Delhi Court April 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.
Uppal Engg. Co. Ltd. Vs. Indian Oil Corporation and Others
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-27-1992
Reported in: II(1992)BC425; [1993]76CompCas483(Delhi); 47(1992)DLT552; 1992RLR422
Anil Dev Singh, J.1. This is the plaintiff's application under Order 39, rules 1 and 2, read with section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, seeking a direction restraining the second defendant, i.e., Syndicate Bank, from paying to the first defendant any amount under bank guarantees No. 24/87 and No. 25/87, dated July 1, 1987. 2. It is an admitted case of both the parties that the plaintiff was awarded a contract for 'construction of additional shed for L.P.G. botting plant at Tikrikalan' by defendant No. 1. The total value of the contract was Rs.49,10,043. Under clause 2.1.0.0. of the general conditions of the contract, the plaintiff was required to furnish a security deposit in an amount equivalent to 10 per cent. of the total value of the contract for the due performance of its obligations under the contract. Again, according to clause 18 of the tender documents, the plaintiff was also required to furnish a bank guarantee for securing mobilisation advance to the tune of Rs. ...
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Vishal Builders (P.) Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-27-1992
Reported in: [1992]198ITR649(Delhi)
B.N. Kirpal, J.1. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal has stated the case and referred the following question of law to this court : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in law in treating the assessed-company as an industrial company for the purpose of rate of tax applicable to it ?' 2. The facts as found by the Tribunal are that the assessed is a public limited company engaged in the business of construction and sale of flats in multi-storeyed commercial buildings. In respect of the assessment year 1976-77, it claimed that it was an industrial undertaking within the meaning of section 2(9)(c) of the Finance Act, 1976. This claim was disallowed by the Income-tax Officer. An appeal was preferred by the assessed and the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) allowed the same, holding it to be an industrial undertaking. 3. The Revenue then filed an appeal to the Tribunal, but without success. Thereafter, the aforesaid qu...
Prabhat Construction Company Vs. Delhi Development Authority and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-27-1992
Reported in: 47(1992)DLT67
R.L. Gupta, J. (1) In this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioner, a partnership firm, prays for quashing the demand ofRs. 54,90,089.00 raised by letter dated 24/03/1992 issued by the AssistantCollector, Nazul, under Section 68 of the Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887, as extended to Delhi. The demand is admittedly towards arrears of ground rent and interest accrued thereon respecting plot of land bearing No. 6, NehruPlace, New Delhi, purchased by the petitioner on perpetual leasehold basis in an auction conducted on 5/08/1980 by the first respondent Delhi Development Authority. The bid of the petitioner in the sum of Rs. 5,18,00,000.00had been accepted by letter dated 21/08/1980 of the DDA. This premium was to be paid within a certain period for which, it appears, there is nodispute. (2) The terms of auction stipulated that the petitioner would have to erect a building in accordance with the plans prescribed within two years of the date of possession of the p...
Deepak Mahajan Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-27-1992
Reported in: 47(1992)DLT593; 1992(23)DRJ160
Dalveer Bhandari, J.(1) The petitioner has preferred a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and has prayed, inter alia, that the writ of habeas corpus be issued quashing an order of detention dated 9th May, 1991 passed under Section 3(1) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974, by the Joint Secretary to the Government of India, with a view to preventing him from smuggling goods and also preventing from engaging and transporting, concealing and keeping smuggled goods. Brief facts necessary to dispose of this writ petition are set out as under- Delhi Zonal Office of Enforcement Directorate received an information that one Mohd. Shakir Khan has been indulging in the purchase of foreign exchange at unauthorised rates and the same is being taken by him to Dubai for sale. Accordingly, on 6.1.91, officers of the Enforcement Directorate, New Delhi mounted surveillance at Indira Gandhi International Airport, New Delhi and ...
Ajay Kumar JaIn Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-27-1992
Reported in: 1992(22)DRJ629
Dalveer Bhandari, J.(1) The petitioner has preferred a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and has prayed, inter alia, that the writ of habeas corpus be issued quashing an order of detention dated 31st January, 1991 passed under Section 3(1) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974, by the Joint Secretary to the Government of India, with a view to preventing him from smuggling goods and also preventing from engaging and transporting, concealing and keeping smuggled goods. Brief facts necessary to dispose of this writ petition arc set out as under- Delhi Zonal Office of Enforcement Directorate received an information that one Mohd. Shakir Khan has been indulging in the purchase of foreign exchange at unauthorised rates and the same is being taken by him to Dubai for sale. Accordingly, on 6.1.91, officers of the Enforcement Directorate, New Delhi mounted surveillance at Indira Gandhi International Airport, New Delhi...
N.D.M.C. Vs. Mangat Ram Duggal
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-24-1992
Reported in: 1993CriLJ2022
P.K. Bahri, J.1. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated January 24, 1979 of a Metropolitan Magistrate by which he had acquitted the respondent of the charge under section 7 read with S. 16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. Facts of the case in brief are that on July 24, 1974 at about 4.30 p.m. Shri R. N. Malhotra, Food Inspector, had lifted a sample of Maida from the canteen being run by the respondent at Indian Oil Bhawan, Janpath, New Delhi. Sample on being analysed by public analyst was found to be adulterated as it was found to be insect infested. The learned Magistrate appears to have acquitted the respondent on the short ground that the Food Inspector under the law was not entitled to lift the sample of Maida which was not kept for sale by itself but was being kept for being used in preparing another food article namely Samosas and he placed reliance on a judgment delivered by a single Judge of this Court in N.D.M.C., v. Subhash Malhotra 1978 (2) FAC 118. In...
Ganga Ram Hospital Vs. D.P. Bhandari and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-23-1992
Reported in: 1992(24)DRJ321
(1) In the complaint filed by the complainant before the Delhi State Commission and who is respondent herein before us, he had charged the Appellant. Sir Ganga Ram Hospital authorities, and the Senior Consulting Surgeon of the Hospital Dr. T. Singh with failure to provide the patient Shri Rajesh Bhandari proper treatment. The patient eventually died on the 25th May, 1988. The failure to provide proper treatment, according to the Respondent Complainant consisted of (i) delay of 57 hours in taking a scan of his abdomen, (ii) failure to put the patient on the respirator and (iii) failure to admit him in the Icu even though the Doctors considered it essential that the patient should be kept in the ICU. (2) The State Commission was unanimous in rejecting the allegations (i) above viz. of delay in scanning the abdomen and (ii) not providing the patient with a respirator. The State Commission, however, held that it was essential that the patient should have been transferred to the Icu for tre...
Life Insurance Corporation of India Vs. New Delhi Municipal Committee
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-23-1992
Reported in: 47(1992)DLT299
Sunanda Bhandare, J.(1) The two points involved in this writ petition are : (1) whether the respondent-Committee can revise the assessment in respect of the property tax retrospectively and (2) what should be the rateable value for purpose of levying the property tax.(2) A Full Bench of this Court in Life Insurance orporation of Indiav. New Delhi Municipal Committee 1974 Rlr 499 held that the power of the respondent-Committee to revise the rateable value was to be exercised within the same assessment year. The Full Bench judgment of this Court has however been upset and reversed by the Supreme Court in the decision reported in : [1978]1SCR279 audit has been held that the respondent Committee can revise the rateable value for the purpose of house-tax within a reasonable time.(3) Learned Counsel for the petitioner very fairly concedes that the petition cannot succeed on the first point. On the second question, however learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that in view of the judgmen...
Ram Lal Vs. Bharat Singh
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-23-1992
Reported in: 47(1992)DLT370; 1992(22)DRJ637; 1992RLR317
S.C. Jain, J.(1) The facts giving rise to this second appeal are that Bharat Singh, predecessor-in-interest of the respondents herein filed a petition seeking eviction of Ram Lal predecessor-in-interest of the appellants herein from premises No.91A/UB, Jawahar Nagar, Delhi, on the ground of bonafide requiremt pleading, inter alia, that he is the owner and landlord of the premises in suit, which were let out for residential purpose and the same are required bonafide by him for occupation as residence for himself and for the members of his family dependent upon him, particularly for his son Vishan Dass who is employed in Desu at Kamla Nagar, being dependent upon him and that the petitioner has no other reasonably suitable alternative accommodation. Both the courts below i.e.Addl Rent Controller and the Rent Control Tribunal came to a concurrent Finding of fact that the premises were let out for residential purpose by Bharat Singh as its owner-landlord and need of the landlord is genuine ...
Union of India Vs. Bhagwan Singh and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-23-1992
Reported in: 47(1992)DLT205
D.P. Wadhwa, J. (1) Nobody appears for the appellant to plea this appeal.(2) The land in question is situated in the village Kusumpur. A notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short 'theAct') was issued on 23/01/1965 and a declaration under Section 6 of the Act on 6/09/1966. The award was given on 25/11/1968.(3) The learned Collector awarded compensation at the rate ofRs. 2,500.00 per bigha. On a reference made to the District Court under Section 18 of the Act the learned Additional District Judge by judgment dated 21/12/1974 enhanced the compensation at the rate of Rs. 5000.00per bigha. The appellant-Union of India filed this appeal under Section 54 of the Act. To this cross-objections have been filed by the respondents claiming compensation at the rate of Rs. 15,000.00 per bigha. These cross-objections have been registered. Respondents have also paid the requisite Courtfee.(4) It has been submitted before us that there are two villages, namely,Kusumpur an...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »