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.
Sikkim Subba Associates Vs. Union Bank of India and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-07-1992
Reported in: 1993(2)ARBLR140(Delhi); 1993(25)DRJ238; 1993RLR39
D.K. Jain, J.(1) The petitioner, M/s Sikkim Subba Associates, a partnership firm, entered into an agreement with respondent No.2, the State of Sikkim through its Secretary (Finance), on 22 January 1991, for organising and running its Weekly Lotteries. The agreement was to be valid for a period of three years, commencing from the date of 1st draw i.e. 1 April 1991, which could be extended for such period and upon such terms and conditions, as may, at the relevant time, be mutually agreed upon.after giving to the other party a notice in writing of not less than three months. Respondent No. 2 could also rescind or modify the agreement on the detection of default or fraudulent conduct in lotteries or of any act of malfeasance or misfeasance on the part of the petitioner, after giving an opportunity of being heard.(2) The petitioner was to maintain offices at its own expenses. Printing of tickets at the expense of the petitioner up to a gross total face value of Rs. 360 crores was to be arr...
Badar Pur Power Engineers Association Vs. Deputy Chief Labour Commissi ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-07-1992
Reported in: 1992(24)DRJ275; (1993)ILLJ991Del
B.N. Kirpal, J.(1) The short question which arises for consideration in this case is whether the appeal filed by the petitioners against the certification of the Standing Orders was within time or not. (2) The order certifying the Standing Orders was passed on 4th January, 1991 and the same was dispatched on 7th January, 1991. The petitioners received the said order on 9th January, 1991 and an appeal was filed on 6th February, 1991. (3) By the impugned order the appeal was dismissed for the reason that it was barred by time. The appellate authority came to the conclusion that the day on which the order was sent viz., 7th January, 1991 was not to be excluded in computing the period of limitation of 30 days as prescribed by Section 6 of the Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946. He observed that the provisions of the limitation expired on 5th February, 1991. The Appellate Court did not have the power to grant extension of time and, thereforee, the appeal was dismissed. (4) It...
P.K. Singhal Vs. National Airport Authority
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-05-1992
Reported in: 1992RLR476
B.N. Kirpal, J.(1) The petitioner was working as Deputy Director (Communications) and vide order dated 7.10.91 he was appointed as an Airport Director at Srinagar. The letter of appointment stated that his appointment was on ad hoc basis till further orders and that his appointment will not account for the purpose of seniority nor make him eligible for promotion to the next higher grade Vide order dated 15.6.92 the petitioner was posted to Madras as Dy. Director (Communications) with immediate effect. It is this letter which is sought to be challenged in this W.P. (2) The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner, while relying upon C.B. Dubey vs. U.O.I 75 Slj 634 and Kuldeep Chand Sharma vs. Delhi Adm. 1978 (2) Slr 379, is that the petitioner could not have been reverted to his substantive post except for one of the four reasons mentioned in C.B. Dubey's case. Reliance in C.B. Dubey's case (supra) is placed on the following passage at page 638 : '8.An officiating or ad hoc ...
Apsara Cinema Vs. Assistant Commissioner of
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Decided on: Sep-04-1992
Reported in: (1993)44ITD253(Delhi)
1. This appeal by the assessee firm for the assessment year 1984-85 is directed against order of CIT(A) upholding disallowance of Rs. 49,545 under Section 40(b) of IT Act on account of interest paid to the partners after rejecting assessee's contention that Rs. 21,425 as interest charged from partner Dr, Anil Prasad be deducted and only net amount be considered.2. Briefly stated facts are that assessee firm in the relevant period had 12 partners. 11 partners had credit balance whereas the 1.2th partner Dr. Anil Prasad had a debit balance in their accounts with the firm. The firm paid interest aggregating to Rs. 49,544 on credit balance of the partners. On debit balance of Dr. Anil Prasad, the firm charged interest of Rs. 21,425. The assessee before the assessing officer claimed that only net amount be disallowed under Section 40(b) of IT Act. In other words, the claim was that sum of Rs. 21,425 be deducted from Rs. 49,545 and only the net amount be treated as interest paid to partners...
Goel Jewellers Vs. Asstt. Commissioner of
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Decided on: Sep-04-1992
Reported in: (1992)43ITD725(Delhi)
1. This appeal by the assessee for the asstt. year 1984-85 is directed against order of DC (Appeals) refusing to allow deduction to the assessee under Section 80HHC(1)(b) of I.T. Act.2. The assessee exported certain merchandise and claimed deduction under Section 80HHC(1)(a) of the I.T. Act. This was allowed. The assessee further claimed deduction under Clause (b) of Sub-section (1) of Section 80HHC on export turnover in excess of turnover of the immediately preceding year. This deduction was denied as in last year business was carried only for 15 days and, therefore, the said year was not comparable for considering increase in export turnover for the purpose of above claim. The assessee challenged the disallowance in appeal before DC (Appeals) but without any success. The learned DC (Appeals) noted that export turnover in the lastyear was only a token turnover of Rs. 200 against Rs. 3,04,348 in this year. In his view it would be abuse of the legal provision to treat and compare last ...
Slotco Chit and Finance (P.) Ltd. Vs. Income-tax Officer
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Decided on: Sep-04-1992
Reported in: (1993)47ITD309(Delhi)
JUDGMENT ASSESSMENT--Notice under section 143(2) issued without issuing notice under section 142(1).Where notice under section 143(2) was issued without issuing notice under section 142(1), assessment could be made under section 144.There is no force in the submission that order under section 144 could not be passed without issuing notice under section 142(1) in this case.The assessing officer has ample power to make assessment by issuing notice under section 143(2) without issuing notice under section 142(1). On proper consideration of scheme of assessment it appears reasonable to hold that the assessing officer has ample power to amend notice under section 143(2) in respect of date or points specified in the notice if warranted by the facts of the case.Assessment--BEST JUDGMENT ASSESSMENT--Notice under section 143(2) without reasonable opportunity of being heard.Ex parte assessment under s. 144 without giving opportunity to assessee is bad in law.The assessing officer made an ex part...
Socotra International (P.) Ltd. Vs. Income-tax Officer
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Decided on: Sep-04-1992
Reported in: (1992)43ITD501(Delhi)
1. This is an appeal of the assessee challenging the order dated 23-11-1989 of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) as erroneous and incorrect.2. The facts of the case are briefly these: The assessee, a resident having the status of Private Limited Company and the accounting period ending with 31-3-1985 for the assessment year in question filed on 30-9-1985 its return declaring an income of Rs. 1,33.880. The assessment was originally completed on 31-3-1986 determining the income at Rs. 2,87,364. The assessee-company was carrying on the business of manufacturing and selling of ice-cream cones. It suffered damage by fire to its factory in May 1984. A sum of Rs. 13.95 lakhs was received towards imported plant & machinery as compensation from the Insurance Company which was credited to the Insurance Claim Reserve Account. The assessee-company. opened a separate account for machinery maintenance reserve account and repair expenditure of machinery amounting to Rs. 4,29,846 was debit...
Toriyli Alias Jabbar Vs. Union of India
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-04-1992
Reported in: 1993CriLJ2496; 1992(24)DRJ90
ORDER1. toriyli alias Jabbar, the petitioner herein was detained in pursuance to an order passed on 6th November, 1991 under section 3(1) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 (hereinafter called as the 'COFEPOSA Act') by one Shri Sikander Khan, Joint Secretary to the Government of India. The detention order was passed with a view to preventing the petitioner from acting in any manner prejudicial to the augmentation of foreign exchange in future. Along with the detention order, the grounds of detention were also supplied to the petitioner. 2. The facts which led to the passing of the detention order dated 6th November, 1991 are that on 3rd October, 1991, the residential premises bearing No. 5320, Gali Yakub Wali, Kuchha Rehman, Chandni Chowk, Delhi was searched by the officers of the Enforcement Directorate and in the said premises six persons were found present. On search being conducted, some foreign exchange and documents were seize...
Sudha Rani Agarwal Vs. Marriage Officer on Duty and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-04-1992
Reported in: 1992(24)DRJ294
G.L. Mittal, J.(1) Respondents No. 2 and 3 are present in Court in person. Both of them are of the age that they can marry and there is no prohibition of marriage. When we issued show cause notice it was argued that under the Special Marriage Act, 1954, that marriage of citizens of India domiciled in the territory would be subject to the registration and since respondent No. 2 is an Afghan citizen the marriage cannot be registered by the Marriage Officer.(2) Learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to show any provision of law under which it is necessary that a person who wants to get married under the Special Marriage Act, 1954 must be a citizen of India. On the other hand the learned counsel for respondents No. 2 and 3 has invited our attention to a judgment of Kamataka High Court in the case of Vatsala & another v. Sub Registrar & Marriage Officer, 1981 (1) Dmc 276 wherein it was held that there is no prohibition under the Special Marriage Act. 1954 read with Foreign Mar...
Jagson International Ltd. Vs. Hindustan Aeronautics Limited and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-04-1992
Reported in: 1992(24)DRJ80
S.C. Jain, J.(1) As per the case put forward by Jagson International Ltd, hereinafter referred to as the petitioner, they entered into an agreement on 26.4.1991 for the repair of Domier 228 Aircraft bearing registration No. A5-RGB at Paro Airport, Bhutan with Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd. Kanpur Division, hereinafter referred to as the respondent No. 1. As per clause 4 of the agreement the cost of repair of the said aircraft was fixed at Rs. 61.50 lakhs which included the scope of work as mentioned in para 1 of the agreement. The said agreement also provided the following items for which no extra charges were payable by the petitioner : 1. Cost of structural items required to be replaced as per Annexure-1 2. Transportation of items, tools and jigs etc required for repair at Bhutan excluding those mentioned in para 3 above. 3. traveling and daily allowance for Hal team. 4. Fuel cost for ground run, local flight testing at Bhutan and ferry flight Jagson International Ltd. v. Hindustan Aeron...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 7
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »