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.
Kaushlya Devi Vs. Municipal Corporation of Delhi and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-13-1992
Reported in: 48(1992)DLT92; 1992(23)DRJ38
D.P. Wadhwa and R.L.Gupta, JJ.(1) The policy of the M.C.D. cannot be questioned unless it fails on the touchstone of reasonableness, justness and fairness. Court of its own cannot add a clause of renewal in the license agreement when there is no such clause. The petitioners had not to be heard if the M.C.D. did not wish to renew the eirlicense. They had no right to have the license renewed. There is no such rule or law that the M.C.D. must take a decision not to renew the license if it does not wish to renew license and then to communicate the reasons thereforee to the petitioners. No such right exists and none vests in the petitioners....
Syndicate Bank Vs. Nona Sona Exports and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-13-1992
Reported in: 1992(23)DRJ42; (1993)ILLJ50Del
Mohd. Shamin, J.(1) This is a suit for the recovery of a sum ofRs. 6,27,044/09 together with pendente lite and future interest under Order 37 Civil Procedure Code . The case of the Plaintiff is that the plaintiff is one of the nationalised banks with its Head Office at Manipal, State of Karnataka, and Branches all over the country with a Branch at F-40, Connaught Place, New Delhi. Mr. S. Ramchandran is the Divisional Manager and General Power of Attorney holder on behalf of the plaintiff. He is also the Principal Officer of the plaintiff bank and is, as such, competent to sign and verify the plaint and to institute the present suit. The defendant No. I is a company under the companies Act. 1956 with its Registered Office at S-81, Panchsheel Park, New Delhi. The defendant No.2 is the Managing Director of the said company and the defendant No. 3 is the wife of the second defendant. She is also a director of the defendant company. The defendant No. I through the defendant No.2 requested t...
R.K. Aneja Vs. Delhi Development Authority and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-13-1992
Reported in: 48(1992)DLT572; 1992(23)DRJ195
Mohd. Sharnim, J.(1) This is an application by the plaintiff under Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 Civil Procedure Code for issue of ad interim injunction restraining the defendants from withholding retraining the amounts having become due to the plaintiff in respect of the work executed under the agreement No. 12 & 13/EE/E.D.I./83-84 by the plaintiff or which may become due to the plaintiff under any other contract or agreement awarded to the plaintiff by the defendants. (2) Brief facts which led to the present application are as under: That the plaintiff is an Electrical Engineer.(hereinafter referred to as 'applicant'). He is duly registered with the defendant for 'A' Class contracts. The applicant was awarded a work by the defendant for the internal electric installation at Bhikaji Cama Bhawan, R.K-Puram District Centre vide their letter dated 5.10.84. The applicant commenced the work with effect from 6.10.84. The parties to the present application entered into an agreement No. 14/EE/E./D. 11...
Hindustan Transmission Products Limited and anr. Vs. Union of India an ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-13-1992
Reported in: 47(1992)DLT582
Y.K. Sabharwal, J.(1) Petitioner No. 1 is a Public Limited Company carrying on business of Super Enameled Copper Wires and allied materials and goods. Petitioner No. 2 is the Vice-President and Secretary of theCompany. The petitioner company entered into contracts for importing electrolytic copper rods (in coils). The short question for determination in this petition is when the taxable event in the matter of levy of customs duty on the import of goods takes place under the Customs Act, 1962 (for short'the Act')-Is it on the date specified in Section 15 of the Act or any otherdate.(2) The rate of basic customs duty on the goods in question which would fail within Chapter 74 of the First Schedule to the Customs Tariff Act,1975 had been laid down at 100%. The Central Government has, however,power to exempt any goods from levy of customs duty. Section 25 of the Act,empowers the Central Government, if it is satisfied that it is necessary in the public interest .so to do, to exempt generall...
A.K. Sharma Vs. Indian Airlines Corporation and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-13-1992
Reported in: 1992(23)DRJ16
Sat Pal, J. (1) In this writ petition the petitioner has approached this Court to hold that the panel for promotion to the post of chargehand will continue to operate till all the panelists including the petitioner are absorbed. (2) The posts of chargehand are filled up by 75% under promotion quota from amongst the employees in the Indian Airlines Corporation and the remaining 25% under the direct recruit quota from amongst master technicians, senior technicians and technicians in the same trade. In the present writ petition we are concerned with the direct recruit quota. The applicants who fulfillled the eligibility criteria with regard to the qualifications/experience in the trade are called for interview before a duly constituted board and those selected and found fit are placed on the panel. To regulate the above mentioned ratio at any point of time a running roster is maintained in which three posts are earmarked under promotion quota and 4th post is earmarked under the direct rec...
Jai Lal Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-13-1992
Reported in: 47(1992)DLT494
J.K. Mehra, J.(1) The petitioner in the present case has filed a writ petition seeking the following reliefs : 'ITis, thereforee, humbly prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to issue a writ of certiorari, calling for the records of the case and quash the orders of the respondents Nos. 1 to 4 as referred to above and issue a writ of mandamus or such other writs, orders ordirections, as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper, directing that the land in dispute may be ordered to be transferred to the petitioner against the price of Rs. 10,560.00 already recovered from the petitioner on 2.7.1968 as per orders of Shri Kartar Singh, Managing Officer dated 13.6.68 and 1.7.68 referred to above, and the orders of the transfer of the land in dispute to the respondents Nos.. 5 and 6 and the orders of the dispossession of the petitioner there from may be ordered to be set aside.In the alternative, it is prayed that it may be ordered that the petitioner was not liable to be evicted fro...
Santosh Chandra Chatterjee Vs. Union of India
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-13-1992
Reported in: 46(1992)DLT687
Dalveer Bhandari, J.(1) This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner for quashing and getting aside the order of detention dated 22.2.91, passed by Shri Mahendra Prasad, Joint Secretary to the Government of India, Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue, New Delhi, under Section 3(1) of the Cofeposa Act and the declaration dated 22.3.91 passed under section 9(1) of the Act. The petitioner has challenged the detention order on the ground of undue delay in consideration of his representation. (2) Brief facts necessary to dispose of this petition are set out as under;-- (3) That on 11.1,91, the petitioner was intercepted in the Customs Departure Hall of Calcutta Airport, just before the petitioner was proceeding to Singapore via Bangkok by Air India flight No. Ai 306. (4) When the petitioner reported to the Customs Counter for his customs clearance, the intelligence officer started scrutinizing his travel documents, in course of which it...
Brinda Karat and anr. Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-12-1992
Reported in: 46(1992)DLT561
B.N. Kirpal, J. (1) With the passing of this order, we hope, a nightmarish chapter in the young life of Ameena will, hopefully, come to a satisfactory end. (2) Ameena who is a minor and is approximately 12 or 13 years old is at present lodged in the Children's Home for Girls at Delhi. She had earlier been allegedly married to an Arab Sheikh which marriage has since been dissolved. Vide order dated 5th September, 1991 the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Delhi declined to give custody of Ameena Begum to her parents and passed an order directing her to be kept in the Children's Home at Delhi. This order was upheld by this Court in the case of Amrita Ahluwalia v. Union of India, C.W. 2758 of 1991 decided on 12th December, 1991. The Court, however, came to the conclusion that Ameena was a neglected Juvenile and the question of her custody should be decided by the Board which is constituted under the Juvenile Justice Act, 1986. (3) Pursuant to the aforesaid directions, the Juvenile...
Kumar Electric Works and anr. Vs. Olympia Home Appliances (P) Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-12-1992
Reported in: 1992(1)ARBLR409(Delhi); 48(1992)DLT555
Jaspal Singh, J. (1) Some of the greater Greek gods had their abode in Thessalay, a mountain named Olympus. Olympus of the Greek gods is however, not to be confused with Olympia which was a district in Elis where Olympic games in honour of Olympian Zeus were celebrated. This was all in the hoary past. Far removed from their historical glory, and reduced to mere trade-marks, today Olympus and Olympia are locking horns in law Courts. (2) The plaintiffs have been using 'Olympus' as trade mark for their electrical and electronic home appliances since the yeaiRl983. They got it registered on February 17, 1984 in respect of electric flat irons included in class 9 which, admittedly, is still subsisting. They have also made an application for its registration in class 11 and 7 and I am told that the same stands accepted for advertisement in the' Trade Marks Journal. The plaintiffs .claim that their trade mark in relation to their electric flat irons as well as in respect of all electrical and ...
Punjab Auto Enterprises Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-11-1992
Reported in: [1993]200ITR124(Delhi)
B.N. Kirpal, J.1. The petitioner seeks reference of the following question to this court : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in upholding the addition of Rs. 7,15,372 under section 43 of the Income-tax Act ?' 2. Two writ petitions had been filed in this court wherein similar contentions were raised. Vide our judgments in the cases of Sanghi Motors v. Union of India [1991] 187 ITR 703 and Escorts Ltd. v. Union of India [1991] 189 ITR 81, this court had upheld the validity of section 43 of the Act and also interpreted the first proviso to section 43 and came to the conclusion that the said provision was not retrospective in operation. The ratio of the said decisions concludes the matter in issue in this case. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner, however, submits that the Calcutta and Patna High Courts have taken different views and special leave petitions have been admitted in the cases of M/s. Sanghi Motors and...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »