Delhi Court May 1993 Judgments
Browse smarter
Turn browsing into brief-ready notes
Open any judgment and get a structured AI Brief in seconds — plus Semantic Search when you need to hunt by meaning, not keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed — log in to pick up where you left off.
Dior International (P.) Ltd. Vs. Assistant Commissioner of
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Decided on: May-31-1993
Reported in: (1993)46ITD321(Delhi)
1. This is an appeal by the assessee against an order refusing to grant exemption under Section 249(4) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 passed by the CIT(A)-IX, New Delhi pertaining to the assessment year 1984-85.2. The assessee-company is engaged in the business of export of ready-made garments. During the assessment year under consideration the company set up a plant for production of bed sheets and other linen products under the trade name of 'Bichhouna'. The return of income for assessment year under reference was filed declaring a total income of Rs. 13,39,240 on 18-4-1985 on which admitted tax works out to Rs. 8,71,441. However, the assessment under Section 143(3) was completed at a total income of Rs. 92,47,070 of the Income-tax Act on which tax payable works out to Rs. 88,40,408. The assessee filed an appeal before the CIT(A)-IX, New Delhi on 27-4-1987. However, the tax due on income returned by the assessee-company was not paid as per the provisions of Sub-section (4) of Section 2...
Jeewan Mehrotra Vs. Kalawanti Kotwani
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-30-1993
Reported in: 1993(27)DRJ79
Usha Mehra, J.(1) The short point involved is whether the admission made by the respondent in para 14 of the petition can be withdrawn. (2) The point involved is very short and does not require any detailed elaboration or discussion. The facts giving rise to the present petition are that the respondent landlord/ owner filed a petition for eviction under Section 14(l)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act (hereinafter called the Act), against the present petitioner/tenant, on the ground of bonafide requirement. (3) In the leave to defend application, the tenant took the plea that the premises were let out for residential-cum-commercial purposes. Hence the petition for eviction on account of bonafide requirement was not maintainable. The leave was granted. The respondent thereafter, filed an application seeking amendment of his eviction petition. By this amend- ment the landlord/owner wanted to withdraw the fact of 'No agreement' and instead wanted to incorporate the fact in paragraph 14 that...
In Re.: Wearwell Cycle Co. (i.) Ltd. (In Liquidation)
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-28-1993
Reported in: [1998]94CompCas723(Delhi)
J.K. Mehra, J.1. By this order, I propose to dispose of C.P. No. 131 of 1988, C.A. Nos. 2083 of 1988, 7626 of 1989, 13375 of 1989, and 130 of 1990, in C.A. Nos. 26 of 1985, and 328 of 1990, in C.P. No. 131 of 1988, and C.A. No. 414 of 1985, and C.A. No. 94 of 1987. 2. Before I proceed any further it will be helpful to notice some of the salient facts. 3. Wearwell Cycle Co. (India) Limited (in liquidation) (hereinafter referred to as 'the company') was incorporated in the year 1951 and was wound up on March 9, 1978, on the petition filed by one of the creditors, namely, Lalit Trading Co., which had been filed on May 24, 1977 (C.P. No. 54 of 1977), inter alia, for the failure of the company to pay the dues of the said Lalit Trading Company despite statutory notice, that the company had not been carrying on any business for want of funds and loss of credibility, the failure of the company to comply with the provisions of the Companies Act and mismanagement of the company by the directors,...
Rashtriya Metal Industries Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-28-1993
Reported in: 1993IIIAD(Delhi)343; II(1993)BC323; 51(1993)DLT417
Arun Madan, J. (1) This appeal is directed against the Judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 29/03/1979 whereby the suit of the plaintiff was partly decreed.(2) The learned Single Judge after carefully examining the rival contentions of the parties and issues involved did not allow the claim of the plaintiff with regard to first item i.e. alleged deduction by respondent/defendant No. 2 vide amendment letter dated 11-6-1968 amounting tors. 31,716.00, while the learned Single Judge decreed the suit of the plaintiff with regard to other two items as claimed in the plaint which were to the following effect as stated in paragraph 17 of the plaint : BALANCE due on account of difference in the price of Antimony. Rs. 10,175.19 5% value relating to the supply of 228,31Kilograms Antifriction Bearing Alloy under R/R No. 960668 dated 5/6-9-1968and Inspection Note No. NI/1928/ NF-19(Part) dated 24-8-1966. Rs. 3,303.99Interest @ 6% per annum on Rs. 54.195.18Pfor 31 months I.e., from 1-6-1969 to...
Wearwell Cycle Co. (i) Ltd. (In Liquidation) Vs. A.K. Misra and Brahm ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-28-1993
Reported in: ILR1994Delhi109
J.K. Mehra, J.(1) By this order I propose to dispose of C.P. 131188. CAs, 2083188, 7626189, 13375189 and 130190 in Ca 2626/85 and 328/90 in Cp 131/88 and Ca 414/85 and C.A. 94/87.(2) Before I proceed any further it will be helpful to notice some of the salient facts.(3) Wearwell Cycle Co. (India) Limited (in liquidation) (hereinafter referred to as 'the Company') was incorporated in the year 1951 which Was wound up on 9th March 1978 on the petition filed by one of the creditors, namely Lalit Trading Co., which had been filed on 24-5-1977, (CP. 54/77), inter alia, for the failure of the company to pay the dues of the said M/s> Lalit Trading Company despite statutory notice, that the company had not been carrying on any business for want of funds and loss of creditibility, the failure of the company to comply with the provisions of the Companies Act and mismanagement of the company by the Directors etc.. The company did not file any reply to the main winding up petition. On the contrary ...
inder Gupta Vs. State (Delhi Administration)
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-28-1993
Reported in: II(1993)DMC618; 1993(27)DRJ276
Sat Pal, J.(1) This is a petition under section 439 of the Criminal Procedure Code (for short called 'the Code') for grant of bail. (2) Briefly stated, a case was registered against the petitioner under section 302/307/ 498A Ipc, on the allegations that deceased Smt. Chandra was set ablaze after pouring kerosene oil by her husband, the brother-in-law (Devar), (the petitioner in this case) and her father-in-law. (3) Mr. Ahluwalia, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, submitted that in the present case the deceased is alleged to have been burnt on 7th March, 1993 and in her first statement recorded by the Investigating Officer, she stated that she was burnt due to accidental fire. In her first statement recorded by the Sub Divisional Magistrate on 7th March, 1993 she repeated the same thing. However, in her second statement recorded by the Sub Divisional Magistrate on 8th March, 1993, she stated that her husband, brother-in-law and father-in-law have set her ablaze afte...
Mohan Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-28-1993
Reported in: 50(1993)DLT633
Sat Pal, J.(1) His is a petition for grant of bail under Section 43911of the Code of Criminal Procedure.(2) Briefly stated the case of the prosecution is that deceased Maya Devi was married to the petitioner about two years before the date of occurrence. It has been alleged by the father of the deceased that he had given dowry worth Rs. 11,000.00 one cycle, watch, radio, wall clock etc. It is further alleged that the father of the deceased paid a sum of Rs. 20,000.00to the petitioner to start a factory, but inspire of this the petitioner and his mother used to demand further dowry. It is then alleged that the deceased had come to the house of her parents 15 days before the date of occurrence and she had told her father that her-in-laws were demanding money and against that demand the father had paid Rs. 1300.00 and had given one saree and blouse. It is further alleged that on 31/05/1992, the deceased was burnt by the petitioner, his mother Gomati and his brother Montu.(3) Mr. Sharma, t...
Anil Kumar Malik Vs. Delhi Administration
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-28-1993
Reported in: 51(1993)DLT77
Sat Pal, J.(1) In the present case Fir was registered against the petitioner under Sections 376/384/506/34 Indian Penal Code at the instance of the complainant, namely, Smt. Kusum Malik.(2) Briefly stated, the case of the complainant is that before her marriage with Shri O.P. Malik in January 1981, she had exchanged some correspondence with the petitioner Anil Kumar Malik, who happens to be the cousin brother of her husband. She has alleged that in the year 1986 by showing those letters, the petitioner started black-milling her on the threat that in case she would not submit to his lust, he would show those letters to her husband. The complainant has alleged that under the aforesaid threats,she continued submitting to his lust for many years and during this period he even brought certain other persons to satisfy their lust with her. In her complaint she further alleged that somewhere in August 1992 her husband got suspicious and she told each and everything to her husband. She has furt...
Union of India Vs. Jitender Singh and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-28-1993
Reported in: 51(1993)DLT153
Sunanda Bhandare, J.(1) This appeal is directed against the judgment and order of the Additional District Judge, Delhi dated 9/07/1984read with Order dated 15/02/1990 in Lac Case No. 81 of 1981. The brief facts are as follows :-(2) The land belonging to respondents No. 3 to 6 in village Tughlakabad, New Delhi was acquired by Notification issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act dated 5/07/1973. The declaration under Section 6was issued on 12/08/1975. The Land Acquisition Collector gave his award on 8/02/1979 and fixed the market value at Rs. 3000.00 perbigha. A Reference petition was filed under Section 18 of the Act and the Additional District Judge fixed the market value of the land at Rs. 49,00 0.00per bigha. The Additional District Judge, however, in his order of 9/07/1984 had not given benefit of interest under the amended Act to the respondents No. 3 to 6. These respondents filed a review petition before the Additional District Judge for amendment of the decree praying ...
Government Servants Co-operative House Building Society Ltd. and ors. ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-28-1993
Reported in: AIR1994Delhi112; 51(1993)DLT334; 1993(27)DRJ144
D.P. Wadhwa, J. (1) By this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioners mainly seek the following reliefs:- 1.Writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the notices issued by the Municipal Corporation of Delhi ('MCD' for short) under section 126 of the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957 (for short 'DMC Act') and those issued by the New Delhi Municipal Committee ('NDMC' for short) under section 67 of the Punjab Municipal Act ('PM Act' for short) as extended to Delhi, on the properties situated within their respective areas; 2.A writ in the nature of direction or order declaring that the words 'be precluded from objecting to any assessment made by the Commissioner in respect of such land or building of which he is the owner or occupier' appearinginsub-section(3)ofsection 131 of the Dmc Act are unconstitutional, arbitrary and against the principles of natural justice; and 3.A writ in the nature of mandamus directing the municipal authorities (MCD and NDMC) to...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- Next ›
- Last »