Delhi Court November 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.
Onkar Chand Prashar Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-17-1993
Reported in: 1993IVAD(Delhi)872; 53(1994)DLT240; 1994(28)DRJ39
S.C. Jain, J.(1) The facts giving rise to this petition are that the petitioner Mr. Onkar Chand Prashar was working as Tehsildar in Delhi Development Authority (D.D.A.) during the period of Emergency. The task entrusted to the petitioner along with Mr. K.K. Nayar, the then executive officer and others related to the shifting of the various people from urban areas of Delhi to resettlement colonies. Certain complaints were made against the petitioner, and the other co-accused and a case F.I.R. No. 96/76 under Sections 420,468,471 and 120B Indian Penal Code read with Section 34 and under Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act was registered on the allegations that he along with the other co-accused persons entered into a conspiracy to earn money by illegal means by receiving false possession slips in the names of fictitious persons or in the names of persons who were not squatters on the Government land. The sanction for prosecution as required under Section 197 Cr.P.C. and Sect...
Purolator of India Ltd. Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-17-1993
Reported in: (1994)50TTJ(Del)118
ORDERN. S. CHOPRA, A. M. :The assessed is in appeal against order dt. 8th Aug., 1989 of the learned CIT(A). First grievance of the assessed is that the CIT(A) erred in confirming the action of the Assessing Officer in bringing to tax an amount of Rs. 6,52,732 under s. 41(2) of the IT Act. The relevant facts are that the assessed is a limited company engaged in the manufacture of automobiles filters with units at Delhi, Gurgaon and Parwanoo. The account period of the assessed is 31st May, 1985. On 19th Dec. 1983, assesseds unit at Gurgaon suffered a fire. The assesseds claim was settled by the insurance company at Rs. 11,22,975 in the account period relevant to the assessment year under appeal. The assessed credited a sum of Rs. 6,52,732 to its P&L; account and took the balance of Rs. 4,70,242 to its balance sheet as capital receipt. The Assessing Officers attempt to bring to charge the sum of Rs. 6,52,732 under s. 41(2) of the Act was resisted by the assessed on the ground that the amo...
S.M. Rai and Co. and ors. Vs. New India Assurance Company and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-17-1993
Reported in: 1(1994)ACC368
P.K. Bahri, J.1. This appeal is directed against the award of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal dated January 30, 1981 by which he awarded compensation of Rs. 80,000/- in favor of the heirs of the deceased in proportion mentioned in the award and granted interest of 6% per annum from December 6, 1973 till realisation but the award limited the liability of respondent No. 3, M/s. New India Assurance Company to the extent of Rs. 5,000/-.2. The owner of the vehicle i.e. M/s. S.M. Rai & Company has come up in appeal against the said award on the short ground that the liability of the Insurance Company was not limited and the Tribunal went wrong in holding that the liability of the Insurance Company is limited inasmuch as the deceased, Des Raj, was a passenger in the bus at the time the fatal injuries were caused to him due to negligent driving of the bus by the driver of the bus.3. The question which has been argued before me by learned Counsel for the appellant is that the evidence on re...
Simac (Group) India (P) Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Nov-16-1993
Reported in: (1994)(69)ELT560TriDel
1. This is an appeal filed by M/s. Simac (Group) (I) Pvt. Ltd., against the Order-in-Review dated 15-10-1982, passed by the Collector of Central Excise, Bombay.2. The Supdt. of Central Excise Range VII, Bombay Division X, Thane, issued a show cause notice on 11-6-1976 to M/s. Simac (Group) India (P) Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as 'Simac' or the 'appellants'), alleging that they have violated the provisions of proviso (iv) of Notification No. 120/75-C.E., dated 30-4-1975, and that the exemption granted under that Notification No. 120/75-C.E., was not applicable in their case.3. The appellants were engaged in the manufacture of hand knitting machines, falling under Item No. 68 of the erstwhile Schedule to the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Tariff'). They were selling their bulk of the production in the home market to M/s. Singer Sewing Machine Company (hereinafter referred to as 'Singer'), under an agreement, and Singer in turn were selling those g...
Tata Engineering and Locomotive Vs. Collr. of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Nov-16-1993
Reported in: (1994)LC217Tri(Delhi)
1. This is an appeal preferred against the impugned order dated 24-5-1988 passed by the Collector of Central Excise & Customs, Pune.2. The point to be considered in this case is whether gauges/templates (measuring instruments) lifting tackles, trolleys, conveyors, carrier (material handling equipments) manufactured by the appellants and utilised for captive consumption are eligible for exemption under Notification No. 217/86-C.E., dated 2-4-1986. This notification exempts "inputs" used in or in relation to the manufacture of goods notified under MODVAT. However, as per the proviso to the Notification it excludes from purview of said exemption apparatus, machinery, equipments etc. "used for" the manufacture of the goods. By the impugned order, the Collector held that items in question are excluded by the explanation and hence, they would not qualify for exemption.Hence this appeal.3. Relevant Notification No. 217/86-C.E., dated 2-4-1986 reads as under:- "Exemption to MODVAT items i...
Surinder Kaur Vs. Life Insurance Corporation of India
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-16-1993
Reported in: 1993IVAD(Delhi)809; 54(1994)DLT179; 1994(28)DRJ245
V.B. Bansal, J. (1) Mrs. Surinder Kaur, plaintiff has filed this suit against the Life Insurance Corporation of India for recovery of Rs. 1,28,800.00 (2) Briefly stated, averments made in the plaint are that the defendant, Life Insurance Corporation of India, was established under the Insurance Corporation Act and can sue and be sued in its name and is engaged in the business of life insurance. Mrs. Surinder Kaur is widow of late Mohan Singh. The aforesaid Mohan Singh got his life assured for a sum of Rs. 1 lakh for a term of 25 years, regarding which. Life Insurance Policy No. 50432319 was issued, which commenced on 28/3/1982 and was to mature on 28/3/2007. The premium was to be paid quarterly, payable on 28th of March, 28th of June, 28th of September and 28th of December of the each English calendar month. Each Installment of premium was for Rs. 1,367.50 paise. Mrs. Surinder Kaur was appointed as a nominee in this insurance policy. The payments of the premiums used to be made by the ...
Punjab and Sind Bank Vs. Manjit Singh and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-12-1993
Reported in: 1993IVAD(Delhi)753; 1993(27)DRJ612
Sat Pal, J.(1) is 3 259/92 has been filed on behalf of the defendants under Order 9 Rule 13 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short called 'the Code') for setting aside the ex parte judgment and decree dated 7th August, 1990. Along with this application the defendants have also filed another application bearing is . No-3258/92 under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condensation of delay in filing the application for setting aside the ex parte judgment and decree. Notice of both the applications was issued to the plaintiff and a reply has also been filed in respect of both the applications and the plaintiff has controverter the submissions made in these applications and it has been stated in the reply that both the applications should be dismissed with compensatory costs.(2) Since the fate of lA3259/92dependson the decision in is 3258/92, I would first dispose of is 3258/92.(3) Mr. Kumar, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the applicants/defendants sub...
Sudhir Kumar Dhingra Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-12-1993
Reported in: 1993IVAD(Delhi)829; 1994(28)DRJ101
S.C. Jain, J.(1) The petitioner, Mr. Sudhir Kumar Dhingra, has challenged his detention order dated 20.5.1992 purported to have been passed under Section 3[1] read with section 2[f] of Cofeposa by filing this writ petition.(2) The petitioner has taken several grounds in this writ petition for the quashment of the impugned detention order,namely, the non-supply of the relevant documents relied upon by the detaining authority; relying upon of irrelevant documents in passing the detention order and the delay in passing of the detention order. But much stress has been laid on the ground of non supply of the relevant documents depriving him his right of making a purposeful representation to the Advisory Board as well as to the detaining authority. Relying upon a Division Bench decision of this Court in CrI.W.P. Nos. 324 & 325 of 1986 - titled M.M. Yusuf vs. Union of India and Others decided on 17.3.1987,the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that in his representation dated 7.5.93...
Het Ram Gauri Vs. Municipal Corporation of Delhi and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-12-1993
Reported in: 1993IVAD(Delhi)941; 53(1994)DLT18; 1994(28)DRJ125; [1994(68)FLR627]; 1994LabIC139; (1994)ILLJ1234Del
Arun Kumar, J.(1) The only question for consideration in this batch of writ petitions is about the meaning of the word 'workman' as contained in Fundamental Rule 56(b) (hereinafter referred teas F.R.56(b)),read with the Note appended to the said provision. F.R.56(b) extends the age of superannuation for persons covered therein to 60 years as against the normal age of superannuation being 58 years. The petitioners in all these writ petitions have urged that they are covered under F.R.56(b) and as such are entitled to remain in service up to the age Of 60 years. There is no dispute that the Fundamental Rules are applicable to the employees concerned in this batch of writ petitions. Infact the Municipal Corporation of Delhi, to which most of these cases pertain, has specifically made the Fundamental Rules applicable to its employees under the Municipal Corporation of Delhi Service Regulations 1959.(2) Fundamental Rule 56(b) provides for age of retirement of different categories of Governm...
Food Corporation of India Vs. Amar Flour Mills
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-11-1993
Reported in: 1993RLR655
Mahinder Narain, J.(1) There are objections to the Award dt. 14.01.85. Arbitrator has awarded a sum of of Rs. 1,34,899.64 p. to Food Corporation of India (FCI) against the respondent. (2) The basis of objections is that claim for interest on delayed realisations is time-barred. (3) The Fci had agreed to supply wheat to the respondent. Payment was to be ensured on the basis of Letters of Credit which had specific duration. After the expiry of Letters of Credit, the Fci realised that bills which had to be presented for encashment, on the Letters of Credit issued in favor of Pci, had not been submitted, and moneys were outstanding. The bills worth Rs. 5,52,687.00 had not been presented for encashment. When the bills were presented, the bank did not honour them as the period of Letters of Credit had expired. (4) Apparently because Fci was having continuous dealings with the respondent it started making adjustments against the bills of the respondent. It is stated by the counsel for the pla...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »