Delhi Court July 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.
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Univmine (P.) Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-22-1992
Reported in: (1993)109CTR(Del)75; [1993]202ITR825(Delhi)
1. The petitioner seeks reference of the following question : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in directing that the assessed is entitled to investment allowance under section 32A of the Income-tax Act, 1961, in its business of mining and extraction of marble ?' 2. The respondent-assessed is carrying on the business of extracting and selling marble. According to the petitioner herein, the assessed is not entitled to investment allowance under section 32A of the Income-tax Act, 1961. 3. We, however, find that allowance under the said provision can be given to an industrial undertaking for the purpose of business of construction, manufacture or production of an articles or thing specified in the list in the Eleventh Schedule. It is not in dispute that marble is one of the items which are mentioned in the Eleventh Schedule while counsel for the petitioner may be right in contending that mining of marble may not am...
State (Central Bureau of Investigation) Vs. Phool Singh and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-22-1992
Reported in: 1992(3)Crimes60; 49(1993)DLT349; 1992(24)DRJ115
Mohd. Shamim, J.(1) These are four criminal revision petitions bearing No. 49/92, 50/92, 51/92 and 52/92 preferred by Central Bureau of Investigation against the order dated September 4, 1991 passed by Shri V.S. Aggarwal, Special Judge, Delhi, whereby he declined to grant permission to the Central Bureau of Investigation for the closure of the case against the respondents (hereinafter referred to as 'to petitioner' for convenience). All the four petitions are being taken up together as the common questions of law and facts are like to arise while disposing them of. Brief facts which led to the filing of the present petitions are as under: that the petitioner registered a case against the respondents herein under Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code and Section 5(2) read with Section 5(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' for sake of brevity). However, during the course of investigation the petitioner could not collect sufficient eviden...
Surinder Kumar Vs. New Delhi Municipal Committee
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-22-1992
Reported in: 1992(23)DRJ424
S.C. Jain, J.(1) The work regarding construction of community NN centre at Malcha Marg. New Delhi was entrusted by the Executive Engineer (H) Ndmc on behalf of New Delhi Municipal Committee vide his letter dated 7.11.1986 and Agreement No., EE(H)/14/1986/87 was entered into between the parties in this regard. Certain disputes arose in respect of the contracted work and the claimant Surender Kumar vide letter dated 2.1.89 invoked the provisions of clause 25 of the agreement and requested the Administrator New. Delhi Municipal Committee to appoint an arbitrator to settle the disputes. The Administrator New Delhi Municipal Committee vide his letter No. EE(C-III)/AB/116-18 dated 19.1.89 appointed Shri R.S. Gupta, former Engineer Member Dda and retired Chief Engineer Cpwd to decide the disputes and to make a reasoned award regarding the claims as per the statement enclosed with 19.1.89.(2) The Arbitrator entered upon the reference on 23.1.1989. The petitioner submitted 16 claims in the form...
Union of India and Others Vs. Seth Bhagwan Dass Educational Society (R ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-21-1992
Reported in: AIR1992Delhi366; 1993(25)DRJ29; 1992RLR487
1. The second appeal is directed against the order dated April 3, 1991 passed by Shri B. L Garg, Senior Sub Judge, Delhi whereby he has dismissed the appeal filed on behalf of the appellants and affirmed the order dated May 19, 1990 passed by Shri Rajesh Kumar, Sub Judge 1st Class, Delhi. The trial court on May 19, 1991 has passed a decree of mandatory injunction in favor of the respondent plaintiff and against appellant No.3 defendant No. 3 directing them to issue a recognition letter to the respondent plaintiff in terms of the application dated August 23, 1989 under the provisions of Delhi School Education Act and Rules within a period of one month from the date of the order for 300 students.2. Relevant facts leading to the filing of this second appeal are that the respondent which is a society registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860 applied to the appellant No.3 for recognition of a Nursery Teachers Training School vide application dated August 23, 1989 but the appella...
Bhim Raj Sharma Vs. State and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-21-1992
Reported in: 1992CriLJ3977; 1992(23)DRJ515; 1992RLR386
Usha Mehra, J.(1) MAJ. Bhim Raj Sharma by this petition had sought the dropping of the investigation conducted thereon and quashing of the Fir No. 134/91 under Section 420/468/471 Indian Penal Code . of Police Station, Malv-iyaNagar, New Delhi. During the pendency of the proceedings, Ms. Neclam Grover appearing for the petitioner brought on record the p73 fact that the parties in the civil suit have entered into a compromise and on account of thai settlement between the parties the suit was dismissed as withdrawn on 24th March, '992. According to her this criminal case has arisen out of (2) In order to appreciate the position as emerges from the above contention of the parties, it will be relevant to note in short the facts giving rise to the present complaint. (3) In nutshell the case which gave rise to the lodging of this Fir is that Jag Ram Arya, father of respondent No.2 had executed a pronote and a receipt for Rs.60,000.00 in favor of one Shri Jagdish Chander Sharma. This receipt ...
Charan Singh Sharma Vs. State and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-21-1992
Reported in: 1992(23)DRJ433
Usha Mehra, J.(1) Charan Singh Sharma by this petition had sought the dropping of the investigation conducted thereon and quashing of the Fir No.71/92 under Section 420/465/467/471/120-B LP.C. of Police Station, Malviya Nagar. New Delhi. During the pendency of the proceedings, Ms. Neelam Grover appearing for the petitioner brought on record the fact that the parties in the civil suit have entered into - a compromise and on account of that settlement between the parties the suit was dismissed as withdrawn on 24th March, 1992. According to her this criminal case has. arisen out of the civil transaction entered into between the parties. Since in the civil suit, the compromise had been arrived at, nothing survives in this case, and thereforee the Fir be quashed. Mr. Javed Hashmi, appearing for respondent No.2, Balraj Arya, admitted the position that the compromise has been arrived at between the parties before the Additional District Judge, Delhi in Suit No. 774/90. He has no objection if ...
Ramo Devi Vs. Union of India
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-21-1992
Reported in: 48(1992)DLT521
B.N. Kirpal, J.(1) An area of 24 Bigha 16 bids was belonging to one Net Ram, husband of Smt. Ramo, the appellant herein, situate in village Peepalthala was acquired under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1898 (for short the 'Act') for the planned development of Delhi. The land which was owned by late Net Ram comprised of Khasra Nos. 375, 376, 377, 379, 380, 381 and 385 and a Notification under Section 4 of the Act was issued on 10th May, 1966, Thereafter on 7th December, 1966 a Notification under Section 6 of the Act was issued and subsequently the Land Acquisition Collector gave his award on 8th December, 1969. (2) According to the aforesaid award, compensationRs.2,000.00 per Bigha was offered to the appellant's husband. Reference under section 18 of the Act was filed. During the pendency of the reference,ShriNetRamdied and the appellant herein viz., Smt. Ramo who was the widow of Shri Net Ram, was brought on record. The Additional District Judge vide his Judgment dated 17t...
Rakesh Kumar and ors. Vs. Rambir Singh
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-21-1992
Reported in: 1992(23)DRJ549; 1992RLR388
Santosh Duggal, J.(1) This revision petition is directed against the order in appeal, whereby petitioner's appeal was dismissed against the order passed by the trial judge on 12th December, 1988 granting prayer of the respondent (plaintiff in the suit) with regard to possession of the suit land, and further restraining the petitioners (defendants in the suit) from digging the land any further. (2) The land is situated in village Rewla Khanpur, Union Territory of Delhi. and is subject to the provisions of the Delhi Land Reforms Act, 1954 (for short the Act). The petitioners claim leasehold rights in the land, by virtue of a lease, alleged to have been executed on 17th August, 1983 by the Bhumidhar of the holding, namely, Ram Kanwar, from whom the plaintiff in the suit claims to have purchased the said land. (3) Apart from the question that the courts have found on the basis of the khasra girdawari that the plaintiff was in possession of the land and entitled to protection against dispos...
Ashok Kumar Sakhuja Vs. Sweety
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-21-1992
Reported in: I(1994)DMC180; 1992(24)DRJ260; 1992RLR407
P.N. Nag, J. (1) This appeal has been directed against the order dated 19th April, 1991 passed by Ms. Kanwal Inder, Additional District Judge, Delhi whereby she has dissolved the marriage between the parties by passing a decree of divorce under Section 13 A of the Hindu Marriage Act (for short the 'Act'). (2) Relevant facts as set out in the divorce petition are that the respondent-wife filed the petition under Section 13A of the Act against the appellant-husband. They were married according to Hindu rites on 9.5.1979 at New Delhi but the respondent-wife was turned out of her matrimonial home on 24.6.1981 with a view to harassing her and with an intention not to taking her back. The appellant-husband had filed a petition No. Hma 118/83 under Section 9 of the Act for restitution of conjugal rights, which was decreed on 21.3.1987 by the court of Shri R.C.Jain, Additional District Judge. Delhi. In spite of passing such a decree for restitution of conjugal rights, there has been no cohabit...
Nand Singh Vs. Estate Officer and Another
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-20-1992
Reported in: AIR1993Delhi38; 1992(23)DRJ513
ORDER1. This revision petition is directed against the order dated 10th January, 1991 passed by Shri M. S. Rohilla, Additional District Judge, Delhi whereby he has dismissed the appeal filed against the order dated 13th September, 1989 passed by the Estate Officer being time barred for one day.2. There is no dispute that no application for condensation of one day's delay in filing the appeal was filed along with the main appeal.3. Learned counsel for the petitioner, however, submits that although no written application for condensation of one day's delay was filed but in fact he did make an oral application before the Additional District Judge for the same on the ground the son and grandson of the petitioner were implicated in a false and frivolous case at Ambala under Sections 307/332/353 of Penal Code and 25 of the Indian Arms Act and Sections 3,4 and 5 of the TOPS Act vide FIR No. 393 dated 14-8-1985 at Police Station Ambala City and he had to attend the Court at Ambala on 10th Octo...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »