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. Uttar Bharat Wool Mfg. Co. Pvt. Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-20-1992
Reported in: [1993]202ITR1019(Delhi)
The petitioner seeks reference of the following question to this court : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was correct both on facts and in law in holding that the assessed can carry forward the loss for the assessment year 1984-85 when the return for that year was filed belatedly ?' 2. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that, on an earlier occasion, this court had issued mandamus asking for reference of similar question. 3. Mr. Monga, however, has brought to our notice an order of the Supreme Court dated July 19, 1991, whereby, in the special leave petition being SLP (Civil) No. 10790 of 1991, CIT v. Vizianagaram Press and Mills Co. Ltd. [1991] 191 ITR 7, the Supreme Court upheld the decision of the Andhra Pradesh High Court which had rejected a reference application on an identical question. In view of this order of the Supreme Court, the question of calling for a reference cannot arise. We, thereforee, d...
Rattan Singh Vs. Estate Officer and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-20-1992
Reported in: 1992(23)DRJ419; 1992RLR384
P.N. Nag, J. (1) 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.(2) 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 brother of the petitioner were implicated in a false and frivolous case at Ambala under Sections 307/332/353 and 125 of the Indian Arms Act and Sections, 4 and 5 of the Tdps Act vide Fir No.393 dated 14.8.1988 at Police Station Ambala City and he had to attend the Court at Ambala on 10th October, 1988 in that case and, thereforee, he could not hand over the complete papers to his counsel to file the appeal before the Additional District Judge. On his return to Delhi on 11th October, 1988 he handed over the complete papers to his counsel who filed the appeal on that date itself. ther...
Chandan and ors. Vs. Union of India
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-20-1992
Reported in: 48(1992)DLT202; 1992(24)DRJ553
D.P. Wadhwa, J. (1) In all these 32 appeals filed under section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (the Act for short) the award is same. The land which is subject-matter of the acquisition proceedings is situated in Village Tughlakabad. Notification under section 4 of the Act was issued on 23 January 1965 and declaration under section 6 on 30 October 1969. The award was given on 4 November 1981. The Land Acquisition Collector assessed the compensation payable at the rate of Rs. 4,000.00 per bigha . In respect of the land subject-matter of one appeal (RFA 468/89) the compensation was assessed at Rs. 1,000.00 per bigha. In this case it was submitted that there were 10 to 8 deep pits in the land and also it could not be put to agriculture use. (2) On a reference made under section 18 of the Act the learned Additional District Judge enhanced the compensation payable and assessed the market value at Rs. 23,000/ per bigha. In the case of land in Rfa 468/89 the market value was assessed at...
Gajinder Singh Vs. Union of India
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-20-1992
Reported in: 48(1992)DLT197; 1992(23)DRJ557
D.P. Wadhwa, J.(1) This is an appeal filed under Section 54 of the Land Acqusition Act, 1894 against the order passed by learned Additional District Judge, Delhi on a reference made to him under Section 18 of the Act. Notification under Section 4 of the Act acquiring land of the appellant was issued on 4.9.1967 and the Notification under Section 6 of the Act was issued on 6.3.1968. The award is dated 21.11.81 bearing No. 41/81-82. By this Award, the Collector assessed the market value of the land at the rate of Rs. 1400.00 per bigha. Not satisfied, the appellant sought reference and by judgment dated 18.8.86. the learned Adj enhanced the market value of the land and fixed the same at the rate of Rs. 20, 000.00 per bigha. Still not satisfied the appellant filed this appeal claiming the market value at the @ Rs. 40,000.00 per bigha. (2) Miss Jain, learned counsel appearing for the appellant has referred to two judgments in support of the appeal. One judgment (Ex. P-6) is given by Sh. S.R...
Ajay Kumar Sinha and ors. Vs. Indira Gandhi National Open University
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-20-1992
Reported in: 48(1992)DLT53
D.P. Wadhwa, J.(1) The University called the Indira Gandhi National Open University (for short 'the University') has been constituted under an Act of Parliament 'The Indira Gandhi National Open University Act, 1985'. The First Schedule to the Act contains the objects of the University and the Second Schedule the statutes of the University. The petitioners numbering seven filed tillspetition against the University claiming various reliefs. They said that they were appointed as full time consultants by the University when in fact they were lecturers and performing the duties of lecturers as such and that the University, thereforee, could not terminate their services. They sought a writ, order or any other direction in the nature of: (I)Prohibition restraining the respondent University from in any manner terminating the services of the petitioners. (II)Declaration, thereby declaring that the petitioners are the permanent lecturers of the respondent University. (III)Mandamus thereby dire...
Ms. Surinderjit and Others Vs. Delhi Development Authority
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-17-1992
Reported in: AIR1993Delhi130; 1992(24)DRJ237
ORDER1. The petitioners who are four in number have filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking mandamus and direction to Delhi Development Authority to unseal the building located at L-II/86, New Mahabir Nagar Extension, Outer Ring Road, New Delhi with further direction not to demolish the above-said building without following the procedure prescribed in law.2. The case set up by the petitioners is that they are bona fide and innocent purchasers of various portions of the building constructed on the plot known as L-II/86, New Mahabir Nagar Extension, Outer Ring Road, New Delhi. According to their knowledge the building in question was constructed 7 years back. The property is assessed to House Tax. Delhi Electric Supply Undertaking has alsosanctioned electricity connection in the building and the telephones are also installed in the building by Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Limited. The petitioners have been able to obtain a copy of the Khasra Girdawari...
Girdhari Lal Vs. Radhay Devi
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-17-1992
Reported in: 1992(23)DRJ535
Gokal Chand Mital, C.J. (1) Radhey Devi is the landlady. Different parts of the building were let out by her to four different tenants, Girdhari Lal is one of them. (2) Monthly rent payable by Girdhari Lal is Rs.20.00 . On account of non- payment of rent, earlier he was proceeded against under Section 15(1) of the Delhi Rent Control Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') and that matter was decided on 25th November, 1970 by Additional Rent Controller wherein he noticed that the tenant has deposited the arrears of rent and the ground of eviction on account of non-payment of rent did not survive. There was another ground of eviction in that petition, namely, that the landlady required the building for reconstruction. The landlady gave up that point in the first application with permission to take up this ground whenever she files a fresh application for eviction. The Rent Controller consigned that rent application of the landlady with permission to her to take up the point of evictio...
Ajit Singh Vs. Delhi Administration
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-17-1992
Reported in: 1992(2)Crimes1152; 1992(24)DRJ163
Usha Mchra, J.(1) Ajit Singh, petitioner herein, was arrested on 11th February, 1990 on the allegation that on his personal search 600 gms. opium was recovered from his possession. Out of this 600 gms. 50 gms. sample was separated and sent to the CPSL. Petitioner has been booked under the Narcotic Drugs and Psycho tropics Substances Act (hereinafter to be referred as the Act). Before arrest and before search the raiding party officials offered to be searched by the accused. Acp who is a gazetted officer in. his presence the search of the accused was done and on search the above quantity, of Opium was recovered.(2) Mr. Grover appearing for the petitioner has sought bail. inner alia, on the grounds that the evidence in this case has already been recorded. The petitioner was not given the offer to be searched in the presence of a Gazetted Officer or a Magistrate. The more fact that the Acp is a Gazetted Officer is not sufficient compliance of Sec.50 of the said Act. According to Mr. Grove...
Laxmi Devi Jhawar Vs. Usha Telehoist Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-17-1992
Reported in: 1992(24)DRJ144
C.L. Chaudhry, J.(1) The Plaintiff has filed this suit for ejectment of the defendants and for mesne profits. The plaintiff claims to be the owner/landlady of the premises bearing No. C-20, Friends Colony, New Delhi. It is alleged that the defendant is a company duly incorporated under the Indian Companies Act and has its registered office at Calcutta. The defendant company has its local office at Delhi. The defendant company approached the plaintiff in the year 1976 for letting out the premises. A lease was created by the plaintiff in favor of the defendant in respect of the entire premises on a monthly rent of Rs. 5,000.00 . The terms and conditions were confirmed by the parties by letter dated 26.2.1976. The rent of the premises was increased to Rs. 7,500.00 in 1981 and to Rs.l2,000.00 per month in 1987 and again to Rs.25,000.00 per month w.e.f. 1.4.1989.(2) The defendant company was using the premises for the residence of their officers from the beginning of the tenancy. In July 19...
M/S. Nandan Iron and Metal Industries Vs. M/S. Fenesty Inc.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-16-1992
Reported in: AIR1992Delhi364
ORDER1. M/s. Nandan Iron & Metal Industries, (hereinafter called the 'plaintiff')has filed the suit for recovery of Rupees 1,83,410/- against the defendants on the allegations that plaintiff is a partnership firm registered under the Partnership Act and that the suit has been filed through an authorised person.2. Defendant No. 1 M/s. Fenesty Inc. is a United States Corporation incorporated under the laws of U.S.A. and the defendant No. 2 is acting as its agents in India. Defendant No. 2 acting as agents for and on behalf of its US principals M/s, Fenesty Inc. issued indent dated 31st January, 1984 from its office in New Delhi to the plaintiff firm for supply of about 17.5 Metric Tonnes of Brass Dross, Copper minimum 60%, metallic recover 90% of U. S. origin @ US Cents 58 per pound C & F Bombay by sea. The said offer was accepted by the plaintiff and was conveyed to defendant No. 2 as agents for defendant No. 1. The offer was made at New Delhi, accepted at New Delhi and the contract was...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »