Delhi Court September 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.
Daulat Ram Vs. Rajinder Motwani
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-17-1992
Reported in: 1992(3)Crimes876; 1992(24)DRJ375; 1992RLR517
Usha Mehra, J.(1) This revision petition has been filed by one Shri Daulat Ram assailing the order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge dated 18th February, 1991 thereby discharging the accused Rajinder Motwani and dismissing the complaint of the petitioner under Section 211/500 Indian Penal Code . (2) In brief, the facts of this case are that the petitioner is a landlord/owner of property bearing No. 3493, Gali Lallu Nissar, Qutub Road, Sadar Bazar, Delhi, and one Shri Sajjan Dass of Narain Market, was a tenant under him in respect of one room used as a godown on a monthly rent of Rs. 25.00 . The said Sajjan Dass vacated the said godown in the first week of April, 1986. The respondent and his father in order to blackmail the petitioners, started claiming the tenancy in the name of their firm M/s. Popular Stores. This they claimed because once upon a time Sajjan Dass was a partner in the said concern. Since the petitioner refused to recognise them as a tenant, the respondent and his...
Virendra Prakash Jha Vs. NaraIn Devi and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-17-1992
Reported in: 1992(24)DRJ384
B.N. Kirpal, J.(1) This is an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. It is alleged that against a decree dated 6th October 1990, the appellant herein asked his counsel Shri Arun Kumar Gupta to file an appeal. The appeal was prepared and the appeal papers signed, the affidavits also signed and attested on 7th March 1991. The court fee of Rs.3,865.00 was also purchased. Thereafter, there was a delay in the actual filing of the appeal and the season for the said delay has been explained in the application. It has been alleged that the appellant could not personally hand over the appeal duly completed to Shri Arun Kumar Gupta, Advocate but he left them with the clerk of an Advocate in the adjoining chamber in Tis Hazari Court. It is further averred that the appellant could not contact either his lawyer or the counsel of the adjoining chamber for some time and on receiving the notice from the Court, the appellant made further enquiries and it transpired that Shri Arun Kumar Gupt...
Krishko International Vs. Adwait Steel and Metals Pvt. Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-16-1992
Reported in: [1993]76CompCas398(Delhi); 1992(24)DRJ268
Y.K. Sabharwal, J. 1. The petitioner has filed Company petition No. 79 of 1991 seeking winding up of the respondent company on the ground of its inability to pay the amounts stated in the petition to be due to the petitioner from the respondent company. According to the petitioner the principal amount payable by the respondent company is Rs. 11,29,444 representing the cost of the goods supplied by the petitioner to the respondent under three bills, all of September 1990. The further case of the petitioner is that the respondent company not only gave ST-35 forms but also issued various cheques covering the amount of the bills. In all the respondent issued 15 cheques. According to the petitioner the all cheques were dishonoured by the bank with the remark 'insufficient funds'. The petitioner further says that neither any replay was given by the respondent - company to the statutory notice of demand sent to it nor any payment, whether principal or interest, was made. 2. In the winding up ...
industrial Finance Corporation of India Employees Association Vs. the ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-16-1992
Reported in: 1992(24)DRJ273; 1992RLR512
J.K. Mehra, J.(1) This is a petition which arises out of the management's action of the intended withdrawal of the facility of Day Care Centre provided to a section of the women working with the Respondent residing in Paschim Vihar Colony of Delhi. The management's stand is that they had entered into a comprehensive settlement dated 5.9.90 which was to be treated as final settlement of financial matters applicable to the employees. Clause (ii) of Section A of the settlement, inter-alia, provided as under:- 'EXCEPT as otherwise mutually decided and/or under special circumstances, this is a final settlement of the economic and financial matters raised in the charter of the demands of the Association.'G. Other Amenities (i) Welfare Schemes: it is agreed that the Welfare Schemes of the Corporation shall be re-modeled to bring them at par with the schemes prevalent in Idbi and the revised Schemes shall be made operative by the 1st January 1991 and during the interregnum, the existing scheme...
Varun Enterprises Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-16-1992
Reported in: (1993)47TTJ(Del)461
ORDERM. A. BAKSHI, J. M. :We are disposing of these two appeals of the assessed, one against levy of penalty under S. 271(1)(c) and another against levy of penalty under S. 273(2)(a) by this consolidated order for the sake of convenience. We shall first take up the appeal relating to penalty under S. 271(1)(c).2. Appellant is a partnership firm consisting of three partners, namely, Shri Deepak Singh representing M/s. Deepak Singh & Family (HUF) having 67% share, Shri K. S. Kalra representing his HUF M/s. K. L. Kalra & Son having 11% share and Smt. Harish Kalra wife of Shri K. S. Kalra having 22% share in the firm. The appeal is against the confirmation of penalty of Rs. 9,04,274 for asst. yr. 1983-84 imposed under S. 271(1)(c) of the IT Act, 1961.assessed had furnished the return of income for asst. yr. 1983-84 at Rs. 18,27,300 on 14th June, 1983. In this return assessed had claimed deduction under S. 35CCA of the IT Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) of a sum of Rs. 7,50,0...
Sai Overseas Imports and Exports Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-15-1992
Reported in: 48(1992)DLT512; 1993(41)ECC114
Sat Pal, J.(1) Since the point raised in all these writ petitions is common, the same are being disposed of by this Judgment. (2) In all these writ petitions the petitioners have challenged the rate of assessment of import duty on stainless steel circles, manufactured- from strips by the respondents at 225^ under heading 73.15(2) as according to the petitioners the duty on the goods ought to have been assumed under notification No. 77- Cus., dated 18th June, 1977 or under heading 73.33/40 at 100.% (3) For the purpose of examining the points raised in these writ petitions, the facts of Cwp 2305/81 are set out hereinbelow. (4) The petitioner imported 24.864 M.T. of stainless steel circles. The respondents in terms of Heading 73.15(2) in Part Iii of the 1st Schedule of the Customs Tarrif Act (for short called 'the Act'), demanded from the petitioner duty at the rate of 225% on the value of the imported goods. The said duty was imposed at the rate of 200 % ad valorem and 25% auxiliary. Acc...
Vinod Lachwani Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-15-1992
Reported in: 49(1993)DLT147; 1993(41)ECC343
Mohd. Sharnim, J.(1) This is a petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India read with Section 482 Criminal Procedure Code for the issuance ofa writ of Habeas Corpus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction for immediate release of the petitioner from illegal and wrongful detention made under Section 3 of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange & Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 (hereinafter referred to as 'theCOFEPOSA').(2) The brief facts which gave rise to the present petition are as under.that the officers of Customs Department, Calcutta intercepted Royal Bhutan Bus No. Bwh 533 3/12/1991 while the said bus was coming from Phuntshilling. The petitioner was found sitting in the said bus along with Murli Chainani alias Murli Lachwani. The petitioner was apprehended on the pointing out of Murli Chainani. On the search of the bus five packages were alleged to have been recovered from the said bus belonging to the petitioner. On search of the said pac...
In Re: Jindal (India) Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-09-1992
Reported in: [1993]76CompCas443(Delhi)
Y.K. Sabharwal, J.1. By this application filed under section 391(1) of the Companies Act, 1956 (for short 'the Act'), the applicant seeks directions for convening, holding and conducting meeting of its equity shareholders and, if necessary, of its secured and unsecured creditors for the purpose of considering and if thought fit approving with or without modifications the proposed scheme of amalgamation of Mehrotra Properties Ltd. with the applicant. 2. The only question for consideration for the present is whether at this stage notice is required to be issued to the Central Government so that the court may take into consideration the representation, if any, made by the Government before passing any order under section 391(1) of the Act. Mr. Khaitan submits that at this stage notice is not required to be issued to the Central Government and in support of the submission reliance is placed upon two decisions, one of the Calcutta High Court and another of the Madras High Court. The further...
Government of India Vs. Jindal (India) Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-09-1992
Reported in: 1992(24)DRJ358
Y.K. Sabharwal, J.(1) By this application Filed under Section 391(1) of the Indian Companies Act, 1956 (for short the 'Act') the applicant seeks directions for convening, holding and conducting the meeting of its equity shareholders and, if necessary, of its secured and unsecured creditors for the purpose of considering and if thought Fit approving with or without modifications the proposed Scheme of Amalgamation of Mehrotra Properties Ltd. with the applicant. (2) The only question for consideration for the present is whether at this stage notice is required to be issued to the Central Government so that the court may take into consideration the representation if made by the Government before passing any order under Section 391(1) of the Act. Mr. Khaitan submit that at this stage this notice is not required to be issued to the Central Government and in support of the submission reliance is placed upon two decisions, one of Calcutta and another of Madras High Court. The further submissi...
Aman Deep Singh Chopra Vs. Delhi University and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-09-1992
Reported in: AIR1993Delhi102; ILR1993Delhi238; 1992RLR468
Sunanda Bhandare, J. (1) Faculty of Management Studies, University of Delhi, issued an advertisement in The Hindustan Times calling for applications for M.B.A. (Full-Time) Programmes beginning from July 1992. Candidates who had degree in Arts, Commerce or Social Science, Science., Maths, Statistics or Operations Research, Medicine or Engg. & Technology with minimum percentage of marks given in the said advertisement as per details below were eligible to apply. Bachelors Degree in 10+2+3 Schemes other than 10+2+3 Arts, Commerce or Social Science 50% 55% Science 55% 60% Maths, Statistics or operations Research 60% 65% Medicine or Engg. & Technology 60% 60% or Post Graduate or 2nd Degree examination securing at least 60% marks. (2) The advertisement indicates that 22.5% seats are reserved for Scheduled Caste & Scheduled Tribe candidates and 5% seats are reserved for children /widows of armed personnel killed 'disabled in action during the hostilities. A further 5% concession of marks was ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »