAG which was a Swiss company. Some services were to be rendered by the assessed to the said Swiss company and the terms of the agreement, inter alia, provided that the assessed would receive a sum of Rs. 1,20,00...
income-tax Officer Vs. Sood Enterprises
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Decided on: Mar-13-1992
Reported in: (1992)41ITD234(Delhi)
1. This is an appeal filed by the Income-tax Officer, Rishikesh urging that the learned Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) erred in law and on facts in reducing the interest charged under Section 201(1 A) for the assessment years 1985-86 and 1986-87.2. The assessee a firm had paid interest of Rs. 1,46,216 and Rs. 2,20,793 in the assessment years 1985-86 and 1986-87 respectively to M/s United Rosin Industries, Calcutta. No tax was deducted from this interest as per the provisions of Section 194 A of the Income-tax Act, 1961. For this default interest under Section 201(1 A) was charged by the Income-tax Officer of Rs. 7,750 for the assessment year 1985-86 and of Rs. 8,556 for the assessment year 1986-87. Aggrieved by the levy of this interest the assessee preferred appeals to the Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), who by his order dated 4th August, 1988 reduced the levy of interest to Rs. 1,444 in the assessment year 1985-86 and Rs. 3,198 in the assessment year 1986-8...
Suriender Singh Lognani and anr. Vs. Suresh Seth and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-13-1992
Reported in: 1992(2)ARBLR137(Delhi); 46(1992)DLT725
D.K. Jain, J.(1) This is a defendant appeal against ad-interim order of the Id. Addl. District Judge, Delhi dated 13 December, 1990, on their being restrained from interfering in any manner in the newly constituted business of the plaintiffs. (2) The two plaintiffs and the two defendants entered into a partnership styled as M/s. Seth Lognani Jewellers vide deed dated 2 November, 1990. Alleging that the said partnership was dissolved by mutual consent on 6 November, 1990; the defendants were paid Rs. 5 lakhs and a receipt for Rs. 5 lakhs was issued by the defendants of 6 November 1990, in full and final settlement of all their claims against the firm and surrender of the business premises No. 1384, S.B. Sarafa Market, Chandni Chowk, Delhi by defendants, the plaintiffs filed a suit for perpetual injunction against the defendants on the plea that the defendants were willfully obstructing them in their new business which they were now carrying on under the name and style of M/s. Mani Jewel...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »