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.
C.D. Mining and Export Company (P) Ltd. Vs. Union of India
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-22-1992
Reported in: 48(1992)DLT584
D.P. Wadhwa, J.(1) The petitioner is in appeal. Its petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution was dismissed though partly by a learned Single Judge of this Court by judgment dated 9 August 1978. The petitioner had sought quashing of the order dated 18 May 1972 of the Government of India in the Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue and Insurance, passed in revision under the provisions of the Customs Act, 1962 (for short 'the Act').(2) We will come to the sequence of the events a little later and would note the substantive part of the order of the Collector of which revision was filed before the Government of India. The Collector held that: (1) goods imported were classifiable as stainless steel sheets under Item 63(20A) ICT; (2) the import licenses originally produced for the clearance of the goods were thus not valid; (3) M/s. Satyanarayana Khaitan Pvt. Ltd. (original name of the appellant) deliberately misdeclared the goods to evade the duty and to pass the goods unde...
Suresh Chand Garg Vs. Assistant Commissioner of
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Decided on: May-21-1992
Reported in: (1992)42ITD166(Delhi)
1. Both parties are aggrieved with the consolidated order passed by the CIT (Appeals) for assessment years 1978-79, 1979- 2. The original assessments for these three years were reopened by resort to the provisions of Section 147(a) consequent to the action under Section 132 of the Act at the business and residential premises of the assessee. In the reassessments certain additions came to be made on account of interest, household expenses and bad debts written off for all the three years and in respect of assessment years 1979-80 and 1980-81 on account of unexplained investments.3. Being aggrieved with the orders of the ITO, the assessee came up in appeals before the CIT (Appeals) who allowed some relief in respect of bad debts, household expenses and unexplained investments but retaining the remaining additions. In view of the aforesaid, further appeals were preferred to the Tribunal, by both parties.4. At this stage, we would like to mention that although the assessee did not raise a...
O.P. Arora Vs. German Italian Mosul Dam Joint Venture (Gimod-jv)
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-21-1992
Reported in: 1992(24)DRJ113
Anil Dev Singh, J. (1) This is plaintiffs suit for rendition of accounts and recovery of the amount found due to the plaintiff from the defendant.(2) The facts as stated in the plaint are that the plaintiff was carrying on the business under the name and style of M/s. Foreign Linkers (Personnel). The plaintiff was duly registered recruiting Agent under the Indian Emigration Act of 1922 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') and was also governed by the guidelines issued by the Supreme Court by its order dated March 20,1979 in this regard. According to the plaintiff the defendant had taken up the project for the construction and completion of a Dam at Mosul in Iraq. On 2nd/4th September, 1981 the plaintiff and the defendant entered into an agreement whereby the former was required to supply manpower from India to the latter at the construction site of the dam in Iraq. The defendant which is a company based in West Germany also appointed the plaintiff as its agent vide its power of attor...
Kanwal Singh and ors. Vs. Bishan Singh
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-21-1992
Reported in: 47(1992)DLT520; II(1992)DMC102; 1992(24)DRJ171
Usha Mehra, J. (1) This order will dispose of an application filed by plaintiffs 2 and 3 seeking the relief of maintenance Co enable them to meet their day to day expenses and also to meet the education expenses of the plaintiff No. 3 who is a student. In order to appreciate their contents, in short the case of the.: plaintiff is that plaintiff No. 2 is the widow of Hanumant Singh, predeceased son of Shri Har Kishan and plaintiff No. 3, Master Satish is the minor son of Late Shri Hanumant Singh. Late Har Kishan Singh who was the father-in-law of plaintiff No. 2 and grand father of plaintiff No. 3, inherited an ancestral land, which was acquired-by the Government of India under the Land Acquisition Act. He received compensation because of the ancestral lands being acquired by the Government. With the amount of that compensation, Har Kishan purchased certain lands in village Sahibabad, Daulat Pur and in Delhi Estate Jointly in his name and in the name of Smt. Sarwan Kaur wife of one his ...
P.N. Chopra Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-21-1992
Reported in: 1992(23)DRJ551
Gokal Chand Mital, C.J. (1) After his retirement from the Government service, the petitioner was appointed by the Indian Council of Historical Research (Respondent No.2) as the Chief Editor 'Towards Freedom' project on a honorarium of Rs. 1500.00 per month. The petitioner's appointment was purely contractual as per terms and conditions contained in the written Agreement dated 20th September, 1985 between the petitioner and the respondent No 2. Clause 4 of the said agreement reads as follows:- 'THE serviceof the party of the first part may be terminated giving three months' notice in writing any time during the term of his appointment under this agreement either by the Council to the party of the first part or by the party of the first part to the Council without assigning any reason whatsoever. Provided always that the Council may, in lieu of any notice provided for, give the party of the first part a sum equivalent to the amount of his monthly lumpsum for three months or for the perio...
A.K. Bose Vs. Shaw Wallace and Co.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-21-1992
Reported in: 1993(1)ARBLR103(Delhi); 48(1992)DLT376; 1992(23)DRJ308; 1993LabIC31
Anil Dev Singh, J.(1) This is defendant's application under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act (for short 'the Act') seeking stay of the suit. The relevant facts which are necessary for the disposal of this application are; The plaintiff was employed by the defendant company by its letter dated June 12,1984 (for short 'appointment letter') in Grade Vi at a monthly salary of Rs. 5500.00 . The terms and conditions of appointment were contained in the said letter and also in an agreement executed by the parties on August 1,1984. According to clause 10 of the agreement, the appointment was to continue until July 31, 1987 unless determined earlier in accordance with clauses 11 or 12 thereof. The defendant by its letter dated July 10.1987 extended the appointment of the plaintiff up to July 31, 1988 on the same terms and conditions as contained in the appointment letter except that the basic salary with effect from July 1, 1987 was enhanced from Rs. 5500.00 to Rs. 6000.00 per month. But befor...
Commissioner of Wealth Tax Vs. Maharani Gayatri Devi
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-20-1992
Reported in: [1993]202ITR1020(Delhi)
1. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal has referred to the decision of the Bombay High Court in CIT v. Seth Miheer Kumar M. Mafatlal : [1988]171ITR150(Bom) for not granting relief to the petitioner. In the extraordinary writ Counsel for the petitioner has not been able to show us any illegality in the order passed by the Tribunal and, on going through the decision of the Bombay High Court, we find that the decision of the Bombay High Court is supported by the Rajasthan High Court in CIT v. Poonam Chand Manmal Trust . 2. Three opportunities were given to the writ petitioner to file the documents and we find no ground to interfere in the extraordinary writ jurisdiction. Dismissed. ...
A.Y. Prabhakar Vs. S.M.N. Consumer Protection Council
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-20-1992
Reported in: 1992(23)DRJ479
B.S. Yadav, J.(1) It is not necessary to give in detail the facts giving rise to this appeal as the only question urged before us by the learned counsel for the appellant was about Limitation. However, we may give here (he facts in brief as those are necessary for determining the question of Limitation.(2) The respondent is S.M.N. Consumer Protection Council, Madras through its President R. Desikan. The said Council had filed the complaint under Section 17 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short the Act) on behalf of Mr.& Mrs. Chidambaram. who are the parents of unfortunate C. Nagarajan, who lost his life in the lift accident on 25.08.1988. The deceased Nagarajan was an Agent of Life Insurance Corporation of India at the time of accident. The appellant herein is the owner of the building known as 'Sorrento building', in Adayar Circle, Madras. A lift is maintained in it by the appellant for the use of the tenants of that building. The office of the Life Insurance Corporation of ...
JaIn Irrigation System Ltd. and anr. Vs. Malgonda Anna Patil and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-20-1992
Reported in: 1992(24)DRJ362
Y. Krishan, J.(1) These are two appeals against the common Order of the 5th July, 1991 of the State Commission of Maharashtra on the preliminary issue 'Whether the Tribunal (Consumer Forum) has jurisdiction to entertain the complaint under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986'? Both the appeals are thereforee, disposed of together by this order. (2) According to the facts stated in the Order of the State Commission, the complainants before the State Commission and Respondents herein had purchased from the appellants land drip irrigation system to irrigate their lands which were used for growing grape vine. The three Complainants in complaint No. 30/90 on the file of the State Commission and F.A. No.155 before us own only half an acre of land each and the one complainant in the other appeal (complaint no-88/90 before the State Commission) owns one acre of land only. (3) According to the complainants, the drip irrigation system purchased from the appellants was found to be defective in its ...
Malal Bhat Vs. State Bank of India
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-20-1992
Reported in: 1992(24)DRJ228
Balakrishna Eradi, J.(1) The challenge in this Revision Petition is directed against the order dated September 30, 1991 passed by the Stale Commission, Bangalore allowing in part Appeal No. 70 of 1991 tiled before it by the respondent herein (State Bank of India) and reducing the compensation allowed to the revision petitioner by the District Forum from Rs. 35,000.00 to Rs. 25,000.00 The revision petitioner is the complainant in Complaint No.CPA/159/90-91 on the file of the District Forum. Mysore, She had approached the District Forum with the grievance that on account of the negligence and deficiency in the service rendered to her by the Branch of the State Bank of India at Kuvempunagar (Mysore) in issuing an unsigned demand draft, irreparable loss, hardship, mental agony and anguish had been caused to her and she sought to recover a compensation of Rs. 90,000.00 from the Opposite Party. (2) At the relevant point of time the complainant was a student preparing for the A.M.I.E. Diploma...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- Next ›
- Last »