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.
Shri Baij Nath Vs. M/S. Ansal and Saigal Properties Pvt. Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-20-1992
Reported in: ILR1992Delhi1057
ORDERR. 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 furt...
Delhi Cloth and General Mills Co. Ltd Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-20-1992
Reported in: [1992]198ITR500(Delhi); AIR1927PC242; 51IA421
B.N. Kirpal, J.1. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, in respect of the assessment year 1965-66, has referred the following four questions law '1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the sum of Rs. 12,500 paid as contribution to the Indian National Congress is an allowable deduction under the Income-tax Act, 1961 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was correct in law in holding that the amount of Rs. 90,771 was an expenditure incurred wholly and exclusively for the purposes of the assessed's business 3. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstance of the case, the Tribunal was correct in law in upholding the order of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner allowing only Rs. 1 lakh out of Rs. 1,14,249 being the payment to outgoing members of the Employees' Provident Fund Trust out of the assessed's contributions and interest thereon from November 1, 1952, till July 28, 1954 4. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances ...
Superior Steel Products (Pvt) Limited Vs. Municipal Corporation of Del ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-16-1992
Reported in: 1992(23)DRJ287
Mohd. Shamim, J. (1) This is a petition under Section 20 of the Arbitration Act. The petitioner herein through the present petition want that the disputes referred in para 19 of the present petition be referred to an arbitrator appointed by this Court. (2) Learned counsel for the petitioner Mr.Bhasin has contended that similar disputes which are very much akin to the disputes herein have already been referred to the sole arbitration of Mr. Justice S.S. Chadha, a retired Judge of this Court, who was appointed as the sole arbitrator to adjudicate upon the disputes between the parties. According to him similar disputes raised in Civil writ petition No. 2328/89, M/s. sunil Rai & Co.Pvt.Ltd. v. Municipal Corporation of Delhi, and in suit No.814/91, M/s Goenka Alloy Steel (P) Ltd. V. Municipal Corporation of Delhi, have already been referred to the sole arbitration of Mr.Justice S.S. Chadha and the proceedings are still pending before him. He thus wants that the disputes involved in the pres...
Sant Chit and Finance Pvt. Ltd. Vs. G.D. Textiles and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-16-1992
Reported in: 1992(23)DRJ302
Mohd. Shamim, J.(1) This is a suit for recovery of Rs. 2,28,900.00 together with pendents lite and future interest at the rate of 12% per annum. Briefly stated the case of the plaintiff is that the plaintiff is a private limited company duly incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 with its registered office at 16/2704, Ajmal Khan Road, Karol Bagh, New Delhi. Shri Sant Lal Arora is the Director of the company. He is fully authorised to institute the present suit vide resolution No. 2 dated May 13,1991. He is thus competent to sign and verify the plaint and to file the present suit. The defendant No. 1 is a partnership firm. Defendants No. 2 and 3 are the partners thereof. The plaintiff is running chit and finance business in Delhi and Haryana. The plaintiff was the Foreman responsible for the conduct of Chit no. BGF-5. Defendant No. 1 is a subscriber i.e. a person holding a ticket under the chit. The ticket number allotted to defendant No. 1 was 7. Defendant No. 1 became a prized sub...
Uttar Pradesh Rajkiya Nirman Nigam Ltd. Vs. Indure Private Ltd. and or ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-10-1992
Reported in: 1992(2)ARBLR269(Delhi); 47(1992)DLT268
Usha Mehra, J. (1) Uttar Pradesh Rajkiya Nirman Nigam Ltd.(hereinafter called the petitioner) has alleged that since there does not exist any legal, valid and binding Arbitration Agreement between, the parties hence the reference of disputes made by Indure (P) Ltd. (hereinafter called respondent No. 1) to the arbitrator (respondent No. 2 herein) and calling upon the petitioner to enlarge the time for making and publishing the award by thearbitrator, (respondent No. 2) illegal, void and bad in law. In nut shell the case is that the petitioner decided to take up contract with U.P State Electricity Board for erection of mechanical equipment and construction work including consultancy services. Petitioner purchased the tender on 6.2.1984. On23.5.1984, respondent No. 1 had written to the petitioner offering to join the petitioner in this work. Respondent No. 1 wanted it to be a joint venture with the petitioner. thereforee, respondent No. 1 approached the petitioner. Parties negotiated and ...
