Delhi Court August 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.
Suresh Kumar Bansal Vs. U. P. Mineral Products Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-20-1993
Reported in: [1996]87CompCas223(Delhi)
Ms. Usha Mehra, J.1. Suresh Kumar Bansal and others, the petitioners, herein have sought winding up against U. P. Mineral Products Ltd. (hereinafter called 'the company') under section 433(f) of the Companies Act, (hereinafter called 'the Act'). The relief has been sought primarily on the ground that Mr. Manvir Singh (respondent No. 2 herein) contrary to the agreement signed with U.P. State Mineral Corporation (respondent No. 3 herein), which disabled its nominees from disposing of its shares in the company, contrary to the articles of association which prevented the reduction in the share capital and also in gross violation of the provisions of sections 100 to 105 of the Act, the second respondent sought to reduce the share capital of the company by refunding the monies against shares which had already been allotted in favor of the petitioners. thereforee, it is alleged that the company has no authority in law to reduce its share capital by refunding monies against shares which stood ...
VitrocIn Forexim Bucharest (Romania) Vs. Byford and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-20-1993
Reported in: 1993IIIAD(Delhi)525; II(1994)BC212; 1993(27)DRJ321
Sat Pal, J.(1) In the present case the plaintiff has filed a suit for recovery of Us Dollars 86798.42 equivalent to Rs. 11,53,809.80 under Order 37 of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter referred to as 'the Code'). After the receipt of the summons for judgment defendant No.2 filed an application bearing I.A No.6916/91 under Order 37 Rule 3 of the Code seeking dismissal of the suit of the plaintiff with costs.(2) The present application has been filed on behalf of the said defendant under section 151 read with Order 37 rule 3 of the. Code seeking leave of the Court to file an additional affidavit for raising additional pleas. The submissions made in the application have been controverter by the plaintiff in its reply to the application. (3) Mr. Khanna, learned Sr. Counsel appearing on behalf of the defendants submitted that by this application the applicant has sought permission to raise some additional grounds and no new cause of action is sought to be introduced by the amendment....
inderjeet @ Bittoo Vs. Delhi Administration and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-20-1993
Reported in: 52(1993)DLT81
Anil Dev Singh, J.(1) By this writ petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure,the petitioner prays for quashing of order of his detention dated Sep. 18,1992 passed by the Commissioner of Police under Sub-section 2 of Section 3 of the National Security Act, 1980.(2) According to the grounds of detention, the petitioner was indulging in acts of violence, murder, attempt to murder, robbery, rioting and also offences punishable under the Arms Act.(3) Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was undoubtedly served with documents accompanying the grounds of detention,but some of these documents were illegible. On N 18/11/1992 the petitioner sent a representation to the Central Government in which the mainly requested for furnishing of legible copies of the documents to him.The petitioner was supplied with legible copies on 9/12/1992.However, the representation of the petitioner was turned down, by the Cen...
Rakesh Rubber Industries Vs. M.C.D.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-20-1993
Reported in: 54(1994)DLT156
Mr. Arun B. Saharya, J. 1. The petitioner is a consumer of electricity in the Small Industrial Power (SIP) category. He is aggrieved by the respondent issuing a notice dated 23rd of March 1992, on the basis of an alleged inspectionreport, proposing to revise its bills for consumption of electricity at the higher tariff rates applicable to Largo Industrial Power (LIP) users and to levy misuse charges for alleged subletting of electricity supply, with retrospective effect for the last three years, and, at the same time, raising bills for consumption of electricity at the higher tariff rates, including misuse charges, without giving to the petitioner an opportunity of personal hearing to explain its case. 2. The controversy is squarely covered by a Division Bench judgment dated April 10, 1991 in Civil Writ No. 669 of 1990. We see no reason why the respondent should not apply that judgment to all cases, like the present one, where the liability of a SIP consumer to be re-classified and bil...
Duvinder Nath Sahi Vs. the Administrator Union Territory of Delhi
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-20-1993
Reported in: 1993IIIAD(Delhi)549; 1994(28)DRJ188
Sat Pal, J.(1) In this writ petition the petitioner has challenged the order of detention dated 15th May, 1991 made against him by the Administrator of the Union Territory of Delhi in exercise of powers conferred upon him under Section 3(1) read with Section 2(f) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) with a view to preventing the petitioner from smuggling goods and also preventing him from engaging in transporting, concealing and keeping smuggled goods.(2) Without 'waiting for the grounds of detention being served upon him, the petitioner filed the present petition challenging the order of detention. Along with writ petition the petitioner has annexed only a copy of the impugned order dated 15th May,1991 and has not annexed a copy of the grounds of detention.(3) Briefly stat.edthefactsoftbecasearethatoii9tbJuly, 1990 the petitioner arrived from Dubai by Air India Flight A1-752. While going out of th...
Siri Chand Saini Vs. Modern Bakeries (India) Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-20-1993
Reported in: 53(1994)DLT48
P.K. Bahri, J. (1) This petition has been filed challenging the order of the learned Sub-Judge dated July 10, 1981, by which an application seeking amendment of the plaint was dismissed. The petitioner had filed a suit for declaration on the averments that he has been in service of the respondent- Modern Bakeries '(India) Ltd. since 1968. I am told that the name of the respondent has been now changed to Modern Foods (India) Ltd. It was averred that the plaintiff/petitioner was promoted as Bakery Attendant Grade-1 in the pay-scale of Rs-234-313 on November 30, 1976 but later on he was required to continue only as Fitter Grade-11 till further orders in the pay sale of Rs.278-420 vide order of the even date. He has mentioned that his juniors, namely, S/Shri Uttam Singh and B.D.S.Yadav have been given the higher pay-scale of Rs. 340-575 and he is also entitled to be placed in the higher pay-scale of Rs. 340-575. (2) After concluding of the evidence before the arguments could be heard, an a...
Geotech Consultants Pvt. Ltd. and anr. Vs. Municipal Corporation of De ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-19-1993
Reported in: 1993IIIAD(Delhi)517; 1993(27)DRJ173
D.P. Wadhwa, J. (1) This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution has been directed against the order dated 26 March 1992 of the respondent Municipal Corporation of Delhi ('M.C.D.') for short) whereby the petitioner firm was black listed and debarred from tendering for soil investigation work in the M.C.D. There are three respondents. The second respondent is theCommissioner,M.C.D., and the third is the Executive Engineer-XXVI of the M.C.D. It is respondent No. 3 who had conveyed the impugned order passed by the Engineer-in- Chief of the M.C.D. Since the impugned order did not give any reasons as to why the petitioner was black listed we issued notice to show cause as to why rule nisi be not issued. In answer thereto the respondent-M.C.D. has filed its affidavit sworn by the third respondent. (2) A tender of the petitioner firm for soil investigation for construction of Community Hall and school building near railway line in Ward No. 50, Dharampura, Shahdara, Delhi, was accepted ...
Hukam Singh Vs. State (Thru. Delhi Administration)
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-19-1993
Reported in: 1994ACJ437; 1993IIIAD(Delhi)497; 1993(3)Crimes685; 1993(27)DRJ415; 1993RLR581
Y.K. Sabharwal, J. (1) The personal liberty of the petitioner was deprived for over a month is not in dispute. There is also no dispute about the facts which in brief are:-(2) In 1983 one Hukam Singh was arrested for offence under Section 406 Indian Penal Code. That Hukam Singh was enlarged on bail by Court. During trial the said Hukam Singh jumped bail. He was declared pro-claimed offender. Non-bailable warrants were issued for his arrest. On the holiday for Independence Day for the year 1991, the petitioner whose name also happens to be Hukam Singh was arrested taking him to be the person who had jumped bail. Unfortunately, for the petitioner, there was similarity in the names of their father. The petitioner is son of Ram Chander. The other Hukam Singh is son of Ram Singh. Further, to the bad luck of the petitioner, the absconding Hukam Singh used to live in the year 1983 in the same locality where the petitioner was residing though in house bearing different municipal number. On 16t...
Hukam Singh Vs. State (Delhi Administration)
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-19-1993
Reported in: I(1995)ACC432
Y.K. Sabharwal, J.1. The personal liberty of the petitioner was deprived for over a month is not in dispute. There is also no dispute about the facts which in brief are:In 1983, one Hukam Singh was arrested for offence under Section 406, Indian Penal Code. That Hukam Singh was set at large on bail by Court. During trial the said Hukam Singh jumped bail. He was declared proclaimed offender. Non-bailable warrants were issued for his arrest. On the holiday for Independence Day for the year 1991, the petitioner whose name also happens to be Hukam Singh was arrested taking him to be the person who had jumped bail. Unfortunately, for the petitioner, there was similarity in the names of their fathers. The petitioner is son of Ram Chander. The other Hukam Singh is son of Ram Singh. Further, to the bad luck of the petitioner, the absconding Hukam Singh used to live in the year 1983 in the same locality where the petitioner was residing though in house bearing different municipal number. On 16.8...
Motilal Pesticides (India) Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-17-1993
Reported in: [1994]207ITR636(Delhi)
B.N. Kirpal J. 1. This is a reference under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, and pertains to the interpretation of section 80HH of the said Act. 2. The assessed is a private limited company any it carries on the business of manufacture and sale of pesticides. The assessment years involved in this case are 1979-80 and 1980-81. 3. The assessed claimed relief under section 80HH in respect of its liquid section which had been newly set up in a backward area. The contention of the assessed was that the relief should be allowed on the gross income and not on the net income. In this connection reliance was placed by the assessed on the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Cloth Traders (P.) Ltd. v. Addl. CIT : [1979]118ITR243(SC) . 4. The Income-tax Officer followed an earlier decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Cambay Electric Supply Industrial Co. Ltd. v. CIT : [1978]113ITR84(SC) and came to the conclusion that relief could be granted under section 80HH only on t...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »