Delhi Court May 1992 Judgments

J.K. Anand and ors. Vs. Registrar Co-operative Societies and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 47(1992)DLT638; 1993(26)DRJ391

P.N. Nag, J. (1) The jurisdiction of the Civil or Revenue Court has been barred under Section 93 when the order for removal of the committee is passed under Section 32 of the Act. Under Section 94 of the Act in exercising the functions conferred on him by or under the Act, the Registrar, the arbitrator or any other person deciding a dispute under Section 61 and the liquidator of a co-operative society or person entitled to audit, inspector hold an inquiry and the Tribunal shall have all the powers of a Civil Court, while trying a suit, under the Code of Civil Procedure. 1908 in respect of the following matters, namely:- (A)Summoning and enforcing the attendance of any person and examining him on oath; (b) requiring the discovery and production of any document; (c) proof of facts by affidavits; and (d) issuing commissions for examination of witnesses.(2) Under Section 93 no order, decision, or award made under the Act shall be questioned in any Court on any ground whatsoever. (3) A peru...

P.K. Ramaiah and Co. Vs. National thermal Power Corporation

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 1992RLR375

Jaspal Singh, J. (1) [ED, facts : In arbitration between parties, Mr. V.S. Deshpande retired C.J., Delhi gave an interim award on 15.1290. Respdt. challenged it on the ground that it was given without considering his counter claims and also the arbitrator wrongly thought disputed points to be admissions. Petitioner relied upon K.V. George vs . Secy. : AIR1990SC53 ]. After detailing above. Judgment is : (7b) In K.V. George case observations are:IT is not disputed that the Arbitrator did not at all consider the counter-claims the arbitrator did not at all consider the counter claims of the respondent in making the award. It is the duty of the Arbitrator while considering the claims of the appellant to consider also the counter-claims made on behalf of the respondents and to make the award after considering both the claims and counter claims. This has not been done.......(2) What do we find from the observations extracted above? It is that where there are claims and counter-claims, court ...

S.M. Malik and ors. Vs. State

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 47(1992)DLT524; II(1992)DMC106

V.B. Bansal, J. (1) Surinder Mohan Malik, Sardari Lal Malik and Smt.Shakuntala Malik have been convicted under Section 306 read with Section34 of the Indian Penal Code in F.I.R. No. 167 of 1982, Police Station Kalyan Puri by an Additional Sessions Judge Shahdara, Delhi on 27/02/1987. Surinder Mohan Malik was sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for five years with a fine of Rs. 5000.00 or in default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year.(2) Sardari Lal Malik and Smt. Shakuntala Malik were sentenced rigorous imprisonment for three years each with a fine of Rs. 2000.00 each. It was further directed that in case of default in the payment of fine they would suffer further rigorous imprisonment for six months vide order of samedate.(3) Being dissatisfied from their conviction and sentence they all have filed this appeal with a prayer for acquittal.(4) It would, at this stage, be appropriate to give some detailed facts of the case. Smt. Geeta Malik was marrie...

Savitri Devi and ors. Vs. Air India International and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 48(1992)DLT121; 1992(23)DRJ255; (1995)IIILLJ89Del

Gokal Chand Mital, J. (1) The petitioners were appointed ladies security searchers through M/s. Marshal Security and Detective Agency to work on the International Airport for Air India security. Later on M/s Marshal Security and Detective Agency was converted into M/s Super Safe ways (P) Ltd. and the petitioners wanted to be employees of M/s Super Safe ways (P) Ltd. (2) In 1990, the Air India International advertised for direct recruitment of security searchers and the petitioners applied for the said posts. Since they were over-age, they were not allowed to compete and direct recruitments were made. (3) Now when the contract of M/s.Super Safe ways (P) Ltd. is coming to an end on 15th May.l992, this writ petition is being filed to claim regularisation not against their employer M/s. Super Safe ways (P) Ltd. but against Air India International. (4) In support of his contention, the learned counsel has strongly relied on Munna Khan v. Union of India, Jt 1988 (3) Sc 26 and M.M.R. Khan v U...

K.L. Rathi Steels Ltd. Vs. Income-tax Officer

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi

Reported in: (1992)42ITD168(Delhi)

1. This appeal by the assessee for assessment year 1986-87 Is directed against the order dated 16-12-1988 passed by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-X, New Delhi.2. There are only twin issues raised in this appeal. The first issue is against the expenditure of Rs. 11,310 being the filing fee for additional shares being held as capital expenditure and hence disallowable as revenue expenditure.3. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee increased its authorized capital from Rs. 25,00,000 to Rs. 1,00,00,000. For this purpose the assessee incurred expenditure of Rs. 11,310 on account of filing fees. The Assessing Officer negatived the claim of the assessee by holding that the expenditure was not admissible as business expenditure. The learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) held that the expenditure in question was capital in nature, but amortised the expenditure under Section 35D(2)(c)(ii) of the Act and directed the Assessing Officer to allow l/10th of the eligible exp...

