Delhi Court May 1993 Judgments

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Sak Industries (P.) Ltd. (Sak ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: (1994)49TTJ(Del)457

ORDERR.M. MEHTA, A.M. :These are cross-appeals directed against the order passed by the CIT(A) raising for our consideration various issues.2. Taking up for consideration the Revenues appeal, various grounds have been raised in respect of the items of expenditure disallowed/added by the ITO, but on subsequent appeal deleted by the CIT(A).3. Before we proceed further, it would be necessary to mention that the assessed is a Private Ltd. Company, which during the assessment year under appeal, conducted sales to the tune of Rs. 1,897 as compared to Rs. 4,03,004 in the immediately preceding assessment year. The income from commission was also absent, the same having been earned at a figure of Rs. 1,25,000 in the preceding assessment year. The main income of the assessed-company was from dividends which were reflected at a figure of Rs. 5,87,664 in the P&L; account.4. On the basis of the aforesaid facts, the ITO prima facie took the view that since the only source of income was from dividend...

Nitya Prakash JaIn Vs. Delhi Development Authority

Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi

R.N. Mittal President: 1. Briefly the facts are that the complainant got himself registered with the respondent under Registration Scheme of New Pattern, 1979 for purchase of a flat under Middle Income Group and was registered at S.No.17088. He deposited an amount of Rs. 4,500/-. He was allotted a MIG flat in Block J and K, Dilshad Garden, Delhi vide Demand-cum-allotment letter dated 6.9.90. The respondent required him to deposit an amount of Rs.1 86,402,59 after adjustment of the registration fee, by 5.11.90. 2. After receiving the allotment letter on 10.9.90, he visited the site on 13.9.90 and found that the flat had already been allotted to one Mr. Grover, who had been residing there with his family for the last over three years. He was informed by the officials at the site that Mr. Grover was a lawful allotted of the flat. He then made an application dated 14.9.90 to the Dy. Director (Housing) for allotting him an alternative flat in the same locality. However, he deposited the bal...

Vidyawati Vs. State

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 51(1993)DLT181

R.L. Gupta, J. (1) The petitioner is facing prosecution for recovery of 450 gm. of Charas on 15.5.1991. She applies for grant of bail.(2) I have heard the arguments advanced by the learned Counsel for the parties. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner has drawn my attention to the averments made in the Rukka by the Investigating Officer which shows that the petitioner was given option only of being searched in the presence of a Gazetted Officer. It is contended that it amounted to giving a partial option and thus the option given was not valid as per Section 50 of NDPSAct.(3) Without expressing any final opinion in this respect, the petitioners granted bail on furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 7.000.00 with a surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the Court concerned. Copy of this order be forwarded to the Superintendent (Jail) as well as the Courtconcerned....

Ashok Kumar Vs. Mukand Behari Kaushal and anr.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 50(1993)DLT680; 1993(26)DRJ364

Sat Pal, J. (1) In this case the petitioner has been detained pursuant to the order of detention dated 4th August, 1992 passed by the Commissioner of Police, Delhi in exercise of powers conferred vide sub-section (2) of section 3 of the National Security Act, 1980 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') as delegated to the Commissioner of Police vide Delhi Administration order No.F.2/l/88-H.P.II, dated 13.7.1992. The aforesaid order was approved by the Lt. Governor of the National Capital of Delhi vide order dated 13th August, 1992 and it has been stated in this order that the petitioner has been detained with a view to preventing him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. The aforesaid order was confirmed by the Lt. Governor by order dated 7th October, 1992 and it has been stated therein that the petitioner be detained for a period of 12 months from the date of detention i.e. 4th August, 1992. (2) The impugned orders mentioned herein above have been c...

A.K. Luthra Vs. Malkit Mamrath

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 1993(26)DRJ285

Dalveer Bhandari, J. (1) The plaintiff has filed a suit for possession and for recovery of Rs. 1,50,000.00,as 1.damages/compensation for use and occupation. After pleadings were complete, the court framed issues and recorded the evidence in this case and thereafter the suit was placed for final arguments before the court. During the course of the final arguments the plaintiff has moved an application under Order 7 Rule 18 and Order 13 Rule 2 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure. (2) In this application, the plaintiff has prayed that leave be granted to him to produce and/or file certified copy of the letter dated 27th June, 1989 written by Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Investigation Circle-ll(l), New Delhi, to the plaintiff, and a copy thereof marked to the defendant herein. By the said letter. Income tax authorities have revoked the notice under Section 226(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 by lifting the attachment ofRs.6 lakhs which was lying deposited in the pl...

Moti Ram Vs. Union of India

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 1993IIIAD(Delhi)4; 51(1993)DLT552; 1993(26)DRJ457

C.L. Chaudhry, J. (1) Moti Ram, the appellant owned land in Village Mandoli. The land was acquired in pursuance of a notification dated 10.11.1966 issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act. Land Acquisition Collector assessed the market value of the land at Rs.2,000.00 per bigha. The appellant was not satisfied with the assessment made by the Land Acquisition Collector. He moved the District Judge under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act for enhancement of the compensation. By award dated 27.5.1991 the Additional District Judge enhanced the market value of the land from Rs.2,000.00 to Rs.4,000.00 per bigha besides the statutory solarium. Even then the appellant was not satisfied with the award of the District Judge and he preferrd this appeal in this Court. (2) The appellant, in this appeal claimed compensation @ Rs.6,000.00 per bigha. There after, the appellant moved an application being C.M. 628/1992 under Order 6 Rule 17 Cpc for amendment of the grounds of appeal. In th...

Trilochan Singh Vs. Usha Dhir

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 51(1993)DLT534; 1993RLR482

Usha Mehra, J.(1) By this application, the petitioner wants to place on record the three rent receipts alleged to have been executed by Smt. Surjit Kaur, the previous landlady from whom the present respondent purchased the house in question in 1979. According to the petitioner, he was a tenant of Smt. Surjit Kaur, who permitted him to use the premises for residential-cum-commercial purposes somewhere in 1973-74. (2) In the beginning of 1974, landlady issued the receipts confirming the fact that the tenanted premises was allowed to be used for residential-cum-commercial purposes. The fact that the premises was let out for residential-cum-commercial purposes was specifically pleaded before the Additional Rent Controller. However, since these receipts could not be traced out, thereforee, these could not be placed at the time of filing the written statement or at the time when the evidence was adduced or subsequent thereto. Even after Usha.Dhir, the respondent herein, purchased this premis...

Deputy Rai BhasIn Vs. State

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 1994CriLJ47; 1993(3)Crimes484; 50(1993)DLT611; II(1993)DMC60

Sat Pal, J. (1) This is a petition under Section 439 of the Code ofCri. Procedure for release of the petitioner on bail,(2) Briefly stated the case of the prosecution is that the petitioner was married to the deceased Anita on 26/01/1989 according to Hindu Customs and Rites. It has been alleged that at the time of marriage sufficientdowry, as desired by Anita, has been given by her brother. However, after the marriage, the deceased is alleged to have been harassed by the petitioner and his parents. It is further alleged that whenever the deceased along with her husband came to the house of her brother, they used to pressurise him for selling the house so that they could get their share, but the brother of the deceased had refused to accept this demand. It is further alleged that 2-3months prior to the occurrence, the petitioner came to the house of the brother of the deceased and made a demand of Rs. 20,000.00 for purchasing a second hand car and he also put pressure through the deceas...

Surinder Kaur and ors. Vs. Dharambir and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 50(1993)DLT622

Y.K. Sabharwal, J. (1) By the award dated 18/01/1991 the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, New Delhi, awarded a compensation in the sum of Rs. UO.OOO.00 less Rs. 15.000.00paid under Section 92-A of the Motor Vehicles Act) i.e. Rs. 1,65,000.00 Along with costs and interest at the rate of 9%p.a. from the date of filing of the petition till the date of the award in favor of the appellants and against the respondents. The appellants aggrieved by the quantum of compensation have filed this appeal.(2) The age of the deceased at the time his death was about 45 years.The annual dependency of contribution to the family of the deceased has been held in the impugned order to Rs. 12,000.00. The learned Tribunal has applied the multiplier of 15 years arid thus the total amount of compensation has been worked out to Rs. 1,80,000.00. The rate of interest awarded in the impugned award is 9/o p.a.(3) The learned Counsel for the appellants has raised two contentions. Firstly, it is contended that/consider...

Ujagar Singh Gill Vs. Union of India and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 50(1993)DLT674

D.P. Wadhwa, J. (1) This is plaintiff's appeal. His suit for recovery of Rs. 18.000.00 towards arrears of his salary and interest thereon was dismissed by the Commercial Sub- Judge, Delhi, principally on the ground that the claim was barred by limitation.(2) The facts are in brief. The plaintiff was appointed as District Rent and Managing Officer-cum-Assistant Custodian in the office of the respondents-defendants and was posted at Ludhiana. There were three defendants (now respondents), first defendant being Union of India through the Secretary in the Department of Rehabilitation, the second defendant being the Chief Settlement Commissioner, New Delhi; and the third defendant was the Regional Settlement Commissioner, Jullundur. The services of the petitioner were terminated on 23/05/1960. He, however, came to know about this fact on 30/05/1960. On 19/12/1961 he filed a suit for declaration challenging his termination. The suit was decreed in his favor on 28/02/1963 and subsequent appea...