Delhi Court January 1993 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.
Monika Chawla Vs. National Trading Company
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-28-1993
Reported in: 1993(25)DRJ190
S.C. Jain, J. (1) This order will dispose of three interim applications 10857/91, 2125/92, 3550/92. In brief, the facts of the case are that the plaintiff Smt Monika Chawla, as the sole proprietor of Kiddie Kraft, has filed a suit for permanent injunction for passing of and pirating the design of baby bouncer against National Trading Company, hereinafter called the defendant seeking a relief of permanent injunction restraining the defendant from passing of under the plaintiffs design of baby bouncer or any design or a design of any fraudulent imitation thereof in respect of the design of baby bouncer. A decree of mandatory injunction for delivery of all the aforesaid goods, finished or unfinished and other incriminating material including dies and moulds, in the possession or under the control of the defendant has also been claimed against the defendant. Rendition of account and damage has also been prayed for. (2) In the suit, an- application for interim injunction was also moved bein...
Krishan Lal Vs. Hanuman
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-28-1993
Reported in: 1994IAD(Delhi)554; 53(1994)DLT360
Arun Madan, J. (1) By the present application filed under Section 5 read with Article 14 of the Indian Limitation Act, the petitioner is seeking condensation of delay in filing the revision petition. (2) Briefly, the facts of the case are that the suit filed under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act was decreed vide judgment and decree dated 20th March, 1991 passed by the Ms. Ravinder Kaur, Sub Judge, 1st Class, Delhi against the petitioner herein. The petitioner was advised to file the appeal against the said judgment and decree and the said appeal was filed within the period of limitation. When the appeal came up for hearing on 5th February, 1993 before the learned Additional District Judge, Delhi, an objection was raised about the maintainability of the appeal on the ground that the appeal arose from the judgment and decree in a suit filed under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act. The petitioner made a statement before the Court of learned Additional District Judge, Delhi for wit...
Prem Pal Singh Vs. Jugal Kishore Gupta
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-28-1993
Reported in: 50(1993)DLT49; 1993(25)DRJ223
D.P. Wadhwa, J. (1) This is defendant's appeal in a suit filed by the plaintiff for recovery of possession against him. By impugned judgment dated 27 February 1991 the defendant was asked to vacate the property and the suit of the plaintiff was decreed. The property consist of two rooms and a bath room in the annexe of the property bearing No. C-92, Maharani-Bagh, New Delhi. The case of the plaintiff was that he was the owner of the property. There is no dispute on that. He said that be inducted the defendant in the suit premises as a licensee for a period of one year from the beginning of 1983 and thereafter on account of some tragedy in his house the defendant was allowed to continue in the premises for some more time. The present suit was filed on 30 March 1989. The defendant contested the suit on the ground that he was a tenant in the premises and the suit was barred under the provisions of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958. On pleadings of the parties, the following issues were fra...
S.R. Bose Vs. S. Gurbax Singh and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-28-1993
Reported in: 49(1993)DLT507; 1993(26)DRJ27; 1993RLR177
P.K. Bahri, J.(1) This revision petition has been brought against order dated April 26, 1984 of the Additional Rent Controller by which while striking out defense of the petitioner by taking resort to Section 15(7) of the Delhi Rent Control Act (for short 'the Act') the Additional Rent Controller proceeded to pass the eviction order against the petitioner in a petition brought under Section 25-B read with Section 14(1)(e) of the Act.(2) The facts in brief are that on notice being issued to the petitioner-tenant in the main petition the leave to defend application was moved which was at first dismissed in default and thereafter it was restored and the court came to pass the following order on 4/4/1983. 'PRESENT:Petitioner No.1 None for the respondent. Soon after this counsel for respondent appears. Above order and dismissal to be recalled but it transpires that petitioner has left. Notice be issued to him on P.F. for 7.4.1983. Soon after petitioner appears heard. Order for dismissal and...
Ganesh Chander Joshi Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-28-1993
Reported in: 50(1993)DLT325; (1993)ILLJ1027Del
P.K. Bahri, J.(1) This writ petition has been filed under Article2.26 of the Constitution of India seeking writ in the nature of Certiorari quashing the order of discharge of the petitioner dated 5/10/1987.(2) Facts, in brief, are that the petitioner was appointed on the post of Superintendent (B/R II) w.e.f. 18/01/1983 and he was put on a probation of two years. The Departmental Rules governing the petitioner,which are reproduced on running page 12 of the writ petition, show that initial appointment of the officers and other persons has to be on a probation for the first two years and after completion of that probation period, the competent authority has to assess the suitability of the person concerned and pass suitable orders either confirming the successful completion of probation or extending the probationary period for not more than one year at a time.It is also provided that the aggregate period of probation would not, save for exceptional reasons, exceed four years and on the e...
Pramod JaIn Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-28-1993
Reported in: 1993(26)DRJ39
Sat Pal, J.(1) The petitioner in this case was detained in terms of order dated 21st July, 1992 passed by the Joint Secretary, Govt. of India, Min. of Finance, Deptt. of Revenue in exercise of powers conferred by Section 3(1) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 (in short COFEPOSA). The aforesaid order of detention was served on the petitioner on 28th July, 1992 when he was in Jail. (2) Briefly stated the facts of the case are that on 5th May, 1992 certain officers of the Enforcement Directorate conducted search at the premises of one Mr. Praveen Jain who happens to be brother of the petitioner at B-14A, 1st Floor, Vijay Nagar, Mew Delhi. It is further alleged that on the basis of said search, foreign currency worth Rs.35,00,000.00 and gold valued at Rs.l0,50,000.00 were seized by the officers of the Enforcement Directorate. According to the allegations the petitioner was arrested at the spot on 5th/6th May, 1992, the petitioner was p...
Smt. Agya Kaur Dhingra and anr. Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-28-1993
Reported in: (1993)112CTR(Del)233
ORDERBY THE COURT :Following the order of the Supreme Court in C. B. Gautam vs. Union of India 1992 (6) JT 678 (SC), the case is remitted back to the appropriate authority under the IT Act, 1961, for deciding the matter afresh keeping in view the aforesaid decision and directions contained in the judgment.2. Through CM 83 of 1993, the Writ petitioners wanted to add some prayers, including impleadment of Punjab and Sind Bank as a respondent to bring on record the Legal Representatives of Inder Singh and certain other reliefs mentioned in the application.3. In the writ petition, the virus of s. 269UD of the IT Act, 1961, were challenged, regarding which decision has been rendered by the apex Court in the case referred to above and the parties are left to agitate their other rights and title before an appropriate forum and in writ jurisdiction, we do not have to say anything further.With the aforesaid observations, the writ petition is disposed of....
Northern India theatres (P.) Ltd. Vs. Assistant Commissioner of
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Decided on: Jan-27-1993
Reported in: (1993)45ITD310(Delhi)
1. This is an appeal by the assessee against an order of the Commissioner of Wealth-tax (Appeals)-IX, New Delhi, pertaining to the assessment year 1984-85.2. The assessee is aggrieved by the manner in which the CWT (Appeals) has determined the value of the cinema building known as Naaz Cinema, New Delhi. These grounds are enumerated in the grounds of appeal from 1.1 to 3. By a letter dated 9-11-1992 the assessee raised by way of additional ground a legal point by saying that it will not require any further investigation of facts nor it is designed to enlarge the scope of appeal.3. After hearing the parties, we have admitted the additional grounds raised by a letter dated 9-11-1992. In the additional grounds the assessee assailed the order of the CWT (Appeals) on the ground that the inclusion of value of Naaz Cinema Building in the wealth-tax is against the provisions of Section 40(3) of the Finance Act, 1983. Provisions of Section 2(e)(v) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957 could not be invok...
Dr. R.K. Bhatnagar Vs. Income-tax Officer
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Decided on: Jan-27-1993
Reported in: (1993)45ITD45(Delhi)
1. This appeal filed by the assessee relating to the assessment year 1981-82 is directed against the order of the CIT (Appeals) whereby the deduction claimed under Section 54 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 was disallowed.2. The facts of the case are that the assessee owned a residential house at Beawar in Rajasthan which he sold on 4-4-1980 for a consideration of Rs. 1,80,000. The cost of construction of that house was said to be Rs. 64,000. Out of the gross capital gains amounting to Rs. 1,16,000, assessee claimed deduction under Section 54 on account of the purchase price of the new house purchased by him for residence. The Assessing Officer, however, did not allow the deduction under Section 54 on the ground that the new house was purchased at Delhi not within the period of one year as required under Section 54 of the IT Act, 1961. The assessee had claimed that the sale deed was executed by the vendor Smt. Veena Mahajan in his favour on 19-6-1980 and, thereafter, a general power of at...
M.S. Chawla and Co. Vs. Inspecting Assistant
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Decided on: Jan-25-1993
Reported in: (1993)45ITD98(Delhi)
1. The assessee and the revenue are in cross appeals for the same assessment year and accordingly these two appeals have been grouped together, heard on that basis and are being disposed of by this composite order.2. The assessee has raised several issues in this appeal and the first of the issue in the appeal is in regard to inclusion of custom duty on the imported stocks in the valuation of closing stock.3. Shri G.C. Sharma, Sr. Advocate appearing for the assessee, a firm, submitted that the assessee is carrying on the business of manufacture and sale of multi-channel, T.V. tuners, deck-mechanism, micro motors etc. for which it imports the necessary raw materials. He submitted that the present controversy is limited to the valuation of such raw materials which are not sold by the assessee in the market but used by it for its own consumption for making the various products in which it deals in. He submitted that right from the earlier assessment years and even in the subsequent asses...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »