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.
Uttamchand Bhutani and Co. Vs. Income-tax Officer
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Decided on: May-08-1992
Reported in: (1992)42ITD404(Delhi)
1. The assessee, a registered firm, has filed this appeal aggrieved by the imposition of penalty aggregating to Rs. 2,42,890 under Section 271(l)(c) of the Act.2. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee, a registered firm, is a dealer in foodgrains. It filed its return for the assessment year under appeal on 21-7-1977 on an income of Rs. 27,710. The assessment initially was concluded at the returned figure. The sales-tax department conducted a raid in the premises of the assessee and seized certain documents, books of account, etc. Based on the information gathered from the sales-tax department notice under Section 148 came to be issued on 21 -8-1980. The assessee filed the return at the assessed figure. However, the reassessment was made on an income of Rs. 4,09,370. The additions that were made to the returned income were profit at 10 per cent on suppressed sales of Rs. 7,89,240, Rs. 78,924 and unexplained cash credit aggregating to Rs. 3,02,727. The assessee challenged th...
Gyanendra Kumar Vs. Kinetic Hondo Motor Company
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-08-1992
Reported in: 1992(23)DRJ477
Balakrishna Eradi, J.(1) The appellant was not present either in person or through any authorised representative at the time when the appeal was taken up for hearing. However, the appellant had sent a written representation addressed to the Registry forwarding notes of his arguments and stating that on account of financial difficulty, it would not be possible for him to appear personally or to engage an Advocate at the time of hearing of the case.(2) We have accordingly given our careful consideration to the points raised in the written notes submitted by the appellant.(3) The appeal arises out of the order dated July 1,1991 passed by the State Commission, Orissa disposing of the appellant's Complaint Petition C.D.No.87 of 1990 by issuing certain directions to the Opposite partices,. The complainant (appellant) had purchased a Kinetic Honda Scooter manufactured by the first respondent company. The grievance with which the appellant approached the State Commission was that in the brochu...
B.N. Sharma Vs. S.T.P. Limited
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-08-1992
Reported in: 1992(24)DRJ252
A.S. Vijayakar, J.(1) Both these appeals are against the Order of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission. Bihar in Complaint No.15 of 1990, Lt. B.N. Sharma (Retd.) v. M/s. S.T.P. Limited. The Original complaint was filed for recovery of Rs.8,19,522.22.00 by way of compensation from the opposite party on account of defective and deficient workmanship in water proofing treatment done by it in the basement of the building of the complainant (i.e. the appellant in First Appeal No.233 of 1991.) Before we go on to deal with the facts of the case it has to be stated here that appeal No.246 of 1991 was found to be barred by limitation, and no valid ground was put forth by the appellant. Hence that appeal is dismissed. (2) How the facts of the case as found by the State Commission and as related to us are that on the advice of the appellant's architects, namely, M/s. Chadda & Associates, Ranchi, the complainant/applicant obtained quotation from the respondent for carrying out the work...
Raghubir Singh Sharma Vs. Municipal Corporation of Delhi
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-08-1992
Reported in: 48(1992)DLT47; 1992(23)DRJ219; 1992RLR332
Gokal Chand Mital, C.J.(1) The petitioner was appointed as a teacher in 1956 and became Head-master in 1958. In 1971 he was promoted as a School Inspector and in 1990 as a Senior School Inspector Municipal Corporation of Delhi by resolution dated 3rd January,1984, copy of which is annexure P3, Book a decision to enhance the age of retirement of Delhi school teachers to 60 years from in years. It was specifically ordered that it would upon to teachers, including Lab. Asstts. and Librarians of the Municipal Corporation of Delhi and would be effective from 3rd September, 1983. (2) Some of the teachers or Head-masters, who had been promoted to the post of Inspector of Schools or Senior School Inspectors or having allied designation were not given the benefit of 60 years retirement age and they came to this Court and the earliest case decided by this Court was Civil Writ No. 1365 of 1984, Smt. Sheela Puri v. Municipal Corporation of Delhi, decided on 22nd May, 1985. It was held that such li...
ibrahim @ Doctor Vs. State (Delhi Administration)
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-08-1992
Reported in: 1992(24)DRJ176
V.B. Bansal, J.(1) Ibrahim @ Doctor has Filed this application for bail for the offence under Section 1992 CI.L.L.J. 399 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act. 1985 (herein- after referred to as the Act) in case F.I.R. 244 of 1989 Police Station Lajpat Nagar. New Delhi.(2) Briefly stated the facts as contained in F.I.R are that the special staff of South District had an information that some persons have been bringing heroin from Bareilly which they supply to persons dealing in heroin at Delhi. This information was developed by Inspector L.N. Rao and Constable Lalit Kumar was deputed as a Bogus purchaser to have contact with them. Accordingly Constable Lalit Kurnar established contact with javed Fasi-ud-din and Ibrahim@ Doctor and they agreed to supply 22 kg. of herein to Constable Lalit Kumar at the rate of Rs. 40.000.00 per kg. It was agreed that the supply would be made at about 12.15 P.M. on 29th July 1989 towards Ring Road near Mool Chand Hospital. thereforee a rai...
Jagpalkaur and ors. Vs. Inderjeet Saroop
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-07-1992
Reported in: 47(1992)DLT503; 1992(23)DRJ84
Dalveer Bhandari, J. (1) The respondent has initiated criminal proceedings against the petitioners. By this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the petitioners have prayed that criminal proceedings pending against them be quashed. In prayer (B), it is mentioned that the proceedings of the cases mentioned in Annexure-19 may be stayed. The details as mentioned in Annexure-19 are set out as under: 1.Shri I.C. Tewari, M.M. Delhi, Complaint filed under Sections 380/104,I.P.C. and 403,406,420,409,467,477-A, 166, 167, 219 read with Sections 107, 114,34, 120-B, Ipc -Complaint no.31/l of 1989 2. Shri Babu Lal, M.M. New Delhi, Complaint under Sections 380,403,406,452 read with Sections 109,114, 34, 120-B, I Pc -Case no-509/90 3. Shri P.D. Gupta, Senior Sub Judge, Delhi, Mandatory Injunction Suit no.336/89 4. Shri J.R. Aryan, M.M. New Delhi, Complaint under Section 211/500.IPC 5. Shri Padam Singh, Addl. Sessions Judge, Revision Petition filed under Section 398,399,401, C...
A.K. Mahindra Vs. Income-tax Officer
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Decided on: May-06-1992
Reported in: (1993)44ITD430(Delhi)
1. This appeal by the assessee for assessment year 1985-86 is against the order dated 15-6-1988 passed by CIT (Appeals) -XIV, New Delhi.2. Brief and relevant facts relating to ground No. 1 are these: The assessee is an individual whose previous year relevant to assessment year 1985-86 ended on 31-3-1985. He owns a bungalow known as plot No.29, 1st Street, Shanti Niketan, New Delhi. The assessee leased out the said bungalow along with fixtures and fittings to British Aerospace vide Lease Agreement dated 23-3-1984 w.e.f. 1-4-1984. The relevant clauses of the said agreement are extracted below: 1.1 The Lessee shall pay to the Lessor for the said premises a yearly rental of 96,000 Indian Rupees (Ninty-Six Thousand) in advance on the 1st Day of April each year of the Lease period without any deduction whatsoever.... 5. The Lessee at the time of occupation shall see that all the sanitary, electrical and other fittings are in perfect working order and that nothing is broken or missing. At th...
K.D. Gupta Vs. H.L. Malhotra
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-06-1992
Reported in: 1992(23)DRJ234; 1992RLR323
P.N. Nag, J. (1) By this revision petition filed under Section 25B of the Delhi Rent Control Act (hereinafter called the 'Act'), the petitioner-tenant has challenged the order dated-17th November, 1990 passed by Shri L.D. Malik, Additional Rent Controller, Delhi whereby he has dismissed the application of the petitioner-tenant for leave to contest the suit for eviction and consequently the order of eviction has been passed under Section 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act. (2) The facts relevant to be stated for determination of controversy are that on 26.4.1988 the landlord (respondent-herein) filed a petition for eviction against the petitioner-tenant on the ground that the premises in dispute, i.e. First Floor of House No. D- 21. Hauz Khas, New Delhi, consisting of two bed rooms, drawing-cum-dining, barsati, verandah, kitchen, two W.C. and bath attached, were given on rent to the petitioner tenant about 12 or 13 years back on rent of Rs. 1.000.00 p.m., exclusive of water and elec...
Prem NaraIn Baijal Vs. Onkar Nath Moolri
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-06-1992
Reported in: 47(1992)DLT510; 1992(23)DRJ297; 1992RLR334
S.C. Jain, J. (1) This is an appeal filed by the landlord whose application for being put in possession of the premises on th 1982 Rlr 33 e expiry of limited tenancy of five years under Section 21 of the Delhi Rent Control Act (hereinafter reffered to as the Act) has been dismissed by the Addl Rent Controller and the Rent Control Tribunal. The appellant landlord and the tenant appeared before the Addl Rent Controller for creation of tenancy under Section 21 of the Delhi Rent Control Act. The Addl Rent Controller (Shri M.A. Khan) recorded the statement of both the landlord and the tenant and made the following order : 'HAVING regard to the facts stated in the application and the statement of the parties made above, permission under section 21 of the Delhi Rent Control Act is hereby granted to Prem Narain Baijal and I.N.Seth applicants to let out the premises 65/42. Rohtak Road, New Delhi comprising of two rooms, one bath, one latrine, one kitchen delineated in the enclosed plan Ex A1 to...
Amarjit Singh Vs. Inderpreet Singh Monga and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-04-1992
Reported in: 47(1992)DLT587; 1992(23)DRJ167
Arun Kumar, J.(1) The decree holders in the present Execution Petition, were defendants in a suit (bearing No. 2366/1988) filed in this Court by the present Judgment Debtors. The parties to the said suit as well to the present execution petition are children of Late Sardar Iqbal Singh Monga. A compromise was arrived at between the parties in the said suit and an application Under Order 23 Rule 3 Civil Procedure Code was filed containing the terms of the compromise. On the basis of the compromise a decree was passed on 24th April, 1990 and the suit stood disposed of. The present execution potion has been filed by the defendants in the said suit for execution of the decree passed therein. Under the compromise decree the following properties were allotted to the defendants who are the decree holders in the present petition:- (I)Plot No.S62, Shalimar Garden, District Ghaziabad, (U.P) - Shri Amarjit Singh can get the same transferred, mutated in his own name from the concerned authorities. ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 9
- Next ›
- Last »