Mahinder Singh and Dhanpal Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-10-1992
Reported in: 1992(2)Crimes763; 47(1992)DLT239; 1992RLR303
P.K. Bahri, J. (1) Vide judgment dated 4/09/1989, an Additional Sessions Judge, Delhi, had convicted Satish, Nand Kishore, Gopal, Mohinder Singh and Mohan Singh for offences punishable under Sections 307, 365, 395 & 397 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (for short 'IPC') and had also convicted Nand Kishore for an offence punishable under Sections 27/54/59 of the Arms Act and had convicted Dhanpal for an offence punishable under Section 412 Indian Penal Code although in some places in the judgment he is shown to be convicted for an offence punishable under Section 411 Ipc, and vide subsequent order dated 7/09/1989, accused Satish, Nand 'Kishore, Mohan Singh,Mahinder Singh and Gopal were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000.00 each under Section 307 read with Section 34 Indian Penal Code with the direction that 50% of the fine if realised shall be paid to the complainant and in default of payment of fine, to undergo rigorous...
Anoop Singh Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-10-1992
Reported in: 1992(2)Crimes550; 1992(24)DRJ165
P.K. Bahari, J.(1) This appeal has been brought against judgment dated September 24, 1988 and order of sentence dated September 24, 1988 by which an Additional Session Judge has convicted the appellant of an offence punishable under Section 21 of the N.D.P.S. Act and has sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment of ten years and to pay a fine of Rs. I lakh and in default of payment of lime to undergo further rigorous imprisonment of two year. The prosecution case, in brief, is that S.H.O. Sh.O.P.Yadav, PW-6 of Police Station Ambedkar Nagar, while patrolling the area on March 15, 1987, had received a secret information that a person would come in a jeep Orm 4897 having smack in substantial quantity for delivering it to Puran and he would be going to M.B.Road, Madangir Block B-V. He is stated to have come to the police station and made the entry regarding this particular information in the daily diary at 7.00 P.M. and had also informed A.C.P. Sh. Ashok Chand, PW-4, who come to the p...
Bhagat Bros. Vs. Income-tax Officer
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Decided on: Apr-09-1992
Reported in: (1992)41ITD557(Delhi)
1. to 6. [These paras are not reproduced here as they involve minor issues].7. By applying the provisions of Section 40A(3) the Income-tax authorities have disallowed a donation of Rs. 5,000. The relevant facts are that the ITO noted that out of the total donation of Rs. 5,512 in its Ahmedabad branch a claim for deduction of Rs. 2,756 under Section 80G of the Act had been made by the assessee. According to the ITO the eligible donation came to Rs. 501 only as payment of the remaining amount of Rs. 5,000 to Digvijay Federation, Ahmedabad was made in cash which stood hit by Section 40A(3) of the Act, though otherwise the same was eligible for deduction under Section 80G. He, therefore, restricted the deduction to Rs. 250 being 50 per cent of the eligible amount of Rs. 501.8. In appeal the main argument advanced on behalf of the assessee was that a payment partakes the character of expenditure only when it is laid out or expended for the purpose of earning profit in business. On this lin...
Yogesh Chander Vs. Manju Bala
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-09-1992
Reported in: 1992RLR296
Mohd. Shamim, J.(1) [ED facts : Plaintiff had sued Deft. for declaration that parties marriage performed on 20.4.84 was legal and any subsequent marriage is void. He had valued the suit for purposes of jurisdiction at Rs. 1.10 lakh. Deft. raised a preliminary objection that suit is not triable by High Court as it is not properly valued. He relied on the Rules made by High Court on the subject] Para 4 onwards, judgment is : 4. Chapter 3, part C of Delhi High Court Rules (Practice and Procedure)-Part IV' lays down the method and deals with such types of suits as to how they are to be valued. It lays down the Rules made by the High Court with the previous sanction of the State Govt, under the powers conferred by section 9 of the Suits Valuation Act, 1887, and all other powers in that behalf, for determining for the purposes specified therein, the value of the subject-matter of certain classes of suits which do not admit of being satisfactorily valued, and for the treatment of such classes...
Vikramjit Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-09-1992
Reported in: 1992(23)DRJ1
C.M. Nayar, J. (1) The present petition is directed against the order of the respondents dated April 6, 1987, removing the petitioner from the office of the Director (Marketing), Indian Drugs and Pharmaceuticals Limited; ( for short IDPL) with immediate effect on payment of three months salary in lieu of three months notice. (2) The petitioner was a permanent grade I officer of the Industrial Management Pool of the Bureau of Public Enterprises, Department of Expenditure, Ministry of Finance, Government of India, New Delhi. The said Industrial Pool was constituted under the scheme called as 'Industrial Management Pool Scheme'. The said scheme was constituted in the manner provided to serve the needs of the Ministries, having industrial undertakings functioning under them. The Ministries of Steel, Mines and Fuel, Transport & Communications and Commerce and Industry, at the relevant time, participated in the Pool. It was, however, open to any other Ministry concerned with the running of i...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »