Delhi Court July 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.
Mohd. Ikram @ Mohd. Akhtar Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-08-1993
Reported in: 1994(28)DRJ176
Y.K. Sabharwal, J. (1) Rule D.B.(2) This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India read with Section 482 of Cr. P.C. seeks quashing of the order made by Sh. Babu Lal, learned Metropolitan Magistrate on 26th April 1993 directing that the case be committed to Special Court for trial as, prima facie, offence under Section 5 of Tada is disclosed to be committed by the accused which is exclusively triable by the Designated Court. The accused was on bail because he was charged under Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act. The learned Magistrate after noticing that under the provisions of Tada he had no power to grant bail, directed that the accused be taken into custody and be produced before the Designated Court.(3) The undisputed facts are that since 1988 the accused petitioner is being tried for offences under the provisions of the Arms Act by the court of the Metropolitan Magistrate. The petitioner was granted bail on 2nd February 1988 on furnishing surety in the sam of Rs. 3,0...
Jaswant Singh Vs. the Land Acquisition Collector and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-08-1993
Reported in: 1993IIIAD(Delhi)260; 53(1994)DLT338; (1994)107PLR35
Jaspal Singh, J.(1) The facts fall into a short compass, and to my pleasant surprise, even the arguments were brief though, predictably, incisive.(2) First the facts. By a Notification dated October 30, 1963 issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter called the Act) the Delhi Administration notified that the land measuring approximately. 9,500 acres, the description of which was given in the Notification itself, was required by the Government 'for a public purpose, namely, the development of Narela Township'. Objections were filed by the present petitioner also under section 5A of the Act since his land too was covered under the said Notification. Consequent upon the disposal of the said objections, a Notification was issued under .section 6 :of the 'Act. This was -in the month of January 1969. The same was followed by Notifications in March 1973 under Section 9 and 10 of the Act. This Award was made on September 19, 1986. However, much before the Award, that is, o...
Roxy Enterprises (P.) Ltd. Vs. Aruna Raina
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-08-1993
Reported in: 1994RLR204
Y.K. Sabharwal, J.(1) The first page of the lease deed dated 29.10.80 (Ex. Public Witness f/1) in respect of premises in question shows that it has been entered into between Lesser, Mrs. Aruna Raina respondent No. 1 and the lessee M/s. Roxy Enterprises Pvt. Ltd.-petitioner herein. Last page of the deed mentions the name of M/s Roxy Steel Wires Pvt. Ltd, respondent No. 2 as lessee and has been signed by its M.D The rate of rent stipulated is Rs. 2.443. 20 p.m. One of the terms of the lease deed stipulates that the lessee shall be entitled to renew the initial lease after every three years with an increase of 15% in the rent over the last rent paid and other terms and conditions would remain the same. A registered notice dated 11.3.86 was sent by Landlady to respondent No. 2, inter-alia, alleging that respondent No. 2 is liable to eviction as it is a contumacious defaulter in payment of rent and was in arrears since Oct. 1985 and in respect thereof demand for payment was made. A copy of ...
Ashok K. Ghosh Vs. Rotary International
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-07-1993
Reported in: 51(1993)DLT299
V.B. Bansal, J.(1) This order will dispose of the application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151, Civil Procedure Code moved by the plaintiff with the following prayers : (A)restraining defendant No. 3 from going for training or to act as District Governor District No. 3010 or to take over as theDistrict Governor of the said District;(b) restraining the other defendants from entertaining defendantNo. 3 as District Governor elect of District 3010; and(c) as may be deemed fit and proper in the circumstances of thecase.(2) Shri Ashok K. Ghosh, plaintiff, has filed a suit for declaration that the election of Defendant No. 3 to the post of District Governor of District No. 3010 of defendant No. 1, held on 9-2-1992 be declared as void and illegal and inoperative and for a decree of permanent injunction restraining the defendant No. 3 from acting as District Governor of Rotary DistrictNo. 3010 of Rotary International for the year 1993-94 in pursuance of theelection held on 9-2...
Managing Committee, Alok Bharti Secondary School Vs. Union of India an ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-07-1993
Reported in: 1993IIIAD(Delhi)61; 1993(27)DRJ404
P.K. Bahri, J. (1) This petition is brought under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking quashment of the order dated April 28, 1984, issued by respondents 2 & 3 by which the management of the School, namely, Alok Bharti Secondary School, functioning at Khureji Khas, Delhi, has been taken over for a period of three years under Section 20 of the Delhi School Education Act, 1973 (for short 'the Act'). Petitioner No.2 is a registered society and had established a middle class school in 1971. It is a recognized school and is Government aided school. The Management of the School was earlier taken over by the Administrator under Section 20 of the Act on July 15, 1976. The management of the school was restored to the Managing Committee of the School on April 24,1982. It was pleaded in the Writ Petition that one Sh. O.P. Sharma who was functioning as in charge of the school, was found guilty of certain financial irregularities and management of the school was taken over in1976on acco...
D.C. Saxena Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-07-1993
Reported in: 51(1993)DLT329; 1993(27)DRJ10
D.P. Wadhwa, J.(1) The petitioner says this petition is in the nature of public interest litigation. There are seven respondents. They are respectively Union of India through the Secretary in the Ministry of Home Affairs; Chief Election Commissioner; Shri Dinesh Singh, Minister for Foreign Affairs; Dr. Manmohan Singh, Minister for Finance; Mr.S.R.Bommai, President,JanataDal; Mr.R.K. Dhawan, MemberofParliament;andElectoral Registration Officer, Haryana. The petitioner has prayed as follows :- (A)Writ, Order or Direction especially in the nature of Mandamus directing and commanding the Chief Election Commissioner, Respondent No.2, from taking any further steps including declaration of the election to Rajya Sabha from any seat representing the State of Haryana; (B)Writ, Order or Direction in the nature of Quo Warrant to declaring the election of Respondents Nos. 3 to 6 to various seats in the Rajya Sabha to be null and void abinitio and prohibiting them from acting as Members of the Rajy...
Smt. Neelam Molhotra Vs. Rajinder Malhotra and Others
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-06-1993
Reported in: II(1993)DMC547; 1993(26)DRJ46
ORDER1. In her suit for maintenance, return of stridhan etc, against the husband-defendant No. 1 and his family members, the plaintiff-wife has filed this application under Sections 94 and 151, CPC for grant of interim maintenance and litigation expenses.2. The plaintiff was married to defendantNo. 1 in accordance with Hindu rites on 20 May 1990. Plaintiff alleges that right from the very first day of her marriage, the defendants started ill-treating her as she had failed to bring in the remaining bit of dowry premised at the time of marriage; despite her best efforts, the husband refused to consummate the marriage, till a car, V.C.R., air conditioner etc. was brought by her; she was beaten up in the presence of her relatives, who tried to intervene and sort out the differences between the plaintiff and the defendants and ultimately due to continuous harassment and fear to her life, she was compelled to leave her matrimonial home on 17 August 199, and since then she has been residing w...
Neelam Malhotra Vs. Rajinder Malhotra and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-06-1993
Reported in: AIR1994Delhi234; 51(1993)DLT588; 1993(26)DRJ469
D.K. Jain, J.(1) In her suit for maintenance, return of stridhan etc. against the husband-defendant No. I and his family members, the plaintiff-wife has filed this application under sections 94 and 151 Civil Procedure Code for grant of interim maintenance and litigation expenses. (2) The plaintiff was married to defendant No. I in accordance with Hindu rites on 20 May 1990. Plaintiff alleges that right from the very first day of her marriage, the defendants started ill treating her as she had failed to bring in the remaining bit of dowry promised at the time of marriage; despite her best efforts, the husband refused to consummate the marriage, till a car,V.C.R., air conditioner etc. was brought by her; she was beaten up in the presence of her relatives, who tried to intervene and sort out the differences between the plaintiff and the defendants and ultimately due to continuous harassment and fear to her life, she was compelled to leave her matrimonial home on 17 August 1990, and since ...
Anjala Exhibitors (P.) Ltd. Vs. Inspecting Assistant
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Decided on: Jul-05-1993
Reported in: (1993)46ITD523(Delhi)
1. The assessee in this appeal is a private limited company engaged in the exhibition of motion pictures. In addition, the assesee also undertook distribution of motion pictures in Delhi.2. The main issue in this appeal is whether the assessee is entitled to the deduction of a sum of Rs. 11,28,417 paid towards purchase of positive prints. During the year under appeal, the assessee entered into an agreement with a Bombay based firm called 'Aryan Films' on 22-1-1982 for acquiring the rights of distribution and exhibition in the territories of Delhi and U.P. a picture called 'Lovers'. Under the terms of the agreement, the assessee has to pay a minimum guarantee of Rs. 22,50,000 for acquiring the above said rights. The period of exhibition, distribution and exploitation was for three years from the date of the release of the picture. In addition to the minimum guarantee the assessee has to pay for the cost of prints, i.e., cost of raw stock plus process and printing charges plus levy calc...
Ashwini Kumar Consultants (P.) Vs. Deputy Commissioner of
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Decided on: Jul-05-1993
Reported in: (1993)47ITD1(Delhi)
1. The assessee, a limited company and the department are in cross-appeals, raising the common issue of the extent of deduction permissible under Section 80HHC of the Income-tax Act. In the appeal of the assessee, it has contested sustaining of disallowances from out of certain expenses. In view of the common issue, these appeals were heard together and for the sake of convenience, they are being disposed of by this composite order. We shall initially deal with the common issue and then deal with the disallowances of expenses, as contested by the appellant company.2. The facts relating to the claim of deduction under Section 80HHC of the Income-tax Act are briefly stated hereunder. The assessee has been carrying on the business activity of providing consultation till the assessment year 1988-89 and its income comprised mainly of commission income from such consultations. In view of the prescription of uniform accounting year for all companies by the Income-tax Act, the previous year r...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »