Delhi Court July 1992 Judgments

S. Raman Director of Enforcement

Court: Appellate Tribunal for foreign Exchange New Delhi

1. This appeal arises against the adjudication order No. DD/MAS/96 and 97/85 dated 29-3-1985 whereby total penalty of Rs. 7,500 (Rs. 5,000 for contravention of the provisions of section 8(1) and section 8(2), and Rs. 2,500 for contravention of section 8(1) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act ('the Act') read with the RBI Notification No. FERA/47/77- RB, dated 24-11-1977 was imposed on the appellant. 2. In the instant case, two show-cause notices (Memo No. T4/337/SZ/ City/84-SCN-I and Memo No. T4/338/SZ/City/84-SCN-II) were issued to the appellant charging him as follows: (i) SCN-I - The charge levelled against the appellant in this notice is that during June 1984, the appellant Sh. S. Raman, a person resident in India other than an authorised dealer in foreign exchange, otherwise acquired foreign exchange to wit US $ 3.768 from his brother in Saudi Arabia as gift but failed to surrender the same within 7 days from his return to India and thereby contravened provisions of section 8(1...

Eskay Impex Pvt. Ltd. Vs. J.R. Importers

Court: Delhi

Reported in: AIR1992Delhi346; 1992(24)DRJ123; 1992RLR360

ORDER1. This is a claim filed on behalf of the Liquidator against M/s. J. R. Importers who according to the Liquidator is indebted to company in liquidation to the extent of Rs. 1,91,475.17 as per its books of account. It is stated that notice of demand was sent to the respondent which did not yield any result. The liquidator has also claimed interest on the aforesaid amount at the rate of 12%p.a.which on the presentation of the petition came to over Rs. 3,52,000/-. Notice of this claim was issued to the respondent who did not raise any objection with regard to the limitation but refuted the claim on other grounds. Thereafter the plea of limitation was taken up by the respondents by means of an application under Section 15, C. P.C. The said application is supported by an affidavit of one Mr. R. K. Chakraborty who has sworn the affidavit under instructions from Mr. P. H. Pareekh stated to be the sole proprietor of the respondent. Thus in the present case the respondent happens to be sol...

Ashok Bhatia and ors. Vs. Registrar of Companies, Delhi and Haryana an ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 1992(23)DRJ527; 1992RLR371

J.K. Mehra, J.(1) By this order I will dispose of petitions Nos. C.P. 211/90. and C.P. 13/91. This is a petition filed on behalf of M/s Ashok Bhatia, Samir Ghosh, Anup Kumar Banerji, Nirmal Kumar Ghoshal, Surakashit Kumar Mittal, Yogesh Chandra Deveshwar. Mrs. Nandita Sen. Jnanendra Nath Banerji and M/s Pinnacle Investment Ltd. against the Registrar of Companies, Delhi and Haryana and the Registrar of Companies, West Bengal under Section 633(2) of the Companies Act. (2) The petitioner No. 9 is an existing Company within the meaning of the Companies Act, 1956 and is carrying on the business of investment, financing and investment financing company etc. One of the main objects of the said company is financing of industrial enterprises and investment in shares of the company. (3) The contention of the company is that Section 370 of the Companies Act, 1956, which stipulates limits up to which loan can be granted by a body corporate to other corporate bodies had no application to intercorpo...

Nutan Art Corporation Vs. Kingston Electronics Pvt. Limited

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 1992(23)DRJ341; 1992RLR380

J.K. Mehra, J.(1) This is a petition for winding up instituted by the petitioner against the respondent M/s Kingston Electronics Pvt. Limited. The claim of the petitioner is based on the amounts claimed as due and payable by the respondent for displaying the advertisements of their products on various hoarding sites situated at Ahmedabad belonging to the petitioner-corporation. It is stated in the petition that the respondent company has been transacting business with the petitioner-corporation from May 1986 and various bills were raised by the petitioner-corporation against the respondent company totalling a sum of Rs. 1,71,600.00 . details whereof have been filed along with the petition as Annexure-A thereto. (2) Certain payments had been received from time to time by the petitioner and on 21st November 1986 the petitioner called upon the respondent to pay the amount of Rs. 83500.00 which was the amount due at that time. The respondent company issued 3 cheque for Rs. 5000/ on 17th Oc...

Ashok Bhatia and ors. Vs. Registrar of Co.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: [1993]76CompCas405(Delhi); 1992RLR363

J.K. Mehra, J.(1) By this order I will dispose of petitions Nos. C.P. 212/90, and C.P. 12/91. (2) This is a petition filed on behalf of M/s. Ashok Bhatia, Samir Ghosh, Arup Kumar Banerji, Nirmal Kumar Ghoshal, Surakashit Kumar Mittal, Yogesh Chandra Deveshwar, Mrs. Nandita Sen, Jnanendra Nath Banerji and M/s. Sage Investment Ltd. against the Registrar of Companies, Delhi & Haryana & of the W.B. u/S. 633(2) of the Companies Act. (3) These petitions have been filed wherein the facts are similar to those in petitions C.P. 211/90 and C.P. 13/91 titled Ashok Bhatia & Ors. vs. Registrar 1992. Raj. LR. 391 Those petitions have been allowed by a separate judgment in respect of all the Directors and the Secretary of the company and have been dismissed to the extent of the relief claimed in favor of the company. The facts are also similar to those cases. Accordingly, in these cases also I hold that petitioners 1 to 8 in C.P. 212/90 and petitioner No. 1 in C.P. 12/91 had acted honestly, reasonabl...

Bhim Singh Vs. State

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 48(1992)DLT402

Dalveer Bhandari, J.(1) The petitioner has filed a revision petition under Section 397/401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 against the order dated 21.12.1989 of Shri P.K.Dham, Additional Sessions Judge, Delhi. directing the framing of charge under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 27 of the Arms Act. (2) The learned Additional Sessions Judge framed the following charge: 'THAT on 12.7.88 at 10.20 P.M. near village Alipur, Delhi, caused such bodily injury with gun shot to Dharam Pal with such intention or knowledge or under such circumstances that if by that act death of Dharam Pal was caused you will be guilty of culpable homicide amounting to murder and thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 307 Indian Penal Code and within the cognizance of this Court. Secondly on the aforesaid day, time and place you were found in possession of a 12 bore double barrel gun which you used for unlawful purpose i.e. causing injuries to Dharam Pal and thereby co...

Prem Kumari Vs. S.C. JaIn and anr.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 48(1992)DLT594; 1992(24)DRJ385; 1993LabIC27; (1993)ILLJ354Del; 1992RLR515

C.L. Chaudhry, J.(1) Smt. Prem Kumari, the petitioner herein was working as a Ward Aya in R.B.T. B. Hospital, Kingsway Camp, Delhi under the Municipal Corporation of Delhi. She was served with a charge that while working as Aya in R.B.T.B. Hospital during the period 1974-75, she failed to maintain absolute devotion to duty as much as she indulged in trade/business of private medical practice without permission of the competent authority. In her reply she denied the charge. The Deputy Director of Enquiries was appointed as Enquiry Officer to go into the charge. The Enquiry Officer submitted his Enquiry Report to the Disciplinary Authority i.e. the Commissioner, Municipal Corporation of Delhi. In the penultimate para the Enquiry Officer observed that the prosecution could not prove whether the amount received by the respondent was in lieu of services rendered by her or was ex-gratia. The charge and the allegations stood proved in view of the admission of the respondent through her reply ...

Chaman Lal Vs. Shyam Lal Mehra

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 47(1992)DLT703

P.N. Nag, J. (1) This is an appeal under Section 39 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958, (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') against the appellate order of the Rent Control Tribunal dated 12/02/1987whereby the Rent Control Tribunal has reversed the judgment and order of the Additional Rent Controller dated 2 2/05/1986 and has dismissed the petition for eviction.(2) The facts giving rise to the present appeal are that the appellant/petitioner filed a petition in the Court of the Additional Rent Controller,Delhi under Section 14(1)(a) of the Act for ejectment of the respondent on the ground of non-payment of rent. The Additional Rent Controller having found that the respondent has not paid the arrears of rent and further that he has not complied with the order passed under Section 15(1) of the Act,ordered ejectment of the respondent from the premises in question.(3) Being aggrieved against this order, the respondent filed an appeal before the Rent Control Tribunal, which was allowed b...

J. K. Synthetics Ltd. Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: (1993)45TTJ(Del)110

ORDERS. K. JAIN, J. M. :Levy of penalty of Rs. 12,23,145 by the Assessing Officer under S. 273(a) of the IT Act, 1961 for the asst. yr. 1978-79 (previous year ending 31st Dec., 1977), having been unsuccessfully challenged in appeal before the CIT(A) - IX, New Delhi, is being reagitated by the assessed-company in this second appeal.2. As the S. 273(a) then stood, the charge against the assessed is that it had furnished under S. 212 an estimate of advance tax payable by it which it knew or had reason to believe to be untrue. The estimate of advance tax furnished by the assessed on 15th Dec., 1977 showed income of Rs. 529.15 lacs whereas the revised return of income declared income of Rs. 703.39 lacs. There was thus a different of Rs. 174.24 lacs in the returned income and the income estimated for the purpose of advance tax. This, according to the Assessing Officer, was a big difference between the income returned and the estimate of advance tax filed. On the basis of this difference he d...

inderjeet Singh Vs. State

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 1994CriLJ150; 1992(2)Crimes1137; 48(1992)DLT309; 1992(23)DRJ357; 1992RLR367

Usha Mehra, J.(1) Inderjeet Singh is alleged to be a muscleman engaged by M/s. Karnal Pharmacy owned by Naresh Bhardwaj and others of Village Azadpur. The prosecution version is that Inderjeet Singh was engaged by the muscleman of the said pharmacy in order to ensure the delivery of the consignments and also that the payment is promptly received for the consignments delivered. He used to accompany the driver of the vehicle in which the consignments were carried. On 4th November, 1991 it is alleged that the petitioner accompanied Shri Daya Chand the driver of the vehicle Matador No.DAE 1657 for delivering the consignment of liquor. The consignment consisting of 50 boxes of liquor was delivered to Ram Niwas Mittal of Azadpur. At that time according to the prosecution the petitioner told Mr. Mittal in the presence of Daya Chand that there was 'Unnis-Bees Ki Garbar Hai' in the consignment and that he should dispose of the same quickly 31 the tame of Diwali. Mr. Mittal placed another order ...