Deshmesh Co-operative Transport and Another Vs. Union of India and Oth ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: AIR1992Delhi376; 1992(23)DRJ263; ILR1993Delhi79

ORDERSunanda Bhandare, J. 1. The petitioners are All India Tourist Bus Operators who have been issued permits under S. 63(7) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). In the year 1982 one Shri D. P. Sharma, an All India Tourist Bus Operator, filed a writ petition in the High Court of Karnataka praying that the condition imposed by the State Transport Authority while endorsing or Issuing permit under sub-section (7) of S. 63 of the Act, prohibiting the bus operators from entering into any contract of hiring other than the extension or modification of a subsisting contract outside the State of Karnataka be quashed. The Karnataka High Court held that the said condition is void because it does not allow the holders of permit under subsec. (7) of S. 63 of the Act to enter into a fresh contract of hiring even for the purpose of bringing the tourists into the State of Karnataka. 2. An appeal was filed against this judgment of the Karnataka High Court in the Supreme...

Sohana Woollen Mills and Vs. Union of India and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: ILR1993Delhi70

D.K. Jain, J.(1) The challenge in these two writ petitions, being decided by this common judgment, is to the two orders, dated 20th January, 1982 (in C.W'.P. No. 1312182) and 15th March, 1982 (in C.W.P. No. 3418;S2) passed by the Government of India on petitioners revision application. By the impugned orders the Government of India upheld the orders passed by the Collector, Customs & Central Excise under section 35A of the Central Excise and Salt Act, 1944 (in short the 'Act') holding that yarn containing 70 per cent polypropylene fibre and 30 per cent acrylic fibre did not fall within the ambit of Tariff item l8E in the First Schedule of the Act. (2) The petitioners are manufacturers of various type? of yarn and also undertake spinning of yarn on job work basis. In August/October, 1978 the petitioners entered into agreements to manufacture and supply to other concerns polypropylene spun yam which is stated to be made from polypropylene fibre and acrylic fibre in the ratio of 70 : 30. ...

Falcon Gulf Creamics Ltd. Vs. Nucon India Pvt. Ltd.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 1993(1)ARBLR43(Delhi); 48(1992)DLT384

Usha Mehra, J.(1) Falcon Gulf Creamics Ltd., a Company incorporated under the Indian Companies Act has invoked the arbitration clause against Nucon India Pvt. Ltd. (2) In short the case as put up is that the petitioner entered into an agreement for the construction of a factory, office and other buildings. The agreement was executed on 15th June, 1987. The time was the essence of the contract. The work was to be executed subject to the conditions as stipulated in the said agreement. According to petitioner the measurements were neither recorded as per the specifications nor as per the schedule of rates given in the agreement. That till date, the completion certificate has not been issued by the architect. According to the petitioner, respondent committed breach in the completion of the work. That the respondent and the architect colluded with each other and defrauded the petitioner. The architect in collusion with the respondent had passed various bills which on the face of it are wron...

A.R. Sarangal Vs. Director of Enforcement

Court: Appellate Tribunal for foreign Exchange New Delhi

1. Arguments were heard. Since both the appeals are inter related, it would be appropriate to consider them together and make a common order. 2. This appeal has arisen out of the order dated 30-10-1989 whereby a penalty of Rs. 50,000 was imposed by the Adjudicating Officer jointly on the appellants for contravention of section 18(2) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 ('the Act'). It is alleged that the appellants had exported goods during the year 1987 to Finland. They, however, failed to realise the export proceeds of US $ 4,530. Show-cause notice as required under section 51 of the Act was given to the appellant. As the Adjudicating Officer was not satisfied with the explanation given by the appellant, adjudication proceedings were drawn against them. After having considered the adjudication proceedings, the Adjudicating Officer held the appellants guilty of the contravention of section 18(2) on the basis of his following findings: (i) that the export proceeds of US $ 4,530...

Prithipal Singh Vs. Board of Control for Cricket in India and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 48(1992)DLT107; 1992RLR404

Usha Merhra, J.(1) Shri Prithipal Singh alleges to be continuing as the President of Himachal Pradesh Cricket Association (hereinafter referred to as H.P.C.A.) since 1980, and thereforee sought directions against defendant No. I, the Board of Control for Cricket in India, to accept him as nominee of H.P.C.A., being its president. (2) In short the case of 'the plaintiff is that the defendant 'No. 1, a registered body, was established with the object of controlling the game of cricket in India. It has its own Rules and Regulations, according to which various Associations in India who are Full Members of the said Board have to send one representative on the Board of defendant No. 1. H.P.C.A. is the 'Full Member' of defendant No. 1. Plaintiff being President had been representing the Hpca as its representative. Being its president, all the correspondence had been exchanged between defendant No. 1 with the plaintiff in pursuance to the circulars issued by defendant No. 1 and defendant No. 2...