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.
S.M. Mukherjee Vs. University Grants Commission and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-07-1992
Reported in: 47(1992)DLT388
S.B. Wad, J. (1) These writ petitions raise common questions regarding the implementation of the recruitment rules of the University Grants Commission and for proper balancing of the claims of the Under Secretaries and the Education Officers in regard to seniority and promotion in the University GrantsCommission.(2) The University Grants Commission was established in 1956 by an Act of Parliament, viz. University Grants Commission Act, 1956. The Statement of Objects and Reasons of the Bill in this regard stated that 'the Constitution of India vests Parliament with exclusive authority in regard to coordination and determination of standards in institutions for higher education for research and scientific and technical institutions. It is obvious that neither coordination nor determination of standards is possible unless the Central Government has some voice in determination of standards of teaching and examination in the Universities both old and new. It is also necessary to ensure that ...
Eicher Motors Limited Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-07-1992
Reported in: 48(1992)DLT102; 1992(24)DRJ108; 1993(41)ECC80; 1993(65)ELT161(Del)
B.N. Kirpal, J.(1) The challenge in this writ petition is to the order passed by the Customs, Excise and ld (Control) Appellate Tribunal who have directed that on the petitioner depositing a sum of Rs. 8 Lakhs there will be stay of realisation of pre-deposit of the duty amounting to Rs. 23,17,959.24 and penalty of Rs. 7 Lakhs, and have further directed that the appeal would be heard on the payment of the said amount of Rs. 8 Lakhs .(2) Briefly slated the facts are that the petitioner is a manufacturer of motor vehicles. The petitioner manufactures and supplies chassis to the body builders. These chassis are supplied after the excise duty has been paid and clearance obtained from the department. The body builder manufactures complete bus by fabricating the body on the chassis and, after paying a duty of Rs. 8,400.00 , returns the bus to the petitioner. The petitioner carries out inspection of the said bus and thereafter the same is sold to various customers.(3) The excise authorities, a...
Dharam Singh and anr. Vs. Parveen Sehgal and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-07-1992
Reported in: II(1992)ACC413; 1992ACJ1067; AIR1992Delhi347; 47(1992)DLT706; 1992(23)DRJ153
D.K. Jain, J.(1) This First appeal under Section 11O-D of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (for short the Act) has been preferred by Delhi Transport Corporation and its driver against the award of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (for short the Tribunal) dated 27 October 1980 holding them liable for payment of a compensation of Rs. 79.951.00 to the respondents/ claimants (termed Claimants hereafter). (2) The claimants have filed cross-objections, being C.M. No. 3571/81, wherein they have claimed compensation in the sum of Rs. 5 lakhs with interest at the rate of 18% per annum. (3) On 22 January 1976,at about 7.15 P.M., Mr. C.P.Sehgal was returning from office on his scooter via Patel Road when a bus bearing No. Dlp 680, hit the scooter from behind near Cottage No. 22. As a result there of the scooter fell down and Mr. Sehgal came under left front wheel of the bus. Since the bus was at a high speed, the driver could not stop it even after knocking down Mr. Sehgal and drugged him up to a c...
Continental Construction Ltd. Vs. Income-tax Officer
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Decided on: Apr-06-1992
Reported in: (1992)41ITD614(Delhi)
1. This is an appeal by the assessee arising out of its assessment for assessment year 1983-84. We have heard the learned counsel for the assessee and the learned Departmental Representative and have perused the material placed before us.2. The first point raised in this appeal is about the assessee's claim for weighted deduction in terms of Section 35B of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The assessee is a civil contractor and was, during the year under consideration, executing some projects in foreign countries like Libya and Iraq. For that purpose the assessee was maintaining offices and work force in those countries. The assesses did not claim weighted deduction under Section 35B before the Assessing Officer because it was claiming that its entire income is exempt under Section 80-O. The assessee's claim for relief under Section 80-O was negatived and in the appeal preferred by the assessee and alternative claim for relief in terms of Section 35B was set up. The CIT (Appeals) upheld the A...
Rajiv Kumar Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-06-1992
Reported in: 1993CriLJ293; 1992(40)ECC446
ORDER1. On 30th July, 1988 Rajiv Kumar s/o Shri Jatinder Singh was convicted under S. 20 Part II of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (for short the Act) by Addl. Sessions Judge, New Delhi. He was sentenced to R.I. for 10 years with a fine of Rs. 1 lac with a further direction that in case of default in the payment of fine he would undergo further R.I. for two years. Feeling aggrieved from his conviction and sentence Rajiv Kumar has filed this petition. 2. Briefly stated the facts as contained in rukka sent by S. I. Balram Solanki which forms the basis of the FIR No. 286 dated 26th October, 1986 are as under :- 3. On 26th October, 1986 S. I. Balram Solanki had a secret information that about 20 days earlier two boys resident of Bihar had taken on rent a room in Bapudham and their activities indicated that they had been dealing in some drugs after bringing the same from Bihar and that they had gone to Bihar about 4-5 days back and were expected to return that day. Accor...
Tikka Shatrujit Singh and ors. Vs. Brig. Sukhjit Singh and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-06-1992
Reported in: ILR1992Delhi1158
P.K. Bahri, J.1. This is a suit seeking separation of the shares of the plaintiffs after due partition of the joint properties. Plaintiffs No. 1 and 2 are the sons of defendant No. 1 whereas plaintiff No. 4 and defendant No. 2 are the daughters of defendant No. 1 and plaintiff No. 3 is the wife of defendant No. 1. Plaintiffs 1, 2 & 4 were minors at the time of the filing of this suit and the suit was brought through their mother and next friend, plaintiff No. 3. The plaintiffs 1, 2 & 4 had since become major and had elected to continue this suit. Unfortunately Plaintiff No. 2 Maharajkumar Amanjit Singh died on 10th November, 1991. He had died intestate and his estate is inherited by his mother Plaintiff No. 3. 2. The case set up by the plaintiffs in brief is that the plaintiffs and defendants constituted Hindu undivided family (HUF) and all of them have been joint in estate and worship and up to August, 1976, they were also joint in mess. It is averred that defendant No. 1 had deserted...
Premwati Vs. Raghubans and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-06-1992
Reported in: 1992RLR223
Mahinder Narain, J. (1) [ED. facts : Plaintiff bought suit land from one Sukhbir Saran by a registered sale deed on 19.12.68. Claiming that Defts. had trespassed into the land on 24.12.68, she sued them for possession and damages for use and occupation. Defts. in their w/s denied plaintiff to be owner contending that they and 13 others were owner of the land. Trial Court held that plaintiff had proved her ownership and that Defts. had failed to show that they were owners and decreed the suit. In appeal, it was held that plaintiff was only a co-owner and suit by her alone was not maintainable. She filed R.S.A.] After detailing above, it was held : (2) It is to be noted that in the lower appellate court the respondents did not assert or urge against the findings of the learned trial court that the defendants are not the owners of the land in question. (3) Before me in the second appeal, the only question which I need to decide, is whether a co-owner can maintain suit for possession again...
Tikka Shatrujit Singh and ors. Vs. Brig. Sukhjit Singh and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-06-1992
Reported in: (1992)105CTR(Del)249
P. K. BAHRI, J. :This is a suit seeking separation of the shares of the plaintiffs after due partition of the joint properties. Plaintiffs No. 1 and 2 are the sons of defendant No. 1 whereas plaintiff No. 4 and defendant No. 2 are the daughters of defendant No. 1 and plaintiff No. 3 is the wife of defendant No. 1. Plaintiffs 1, 2 & 4 were minors at the time of the filing of this suit and the suit was brought through their mother and next friend, plaintiff No. 3. The plaintiffs 1, 2 & 4 had since become major and had elected to continue this suit. Unfortunately Plaintiff No. 2 Maharajkumar Amanjit Singh died on 10th November, 1991. He had died intestate and his estate is inherited by his mother Plaintiff No. 3.2. The case set up by the plaintiffs in brief is that the plaintiffs and defendants constituted Hindu undivided family (HUF) and all of them have been joint in estate and worship and up to August, 1976, they were also joint in mess. It is averred that defendant No. 1 had deserted ...
Abdul Sattar Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-06-1992
Reported in: 1992(40)ECC12
V.B. Bansal, J.1. The only ground on which the petitioner claims bail for the offence under Section 20 of the Narcotic Drugs & Psychotropic Substances Act (hereinafter referred to as the NDPS Act) is the non-filing of a challan against him within 90 days of his arrest.2. According to the case of the prosecution the petitioner was arrested on 6th July, 1991 when he was found in possession of 1 kg. of charas. Challan against the petitioner was filed on 11th October, 1991.3. I have heard Shri Gurvinder Singh, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Shri B.K. Sharma, learned Counsel for the respondent.4. Submission of learned Counsel for the petitioner has been that a person against whom challan has not been filed within the period of 60 days or 90 days he [has] vested right in terms of Section 167(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure and, thus, metropolitan magistrate has no option but to pass an order of bail. He has, thus, submitted that it is an order in default regardless of the seriou...
Himachal Plastics (P.) Ltd. Vs. Income-tax Officer
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Decided on: Apr-03-1992
Reported in: (1993)44ITD7(Delhi)
1. These appeals are directed against the consolidated order passed by the CIT(Appeals) confirming the reassessment framed by the ITO by resort to the provisions of Section 147(a)/148.2. The assessment years involved are 1976-77 and 1982-83, the original assessments in respect of which were completed on 28-2-1977 and 28-1-1983 respectively. In the course of these assessments, the assessee's claim for deduction under Section 80HH was allowed on the basis of the calculation made in the returns of income. To clarify the matter further, interest income was also a part and parcel of the computation of the said deduction.3. The ITO subsequently opined that excess deduction under Section 80HH had been allowed to the assessee since income on account of interest had to be excluded as the same was taxable under the head "Income from other sources" and not under the head "Business". He, accordingly, issued notices under Section 148 on 30-3-1985 for the assessment year 1976-77 and on 15-3-1985 fo...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »