Delhi Court March 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.
Mukesh Vs. State (Delhi Administration)
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-13-1993
Reported in: 51(1993)DLT84; 1993(26)DRJ272
Sat Pal, J. (1) This is a petition for grant of bail mainly on the ground that the petitioner has been in custody since 16th August, 1987 but only eight out of seventeen witnesses have been examined so far.(2) Mr. Grover, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, drew my attention to an order passed by this Court on the second bail petition being Cr.M.(M) No.464/92 on 14th May, 1992. By this order a learned Single Judge of this Court transferred the case to the court of Shri Kuldip Singh, Additional Sessions Judge, with a direction to give short adjournments and dispose of the case preferably within four months. Learned counsel submitted that even about a year has lapsed from the date of the said order, but only one witness could be examined partly during this period. Learned counsel, thereforee, contended that since the trial has protracted for about six years, the petitioner should be released on bail. In support of his contention learned counsel placed reliance on a Sup...
Som Distillery Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Lt. Governor, Delhi and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-12-1993
Reported in: 1993(25)DRJ503
Y.K. Sabharwal, J. (1) On 18th April 1992 Commissioner of Excise, Delhi, invited tenders for grant of two or more licenses in Form L-9 from the licensed manufacturing units (Distilleries including their bottling plants) for supply of country liquor in Union Territory of Delhi during the year 1992-93 (1st May 1992 to 31st March 1993). The Petitioner and Respondent No.5 were amongst the tenderers. Some of the other tenderers were Central Distillery and Breweries Ltd, Bazpur Distillery, Sir Shadilal Distillery, Modi Distillery, Rampur Distillery and Pilkhani Distillery. These tenderers, petitioner and respondent No.5 were called for negotiation of rates by a Committee appointed by the Lt.Governor to obtain country liquor at the lowest possible price. Out of the tenderers invited for negotiation the lowest rates were tendered by Central Distillery; Second lowest rates were of Bazpur Distillery; Respondent No.5- M/s.Cooperative Company Ltd was third lowest; the rates quoted by Sir Shadilal ...
V.P. Talwar Vs. Munshi Ram and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-12-1993
Reported in: 50(1993)DLT181; 1993(27)DRJ119
Sat Pal, J. (1) This is a petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Code') for quashing of order dated 20th August, 1987 passed by Shri Z.S. Solanki, Metropolitan Magistrate, Delhi dismissing the complaint of the petitioner for offences under Sections 420/467/468/471 read with Sections 109/114/34/120B of the Indian Penal Code (for short called 'IPC') and order dated 2nd May, 1992 passed by Shri L.D Mual, Additional Sessions Judge, Delhi upholding the order passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate. (2) Briefly stated the facts of the case are that Shri Darbari Lal and Prem Chand have been tenants of respondent No. 1 in respect of a shop bearing No.3, Fateh Nagar, jail Road, New Delhi. It was alleged in the complaint that respondents No. 2 and 3 were made partners in a firm known as M/s. C.B. Safe Company vide partnership deed dated 16th Sep., 1990. It was further alleged that respondents No.2 and 3 committed dishonest acts o...
Narender Kumar Khanna Vs. Jagdish Prakash Kathuria
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-12-1993
Reported in: 51(1993)DLT27; 1993(26)DRJ228
Santosh Duggal, J.(1) The appellant, Shri Narender Kumar Khanna, is the owner/landlord of premises No.D-241, Ashok Vihar, Phase I, Delhi; ground floor whereof was let out to the respondent Shri Jagdish Pershad Kathuria, after obtaining permission of the Rent Controller under section 21 of the Delhi Rent Control Act (for short the 'Act'), by order dated 6/7/1978, to create limited tenancy for a period of three years. It is common case of the parties that the tenancy commenced with effect from the date of the order. Draft of the proposed lease deed was annexed with the application under section 21, but no separate lease deed was executed subsequently, and respondent/tenant is in occupation on the same terms and conditions, as contained in the draft lease deed, annexed with the application under section 21.(2) The aforesaid period of three years expired with effect from 5/7/81. but the respondent did not hand over vacant possession of the premises to the appellant, and eventually during a...
Vijay Kumar Narang and ors. Vs. Usha Rani
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-12-1993
Reported in: 50(1993)DLT422
P.K. Babri, J.(1) In all these cases same questions of fact and law are involved. Hence, they are being disposed of by this common judgment.(2) The appellants are occupying different portions of propertyNo. 15A/36. Western Extension Area, Karol Bagh, New Delhi, as tenants under the respondent. The eviction petitions were brought against these tenants by the landlord on the ground of eviction covered by Clause (k) of than proviso to Sub-section (1) of Section 14 of the Delhi Rent Control Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act').(3) The two Courts below have given findings that premises have been let out for commercial purposes. It is not in dispute that according to the terms of the lease under which the property is held by the respondent the property could he used only for residential purposes. The ground of eviction covered by Clause (k) was upheld by both the Courts and there is no challenge to the said findings of the two Courts below. Clause (k) reads asfollows: 'THAT the tenant ...
Ashok Kumar and ors. Vs. Usha Rani
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-12-1993
Reported in: 52(1993)DLT551; 1993RLR367
P.K. Bahri, J.(1) In all these cases same questions of fact and lawyer involved. Hence, they are being disposed of by this common judgment.(2) The appellants are occupying different portions of propertyNo. 1 SA/36, Western Extension Area, Karol Bagh, New Delhi, as tenants.under the respondent. The' eviction petitions were brought against these tenants by the landlord on the ground of eviction covered by Section 14(l)(k)of the Delhi Rent Control Act ('the Act').(3) The two Courts below have given findings that premises havebeen let out for commercial purposes. It is not in dispute that according to the terms of the lease under which the property is held by the respondent,the property could be used only for residential purposes. The ground of eviction covered by Clause (k) was upheld by both the Courts and there is no challenge to the said findings of the two Courts below. Clause (k) reads as follows: 'that the tenant has, notwithstanding previous notice, used or dealt with the premises ...
Kuldip Mehta Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-12-1993
Reported in: 1993(25)DRJ490; (1993)IILLJ422Del
D.P. Wadhwa, J.(1) Services of the petitioner who was working as Chief Executive (Corporate Affairs) in Swadeshi Polytex Limited (respondent No.2), a public limited company, were terminated by order dated20June 1991 of the third respondent- Chairman and Managing Director (CMD)ofrespondent No.2,anofficer of the Indian Administrative Service. The petitioner seeks an appropriate order, or a writ of certiorari quashing that order being vocative of principles of natural justice and vocative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution. He further seeks an appropriate direction or order or writ in the nature of mandamus declaring that the third respondent had no legal authority to terminate his services. There is also a prayer that the appointment of the third respondent as C.M.D. of the company was itself irregular and void, but that prayer has not been pressed. Yet another prayer was that a direction, writ or order be issued directing the respondents to continue the services of the petitioner...
Amarpali Mercantile (P.) Ltd. Vs. Assistant Commissioner of
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Decided on: Mar-11-1993
Reported in: (1993)45ITD386(Delhi)
1. This appeal arises from the order dated 24-7-1991 passed by Miss S.K. Nigam, Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-I, New Delhi and the only ground raised is as under : The CIT (Appeals) erred on facts and in law in disregarding the cash basis of accounting consistently followed by the appellant and in holding that the appellant could not maintain its accounts on cash basis for purposes of income-tax while maintaining the same on accrual basis under the Companies Act consequent to the amendment of the Companies Act w.e.f. 15-6-1988.2. The assessee is a limited company engaged in the business of financing and investment. The assessee was following cash system of accounting since inception as could be seen from the assessment order for assessment year 1986-87. The problem arose because during the financial year ended on 31-3-1989, Section 209 of the Companies Act was amended by the Companies (Amendment) Act, 1988, w.e.f. 15-6-1988 whereby it was made mandatory for all companies to mai...
M/S. Daily Foods Vs. Union of India and Others
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-11-1993
Reported in: AIR1993Delhi278
ORDER1. Milk is an essential commodity within the meaning of Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (for short 'the Act'). The Central Government has the power to regulate production, supply, distribution etc. of milk and milk products as provided in S. 3 of the Act. The Central Government as provided in S. 9can also delegate its power to make orders under S. 3 of the Act and direct the powers to be exercised by such officer or authority subordinate to the Central Government or to such State Government or such officer or authority subordinate to a State Government as may be specified in the direction. Section 2(d) provides that 'State Government' in relation to a Union Territory means the Administrator thereof. In the case of Union Territory of Delhi the Central Government by notification dated 9th June, 1978 delegated its powers under S. 3 of the Act to the State Government. By virtue of that delegation the Administrator of Delhi over a period of time has been issuing various orders for main...
Daily Foods Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-11-1993
Reported in: 1993(25)DRJ514
Y.K. Sabharwal, J. (1) Milk is an essential commodity within the meaning of Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (for short 'the Act'). The Central Government has the power to regulate production, supply, distribution etc of milk and milk products as provided in Section 3 of the Act The Central Government as provided in Section 5 can also delegate its power to make orders under Section 3 of the Act and direct the powers to be exercised by such officer or authority subordinate to the Central Government or to such State Government or such officer or authority subordinate to a State Government as may be specified in the direction. Section 2(d) provides that 'State Government' in relation to a Union Territory means the Administrator thereof. .In the case of Union Territory of Delhi the Central Government by notification dated 9th June, 1978 delegated its powers under Section 3 of the Act to the State Government. By virtue of that delegation the Administrator of Delhi over a period of time has b...