Delhi Court July 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.
Avon Sales Corporation Vs. Income-tax Officer
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Decided on: Jul-30-1993
Reported in: (1993)47ITD93(Delhi)
1. Appellant is a firm engaged In the business of purchase and sale of weighing scales. For assessment year 1981-82, for which the previous year ended on 31-3-1981, assessee was required to furnish a return of income under Section 139(1) by 31st July, 1981. Since no return had been filed within the prescribed time, Assessing Officer issued a notice under Section 139(2) calling for the return of income. Assessee did not file the return of income till 28-3-1984 when Assessing Officer completed the assessment under Section 144 to the best of his judgment estimating the income of the assessee at Rs. 1 lakh. On 30th April, 1984 assessee filed an application under Section 146 requesting the Assessing Officer for cancellation of the assessment made under Section 144. While the application under Section 146 was pending before the Assessing Officer, assessee filed a return of income on 30th March, 1985 declaring income of Rs. 1,07,530. On 15th November, 1985 Assessing Officer passed an order u...
Dharam Pal Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-30-1993
Reported in: 1993IIIAD(Delhi)425; 1993(27)DRJ128
D.P. Wadhwa, J.(1) The petitioner, by this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution, seeks a writ of certiorari, etc. for quashing the order dated 10 December 1991 of the third respondent namely, the Additional District Magistrate-cum-Director (Panchayat), Development Department (Panchayat Unit)ofthe Delhi Administration. By this order the third respondent required the Block Development Officer, the fourth respondent to initiate proceedings of ejectment against the petitioner on account of his illegal possession of Gaon Sabha land of village Aya Nagar which comprised in Khasras No. 600 and 601. The fourth respondent was required to resume the land of Gaon Sabha. It is stated that the petitioner had installed a petrol pump on this land which was in his illegal possession. A copy of this order was endorsed to the petitioner; the Manager, Indian Oil Corporation, the fifth respondent; and to the Deputy Commissioner of Police (Licensing), the sixth respondent. In the endorsement...
Ram Ganga Fertilizers Ltd. Etc. Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-30-1993
Reported in: 1993IIIAD(Delhi)333; 1993(27)DRJ55; 1993RLR541
D.K. Jain, J.(1) The four petitioners, manufacturers of Single Super Phosphate (for short SSP), a low nutrient phosphatic fertilizer, seek awrit of mandamus to the respondents, directing them to: (a) notify the ex-factory price of Ssp for them for the quarters succeeding the quarter September 1991 and December, 1991, (b) pay the correct subsidy payable to them for the quarters of September 1991 onwards (beyond the ceiling rate) on the basis of the ex-factory price to be notified, (c) pay to petitioners no. I and 3 the subsidy payable to them for the Ssp supplied for the period I August 1992 to 24 August 1992and(d) pay to them interest at the market rate for the delay in payment of subsidy from the time the correct subsidy ought to have been paid till the time it is actually paid. (2) PETITIONERS' case is that prior to 1982,SSP was under informal price control, which was made effective from 16 March 1976, a flat subsidy of Rs.200.00 per tonne was granted by the Government of India while...
Ranjit Singh Vs. State (Central Bureau of Investigation)
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-30-1993
Reported in: 51(1993)DLT497
Y.K. Sabharwal, J.(1) Baba Gurbachan Singh, head of Nirankari Mission and esteemed as Guru of Nirankaris and his bodyguard Pratap Singh were shut dead on 24th April 1980 in the Nirankari Bhawan Complex. The appellant was arrested on 23rd November 1983 and is in custody s.ince then. After protracted trial which was held in the precinc's of Central Jail, Sh. R. P. Gupta, learned Additional Sessions Judge by judgment dated 26m March, 1993 held as proved against appellant Ranjit Singh the following charges : 1.Conspiracy to kill Gurbachan Singh punishable under Section 120B, Indian Penal Code . 2.Murder of Baba Gurbachan Singh in pursuance of the conspiracy punishable under Section' 302 read with Section 120B, Indian Penal Code . 3.Murder of Pratap Singh in furtherance of common in- tention by Ranjit Singh and his companion punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 Indian Penal Code . 4.Attempt to kill Kuldip Singh Walia punishable under Section 307 Indian Penal Code ; 5.Conspi...
Ramanand Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-30-1993
Reported in: 1993(26)DRJ594
A.B. Saharya, J.(1) In this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of india, in the context of large scale acquisition, development and disposal of land for purposes of planned development of Delhi, two questions of law have arisen for determination under the Delhi Development Act, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) and the Delhi Development Authority (Disposal of Developed Nazul Land) Rules, 1981 (hereinafter referred to as the Nazul Rules). The questions are:- 1. Whether a person whose land has been acquired for planned development of Delhi has got a vested right to the allotment of alternative plot of land for residential purposes? 2. What is the relevant date with reference to which premium at predetermined rates would be chargeable from such a person for allotment of the residential plot- should it be the date when his land is acquired, or when he makes the application to the Administrator of the Union Territory of Delhi for allotment, or when the Administrator...
Avon Sales Corporation Vs. Income Tax Officer.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-30-1993
Reported in: (1993)47TTJ(Del)290
ORDERM. A. BAKHSHI, J. M. :Appellant is a firm engaged in the business of purchase and sale of weighing scales. For asst. yr. 1981-82, for which the previous year ended on 31st March, 1981, assessed was required to furnish a return of income under S. 139(1) by 31st July, 1981. Since no return had been filed within the prescribed time, Assessing Officer issued a notice under S. 139(2) calling for the return of income. assessed did not file the return of income till 28th March, 1984 when Assessing Officer completed the assessment under S. 144 to the best of his judgment estimating the income of the assessed at Rs. 1 lakh. On 30th April, 1984 assessed filed an application under S. 146 requesting the Assessing Officer for cancellation of the assessment made under S. 144. While the application under S. 146 was pending before the Assessing Officer, assessed filed a return of income on 30th March, 1985 declaring income of Rs. 1,07,530. On 15th Nov., 1985 Assessing Officer passed an order unde...
Bhankerpur Simbhaoli Beverages Pvt. Ltd. Vs. the Company Law Board and ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-29-1993
Reported in: [1994]79CompCas131(Delhi); 51(1993)DLT483; 1993(26)DRJ584
Usha Mehra, J. (1) The appellant, M/s. Bhankerpur Simbhaoli Beverages Pvt. Ltd. and another, have assailed the order dt. 28th May, 1993 passed by the Principal Bench, of the Company Law Board, at Delhi (hereinafter called the Board) under Section 1 Of of the Companies Act (hereinafter called 'the Act'). The grievances of the appellant, in short are, that by the impugned order, the Board exceeded its jurisdiction in deciding the questions and issues, without recording evidence and without testing the allegations of the parties. Furthermore by the impugned decision, the Board could not have struck down the decision of the Shoe Specialities Pvt. Ltd. dated 30th April, 1992 of issuing additional shares and the allotment thereof in favor of appellant No. 1. , decision of the Board regarding the mis-management arising out of the allotment of shares in favor of respondent No.1 and non-allotment of shares in favor of respondents 2 and 3 cannot stand the test of scrutiny. By the impugned order,...
Om Prakash JaIn and Another Vs. Union of India and Others
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-28-1993
Reported in: AIR1994Delhi59; 1994(28)DRJ171
ORDER1. Petitioners have filed this writ petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India with a prayer to issue writ, order in the nature of mandamus, certiorari or any other writ to quash the notification dated 31-1-1992, issued by the Government of India, Ministry of External Affairs, to the effect that only those documents will be given to the Ministry of External Affairs for authentication, which have been attested by the officers, specifically designated to do so by the State Governments.2. Briefly stated, the facts leading to the filing of this writ petition are as under :Om Prakash Jain, petitioner No. 1 was appointed as a Notary by the Government of India and was registered as such under S. 5 of the Notaries Act, 1952 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). P.Y. Bhagat, petitioner No. 2 was appointed as a Notary by Delhi Administration on 5-12-1986 and their appointments are valid till date. The names of the Notaries are entered in the register and they can be removed on t...
Lavino Kapur Cottons (P.) Ltd. and Another Vs. B.i.F.R. and Another
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-28-1993
Reported in: [1994]79CompCas713(Delhi)
V.B. Bansal, J.1. The petitioners have filed this writ petition with a prayer for a writ of certiorari or a writ in the nature of certiorari or any other appropriate writ or direction, calling for the records of the present case and after going into the question of the legality and validity thereof to strike down and quash the proceedings before the Board for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction (BIFR) in Case No. 64 of 1987, and also restrain the respondents from passing any order in the said proceedings. 2. Petitioner No. 1, a 100 per cent. export-oriented unit, is a private limited company and petitioner No. 2 is a shareholder and its managing director. This company has installed capacity to manufacture 2,400 tonnes of absorbent cotton per annum with a license to double its capacity to 4,800 tonnes per annum. 3. The Board for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction, respondent No. 1, has been constituted under section 4 of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1...
Patel Construction Co. Vs. Oil and Natural Gas Commission
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-28-1993
Reported in: 1993IIIAD(Delhi)361; 1994(1)ARBLR26(Delhi); 52(1993)DLT37; 1993(27)DRJ26
C.M. Nayar, J. (1) The sole Arbitrator Shri P.D.Upadhyaya filed the Award dated August 26, 1988, in the matter of the arbitration between M/s Patel Construction Co. and 0il & Natural Gas Commission in this Court. The Award and the proceedings were taken on record by an order dated October 28, 1988, and notice of filing of the same was issued to the parties. The Notice was served on the petitioner as well as respondent. (2) The respondent M/s Oil & Natural Gas Commission is a statutory Corporation, established under the Oil and Natural Gas Commission Act, 1959, hereinafter referred to as 'the Corporation', invited tenders for civil, structural and plumbing work for C.G.S. cum C.T.F. South Santhal near Mehsana (Gujarat), from approved class of contractors through their engineers, M/s Engineers India Ltd. M/s Patel Construction Company submitted the tender, which after negotiations was accepted vide letter No. 1603/G/08 (II) dated May 15, 1981. The value of the contract was Rs.75,76,519.5...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »