Delhi Court May 1992 Judgments
Browse smarter
Turn browsing into brief-ready notes
Open any judgment and get a structured AI Brief in seconds — plus Semantic Search when you need to hunt by meaning, not keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed — log in to pick up where you left off.
Fisons Ispat Ltd. Vs. Assistant Commissioner of
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Decided on: May-29-1992
Reported in: (1992)42ITD365(Delhi)
1. These appeals are directed against separate orders passed by the CIT under Section 263 and as they have been heard together and the points involved are also identical, I dispose them of by means of a consolidated order. The subsequent discussion pertains to the appeal of Fisons Ispat Ltd. in ITA No. 3074 (Del.)/91.2. For the assessment year 1987-88, the previous year in respect of which ended on 30th June 1986, the assessee-company filed its return on 19th June 1987 declaring an income of Rs. 54,392. The assessment was completed by the Assessing Officer on the declared income vide order dated 17-10-1988 passed under Section 143(1).3. The CIT on a subsequent perusal of the record opined that the order passed by the ITO was erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue on account of the following reasons which were stated in the show-cause notice issued to the assessee : (a) In para 5 of Schedule 'B' on Notes on accounts, the auditors have observed that 'during the year 35,775...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Modi Industries Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-29-1992
Reported in: ILR1993Delhi1; [1992]197ITR655(Delhi)
B.N. Kirpal, J.1. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal has referred, under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, in relation to the Companies (Profits) Surtax Act, 1964 (hereinafter referred to as 'the said Act'), the following question to this court : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Tribunal was right in holding that Rs. 40,50,000 appearing in the head 'Debenture redemption fund' could be included in the capital base ?' 2. The facts as found by the Tribunal are that, in respect of the assessment year 1971-72, the assessed-company, while computing the capital for purposes of surtax under the provisions of the Second Schedule to the said Act, included therein Rs. 40,50,000 appearing in the balance-sheet under the head 'Debenture redemption fund'. The Income-tax Officer was of the view that the said fund was a 'sinking fund' and that it had to be excluded in computing the quantum of reserve as per Explanationn to rule 1 of the Second Schedul...
The Raymond Woollen Mills Ltd. and anr. Vs. Union of India and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-29-1992
Reported in: 48(1992)DLT20; 1992(23)DRJ461
B.N. Kirpal, J. (1) A number of manufacturers of cement have filed these writ petitions, inter alia, challenging the validity of clause 9A of the Cement Control Order. 1967 whereby producers of cement were required to pay to the cement regulation account an amount of Rs.9 per metric tonne of non-levy cement produced by them.(2) As common questions of law have been argued it is not necessary to set out facts of all the writ petitions. For the sake of convenience, and in order to appreciate the contentions raised, we will set out briefly the facts in the petition filed by M/s Raymond Woollen Mills Limited, which has a division which manufactures cement.(3) The cement industry, except for a brief period in 1966-67 had been under control since 1942. Prior to 28th february, 1982 when the impugned clause 9A of the Cement Control Order, 1967 was promulgated, the entire production of cement in the country was under price and distribution control by means, of orders issued under Sections 18G an...
Amar Nath Malhetra Vs. M.C.S. Limited
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-29-1992
Reported in: [1993]76CompCas469(Delhi); 1992(23)DRJ317; ILR1993Delhi109
Anil Dev Singh, J.(1) This is plaintiff's application under Order 39 rule 4 read with Section 151 Civil Procedure Code for 'setting aside the interim injunction' dated September 7,1991 granted by the learned Sub Judge. Delhi and for dismissal of plaintiff's application under Order 39 rules 1 and 2 CPC. The events leading to this application are as follows: The defendant company, which is a public limited company, fixed its Annual General Meeting (for short AGM') on September 9,1991 and in this regard circulated a notice dated July 1, 1991 informing the plaintiff, who is a shareholder of the defendant company in turn informed the latter that he will be moving the following resolution under Section 225(2) of the Companies Act, 1956 (for short the Act) at the forthcoming 'AGM': 'RESOLVED that M/s. Ram Pal Gupta & Associates 6781, Beri Wala Bagh Chowk, Azad Market, Delhi-6, Chartered Accountants be and is hereby appointed as Auditors of the Company in place of M/s. Amod Agarwal-Associates,...
National Building Construction Corporation Ltd. Vs. State Bank of Pati ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-29-1992
Reported in: AIR1993Delhi89; I(1994)BC587; 1993(26)DRJ390
Usha Mehra, J.(1) It is a well settled principle of law that bank cannot be interdicted from encashing the bank guarantee because that is an independent contract between the beneficiary and the bank, the enforcements of which depends upon the terms and conditions of the bank guarantee. The bank is least concerned with the relation between the parties under the original contract nor with the question whether the guarantee has been invoked rightly or wrongly nor the bank can question the decision of the beneficiary regarding the outstanding amount.(2) In fact no fraud of the beneficiary has been set up in this case nor special equities have been indicted nor any serious dispute. The defendant No. 2 has denied the existence of the arbitration agreement and it is yet to be determined whether the letter issued by Bureau of Public Enterprises is applicable in this case or not. thereforee, it cannot be stated that there is any serious dispute or that till the arbitrator gives a decision the b...
Babu Varghese Vs. Union of India
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-29-1992
Reported in: 47(1992)DLT556
Sat Pal, J.(1) In the wake of Gulf War which began in the first week of August 1990, a large number of Indian repatriates filed from Iraq/Kuwait and came to the Indian border by land route through Turkey/Iran andPakistan.(2) Sometime in the middle of September, 1990, it was brought to the notice of the Government of India that a large number of such repatriates who fled from Iraq/Kuwait with virtually nothing in their possession except the car in which they escaped from the war zone. In view of the extreme financial distress and having driven down over a distance of 20000-25000Kilometers over land, the Government of India issued a notification dated 23/10/1990 under Section 25(1) of the Customs Act, 1962 permitting such persons to import the cars without payment of duty subject to the following conditions:- (I)the importer produces evidence to the satisfaction of the officer not below the rank of a Deputy Collector of Customsthat-(a) the said motor car was registered with the appropria...
The Commissioner of Income-tax, Delhi Vs. Modi Industries
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-29-1992
Reported in: 1992(23)DRJ448
B.N. Kirpal, J.(1) The Income-tax Tribunal has referred, under Section 256(1) of the Income- tax Act in relation to the Companies (Profits) Surtax Act, 1964 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act) the following question to this Court:(2) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Income-tax Tribunal was right in holding that Rs.40,50,000.00 appearing in the head debenture redemption fund called for be included in the capital base?'(3) The facts as found by the Tribunal are that in respect to the Assessment Year 1971-72, the assessed company, while computing the capital for purposes of Surtax under the provisions of the Second Schedule to the said Act, included therein Rs. 40,50,000.00 appearing in the balance sheet under the head 'Debenture Redemption Fund'. The Income-tax Officer was of the view that the said fund was a 'sinking fund' and it had to be excluded in computing the quantum of reserve, as per Explanationn to Rule 1 of the Second Schedule of the said Act...
Delhi Electric Supply Undertaking Engineers' Association and Anr. Vs. ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-29-1992
Reported in: 1992(23)DRJ487; 1993LabIC1093; 1992(2)SLJ167(Delhi)
P.N. Nag, J. (1) The relevant fads as emerged from the pleadings of the parties are that the petitioner No.2 (hereinafter referred to as the 'petitioner') who was working as Executive Engineer - Class 'A' post under Section 92 of the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act - was issued a memo of charge he sheet dated 18th September. 1987 (Annexure I to the writ petition) by respondent No.3 Shri A.K. Chakrabarti on the charge that while functioning as XEN(D)SRD during the period 25.8.1981 to 5.6.1983 the petitioner with an ulterior motive to give undue favor to the consumer (i) did not get the supply disconnected and meters along with meter boards removed: and (ii) did not lodge report with the Police Authorities under Section 44 of the Indian Electricity Act. The petitioner, thus. failed to maintain absolute integrity and devotion to duty and violated Rule 3(1)(i) & (ii) of the C.C.S.(Conduct) Rules, 1964. Statement of imputation of misconduct in support of the Article of Charge framed against...
Sohan Lal Vs. Sri Pal and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-29-1992
Reported in: 48(1992)DLT65
S.C. Jain, J. (1) Facts giving rise to this second appeal are that an eviction petition was filed with respect to the premises comprising the entire the first floor, second floor along with stairs of premises No. 5730 (old) and 5011 (new) Rui Mandi, Sadar Bazar, Delhi on the ground that the tenant appellant has sub let, assigned or parted with the possession of the demised premises to R.P. Hosiery, T.R. Hosiery and Lovely Hosiery without the written consent of the landlord somewhere in 1966. The grounds of substantial damage and misuse were also pleaded but these grounds were not pressed. (2) The eviction petition was contested by the appellant tenant pleading that no valid notice of termination of tenancy has been served and as such the eviction petition was not maintainable. On merits, he pleaded that the premises were not sub let, assigned or parted with possession by him to any one. There are no sub tenants in the premises in question. (3) On the basis of oral as well as documentar...
V.K. Constructions Works Ltd. Vs. the Bank of Rajasthen Ltd. and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-29-1992
Reported in: II(1992)BC344; 48(1992)DLT468; 1992(23)DRJ371
Arun Kumar, J.(1) This order will dispose of the interim applications filed by the plaintiff in the above suits to restrain the defendant from encashing the bank guarantees furnished by the plaintiff in pursuance of the contract between the parties. These are six suits filed by the plaintiff M/s V.K. Constructions Works Ltd. against the Army Welfare Housing Organisation. There are six Independent contracts between the parties and thereforee these six suits. In each case there are two applications by the plaintiff regarding relief of injunction sought by the plaintiff against encashment of bank guarantees by the defendant. This order will dispose of all the 12 applications. Two sets of bank guarantees are involved. One set is regarding bank guarantees for the due repayment of the mobilization advance. The other set of bank guarantees is that of the performance guarantees. The Bank of Rajasthan Ltd., Panchsheel Park, New Delhi has furnished all the bank guarantees. The letters of invocat...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- Next ›
- Last »