Delhi Court May 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.
M/S. Bansal Construction Co. Vs. I.O.C., Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-26-1992
Reported in: 48(1992)DLT241; 1992(24)DRJ74
ORDER1. This application has beenmoved by the petitioner seeking review of my judgment dated August 2, 1991 by which I had dismissed the petition brought by the petitioner under S. 20 of the Arbitration Act.2. The petitioner had entered into a contract with the respondent for the work of construction of some channel. Petitioner claimed to have suffered damages on account of breach of contract by the respondent inasmuch as the respondent had not made available the site on which the construction was to be done within the stipulated period and thus, the labour and material procured by the petitioner remained idle. The petitioner had set up a claim of Rs. 7,72,410/-. It appears that while settling the final bill, the petitioner was paid Rs. 1,00,000/- out of the said claim which the petitioner accepted without any protest.3. The pleas raised by the respondent were two-fold. Firstly, that in view of clause 6.6.1.0 of the contract, the petitioner having not notified his claims in accordance ...
Saleem Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-26-1992
Reported in: 50(1993)DLT604
Usha Mehra, J. (1) The case of the prosecution is that on 15-12-91at about 9.15 p.m. in the stair case of Kotha No. 57, O.B. Road, Delhi,accused was apprehended while he was coming down the stair case. He was holding a box in his hand. On suspension, he was asked to open the box,from which/nine balls like 'Gulabjarnun' of black colour were recovered/which/on weighing were found to be 500 gms., out of which one ball was taken which was of 65 gms., was sample. The same was sealed with the seal of 'R.K..' and Sho bearing impression 'K.S.'. This/sample was sent to the CFSL. Cfsl report has been received which indicates that 60 gms. (appx.)brownish colour solid substance was received which on test was found to be'Charas'(2) Counsel for the petitioner contended that report of the CFSL shows that there was a tampering of the seal. The penalty being very severe in such a case, sealing and sampling assumes importance. Since between the weight which was supposed to have been recovered at the sit...
Sukhbir JaIn and anr. Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-26-1992
Reported in: II(1992)DMC259
S.C. Jain, J.1. Both the petitions Crl. M. (M) 802/91 Sukhbir Jain and AnotherState and Crl. M. (M) 803/91 Sushil Jain v. State have arisen out of the same order passed by Shri. J.D. Kapoor, Addl. Sessions Judge on 28.2.1991 and I, thereforee, dispose of both these petitions by this common order.2. This case speaks about how marital discords in a joint family act like a wild dragnet in which not only young unmarried teenaged girls studying in school but also married daughters who visit their parents periodically and that too after long interval become the victims of criminal prosecution merely on the platitudinous statement of the so called bride and unfortunate result is in innumerable broken homes.3. Smt. Sobha Jain was married with Sushil Kumar Jain on 26.11.1983. As per the complaint made by her on 9.5.89 at police station Hazrat Nizzamuddin, for a few months her marital life pulled on well. There after she was harassed and forced to bring more dowry. In order to make her marital l...
The Commissioner of Income-tax, New Delhi Vs. Modi Industries Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-25-1992
Reported in: 1992(23)DRJ361; [1992]197ITR517(Delhi); 1992RLR343
B.N. Kirpal, J.(1) At the instance of the Commissioner of Income-tax in respect of Assessment Years 1969-70 and 1970-71, the Income-tax Tribunal has referred the following four questions to this Court:- '1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case. the Tribunal was justified in allowing interest of Rs. 2357.00 , Rs. 51.840.00 payable by the assessed on account of provision for interest payable on arrears of Commission to the Commission agents for purchase of sugar cane for the asstt. years 1969-70. 1970-71? 2. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, 'drainage system' came within the description of building and hence entitled to depreciation allowance? 3. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, depreciation was allowable on overhead water tanks by treating the same 'plant'? 4. Whether the Tribunal was right in holding that the capital employed would include not only assessed's capital but also include capital borrowed by the assesse...
Dhiraj Singh Madan Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-25-1992
Reported in: 1993CriLJ514; 1992(2)Crimes903; 1992(23)DRJ257
Usha Mehra, J.(1) The detention of a person already in custody amounts to double detention. similarly, non supply of material documents and delay in disposal of the representation under Article 22 of the constitution renders the detention illegal and void. (2) The allegations against Dhiraj Singh Madan, petitioner, are that on 11.4.91, on account of his personal search Us 5000 dollars were recovered from his possession. As a result of search of his vehicle certain other incriminating loose sheets were recovered. He was accordingly detained. He was served with a detention order dated 13.5.91, issued under Section 3 of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange end Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 (hereinafter referred to as Cofeposa Act). Reasons assigned for detention are 'to preventing him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the augmentation of foreign exchange'. The petitioner was detained and kept in custody in Central Jail, Tihar, New Delhi. With this detention order, pe...
Goyal Gases (P.) Ltd. Vs. Deputy Commissioner of
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Decided on: May-22-1992
Reported in: (1992)42ITD135(Delhi)
1. These are two appeals preferred by the assessee, a limited company.In these two appeals, the assessee has raised a common grievance regarding the. disallowance of the hire charges of gas cylinders of Rs. 2,63,000 and Rs. 10,60,936 for the asst. years 1986-87 and 1987-88 respectively. The assessee, in addition to the above-mentioned common issue, has raised a few minor issues as well in both the years.2. Shri C.S. Agarwal, the learned counsel for the assessee-company, submitted that the previous years relevant to the two asst. years under appeal are, 30th June, 1985 and 31st Dec. 1986 respectively. He submitted that the assessee-company manufactures oxygen gas etc. and sells them in specially designed cylinders. He submitted that, the common issue as raised by the assessee-company relates to the claim of deduction of hire charges of the gas cylinders. He submitted that, the cylinders were taken on hire from M/s. Peckock Chemicals Pvt. Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as PCPL), a concer...
Anand Agencies Vs. Income-tax Officer
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Decided on: May-22-1992
Reported in: (1992)43ITD37(Delhi)
1. These four appeals - two involving penalties under Section 271(1)(a) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('the Act') and the remaining two under Section 271(1)(b) are disposed of by this consolidated order.2. The assessee was required to file its return of income for the assessment year 1981-82 on or before 31-7-1981 but it filed the same on 29-3-1984 and committed a default of 31 complete months. On being asked through notice under Section 274 of the Act the assessee explained that its sole source of income was from commission earned on selling the goods of its sister concern M/s. Anand Synthetics Pvt. Ltd. which was during the relevant accounting period, faced with labour problem and could not intimate to the assessee its commission income due to non-finalisation of accounts. It was further explained that for the aforementioned reason the assessee had to seek extension of time by moving applications in Form No, 6 from time to time. Eruption of dispute amongst assessee's partners was also...
income-tax Officer Vs. Mool Chand Parveen Kumar
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Decided on: May-22-1992
Reported in: (1992)42ITD300(Delhi)
1. The Revenue's appeal and the assessee's cross objection for assessment year 1985-86 arising out of the order dated 28-6-1988 passed by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) -XI, New Delhi, are disposed of by a combined order, for the sake of convenience. We shall first take up the Revenue's appeal. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned CIT (Appeals) has erred in directing the Assessing Officer to frame two different assessment orders in this case by ignoring the provisions of Section 187(2)(a) of the IT Act, 1961.3. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee firm had financial year as its previous year. The assessee firm consisted of the following 4 partners upto assessment year 1984-85: This position continued upto 30-9-1984 when a dissolution deed was executed in terms of which three partners, namely, Shri Mool Chand, Smt. Renu Jain and Shri Suresh Kumar Jain decided to retire from the firm. It was agreed that the firm M/s. Mool Chand Parveen Kumar ...
Bawa Jagjit Singh Vs. Achhar Singh and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-22-1992
Reported in: 48(1992)DLT110
P.N. Nag, J. (1) In view of the averments made in the application supported with an affidavit, the delay in filing the civil revision petition is condoned. C.R. 1508189 & CM. 4826/89 (2) This revision petition is directed against the order dated 20.7.1989 passed by Sh. M.S. Rohilla, Sub-Judge First Class, Delhi whereby he has dismissed the application filed on behalf of the petitioner herein under Order 9, Rule7r/w Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure seeking restoration of the application under Order 9 Rules 7 & 13 dated 20.5.1986. (3) The petitioner had filed objections to the award dated 23.12.1981 before the trial Court. The Court had posted that case for filing rejoinder to the reply filed by the petitioner to the objection petition, to 8.5.1986. Unfortunately, according to the learned Counsel for the petitioner, he noted down the next date as 9.5.1986 instead of 8.5.1986 in his diary, 9th May, 1986 was declared as public holiday and consequently Counsel for the petitioner a...
Khushi Ram Vs. V.P. Parkash Chopra
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-22-1992
Reported in: 47(1992)DLT306
C.M. Nayar, J.(1) The present contempt petition has been filed by the petitioner/landlord against the respondent Shri Vidya Prakash Chopra for his failure to deliver the possession of the impugned premises No. 17-A/20. WEA Karol Bagh, New Delhi. The notice in the petition was issued on 6/02/1992, and the matter has been adjourned on different occasions.(2) The brief facts of the case are that the respondent/Contemner Shri Vidya Prakash Chopra was a tenant in the impugned premises. The order of eviction was passed against him by the Court of Additional RentController, Delhi in suit No. E-487/8 3/04/1987. The respondent felt aggrieved by this order and 'filed Civil RevisionNo.498ofl987in thisCourt. The matter came up for hearing before the learned Single Judge on 13/11/1990, when Sunanda Bhandare, J. after hearing Counsel for the petitioner/landlord passed a detailed order upholding the findings of the Additional Rent Controller. The Revision, as a consequence, was dismissed on 13/11/199...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- Next ›
- Last »