Delhi Court September 1997 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.
Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Rampur Distillery and Chemical C ...
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Decided on: Sep-01-1997
Reported in: (1998)64ITD279(Delhi)
1. The two appeals by the Revenue relate to the same assessee and hence, we find it convenient to dispose of these appeals by this common order.2. The Revenue has raised the following grounds in its appeals for asst. yr. 1988-89 : "1. That the learned CIT(A) has erred in law and on the facts of the case in cancelling the order under s. 154 which was correctly passed by the AO for cancelling the order under s. 3(4) dt. 7th December, 1987, whereby the assessee was allowed to change its previous year. 2. That the learned CIT(A) has erred in law and on the facts of the case in directing that the order under s. 3(4), dt. 7th December, 1987, will continue to be effective, without appreciating the fact that this would give rise to a situation where the assessee will have no previous year for asst. yr. 1988-89 and this situation would be incongruous with the provisions of s. 3 of the IT Act, 1961, as amended by the Taxation Laws (Amendment) Act, 1987." 3. The facts relating to the aforesaid m...
Suresh Via Vs. Mittal Plastic Industries, Etc.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-01-1997
Reported in: 69(1997)DLT1000; (1998)118PLR8
Manmohan Sarin, J. (1) Petitioner by this revision petition challenged the order dated 23.7.1986, passed by the then Sub-Judge, First Class, closing the evidence of the petitioner-plaintiff in the suit. The learned Sub-Judge had declined the request for an adjournment noting that neither any witness was present nor had any been summoned. It is further recorded that since the respondent/ defendant did not want to produce any evidence nor any arguments were addressed vide a separate judgment, the suit of the petitioner/plaintiff was dismissed. (2) The petitioner remained content with challenging the above order in revision and did not prefer any appeal against the judgment dismissing the suit. As objection has been raised by the learned Counsel for the respondent on the maintainability of the revision petition, since no appeal has been preferred against the judgment delivered on the same day. The plea being that the impugned order merged into the judgment passed on the same day dismissin...
National Small Industries Corporation Ltd. Vs. Vivek Electrodes (India ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-01-1997
Reported in: 1997IVAD(Delhi)94; 68(1997)DLT708
Lokeshwar Prasad, J. (1) The plaintiff has filed the present suit for the recovery of the arrears of hire installments and for the possession of the hired machines against the defendants, named above, averring that the plaintiff is a Government Company, registered as a Joint Stock Company under the Companies Act, 1956, having its registered office at Okhla Industrial Estate, Okhla, New Delhi and Shri O.P. Sharma, Regional Manager and one of the Principal Officers of the plaintiff Company is duly authorised to sign and verify the plaint and to institute the present suit on behalf of the plaintiff-Company. (2) It is stated that with a view to promote the development of small scale industries in the country the plaintiff Company provides plants, machinery, tools etc. to the entrepreneurs in the private sector on hire purchase basis at the prescribed rate of interest. It is further stated that defendant No. 2 is the sole proprietor of defendant No. 1. The defendants, as per the case of the...
Syed Ahmed Bhukhari Vs. State and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-01-1997
Reported in: 1997VIAD(Delhi)287; 1997(4)Crimes204; 69(1997)DLT525; 1998RLR119
Dalveer Bhandari, J. (1) On 6.12.1992, the Babri Mosque in Ayodhya was demolished. It is alleged that thereafter Shri Syed Ahmed Bukhari, Naib Imarn, Jama Masjid had given an inflammatory speech in which he criticised the Government and the Prime Minister. The speech was really meant to arouse the sentiments of the minority community. On the basis of the said inflammatory speech, an Fir No. 98 of 1993 under Section 124A of the Indian Penal Code was registered against Shri Syed Ahmed Bukhari in Police Station, Jama Masjid, Delhi. (2) The arrest of the petitioner could not be made because of the possible apprehension of the problem of law and order following his arrest. The petitioner was and continues to be a leader,of the minority community. Summons could not be served on the petitioner. On 13.1.1995 the petitioner did not appear and bailable warrants were issued against him. The petitioner sought cancellation of bailable warrants issued against him. The bailable warrants were not canc...
Pominder Kumar Chhabra Vs. Asha Devi
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-01-1997
Reported in: 1997VIAD(Delhi)846; 70(1997)DLT764; 1997(43)DRJ790
Manmohan Sarin, J. (1) By this common order, I would be disposing of civil revision Nos. 406/97 and 527/97, filed by the petitioner/husband. The first revision is directed against order dated 2.1.1997, passed by the learned Additional District Judge, granting Rs. 1500.00 per month as maintenance and Rs. 4,000.00 as litigation expenses, on an application moved by the respondent/wife under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act. The petitioner preferred a review application against the order dated 2.1.1997. which was dismissed by the Additional District Judge vide order dated 27.3.1997. The petitioner has preferred civil revision No.527/97 against the order dated 27.3.1997, dismissing the review application.(2) The factual matrix of the case may be briefly noted:- (I)The petitioner/husband filed a petition for divorce under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act. The respondent/wife in the application for grant of maintenance averred that the petitioner / husband was engaged in business. He ...
Parmanand Katara Vs. Union of India
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-01-1997
Reported in: 1997VIAD(Delhi)237; AIR1998Delhi200; 69(1997)DLT388; 1997(43)DRJ515; 1998RLR158
Dalveer Bhandari, J. (1) A human rights activist and a practicing lawyer of this Court has preferred this petition in the larger public interest. (2) This petition is directed against the respondents for not implementing Sections 128 and 129 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, hereinafter referred to as `the Act'. According to the Act, it is compulsory for the driver and pillion rider of two-wheeler motorcycle to wear protective headgear (helmet). The only exception is a Sikh, who otherwise wears turban. According to the provisions of the Motor Vehicle Act, every person driving or riding (otherwise than in a side car) on a motor cycle of any class or description shall while in a public place, wear [protective headgear conforming to the standards of Bureau of Indian Standards]. Sections 128 and 129 of the Act read as under:- '128.Safety measures for drivers and pillion riders.--(1) No driver of a two-wheeled motor cycle shall carry more than one person in addition to himself on the motor c...
Devinder Gupta, Vs. Municipal Corporation of Delhi and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-01-1997
Reported in: 69(1997)DLT180
Devinder Gupta, J. (1) Petitioner is one of the co-owners with respect to property bearing No. 1 /1, Underhill Road, Civil Lines, Delhi measuring 2544.80 sq. yards forming eastern portion of larger property measuring 7729.97 sq. yards belonging to respondents 6 to 9. Petitioner claims to be the owner of the said land measuring 2544.08 sq. yards along with his wife, elder brother and his wife. The petitioner states that after purchase the petitioner and other co-owners got building plans sanctioned and raised construction for residential use, in accordance with the building plans, after providing necessary set back in accordance with law. The property is stated to have been divided by boundary wall running through the entire length of the plot measuring about 283 ft., raised with a view to segregate the portions purchased by the petitioner and other co-owners from rest of the portion of the larger plot. (2) The case of the petitioner has been that respondents 6 to 10 in collusion with e...
Kanwal Sawhney Vs. New Delhi Municipal Committee
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-01-1997
Reported in: 71(1998)DLT238
Syria Joseph, J. (1) The prayer in Cm 1145/97 is for restoration of Civil Revision No. 890/91 which was dismissed in default on 22nd August, 1996. The prayer in Cm No. 1145-A/97 is for condensation of delay in filing the application for restoration. The applicant was not the petitioner in the revision petition which was dismissed in default. He claims to be a Manager, passenger Sales M/s. Deli Express Travels (P) Ltd. tenant of L-22, Connaught Circus, New Delhi. The respondent New Delhi Municipal Committee (hereinafter referred to as `the NDMC') has filed reply to both the applications.(2) The arguments of the learned counsel for the applicant and the learned counsel for the respondent were heard. (3) Civil Revision No. 890/81 was filed by one Shri Kanwal Sawhney son of Shri C.P. Shawney, sole proprietor M/s. Chaman Lal C.P. Shawney,. 22-L Connaught Circus, New Delhi. Shri Kanwal Sawhney was the tenant of the shop premises bearing No. L-22, Connaught Circus, New Delhi. In order to prov...
Baljit Singh Vs. Delhi Administration and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-01-1997
Reported in: 1998IAD(Delhi)852; 69(1997)DLT1022
K. Ramamoorthy, J. (1) The petitioner has prayed for the issuance of writ of certiorari for quashing the letter dated 20.10.1982 by Delhi Administration and the letter dated 25.11.1982 by the Delhi Development Authority (hereinafter referred to as the DDA) and for further quashing the notice dated 7.9.1982 issued by the Dda and for a mandamus directing the respondents to hand over the possession of plot No. 55, Block G, Malviya Nagar, New Delhi, or any plot in the same locality pursuant to the letter dated 7.3.1979 and dated 28.8.1980. The case of the petitioner briefly stated as follows: (2) The land of the petitioner was acquired for development of Delhi. In 1961, a scheme was framed which is called 'Large Scale Acquisition Development and Disposal of Land in Delhi, 1961'. That scheme provides for an allotment of land to persons from whom land is acquired. According to the petitioner the land of the family situated in Village Chirag was acquired by Delhi Administration in 1955,1961 a...
William Jacks and Co. (India) Ltd. Vs. Skipper Sales Pvt. Ltd. and ors ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-01-1997
Reported in: 1997VIAD(Delhi)357; 69(1997)DLT36
K. Ramamoorthy, J.(1) The builders Skipper Sales Pvt. Ltd. and Skipper Towers Pvt. Ltd. had not acted in accordance with the business ethics and that had resulted in number of persons instituting suits in this Court. The fact that the premises bearing Door No. 22, Barakhamba Road, New Delhi was owned by the following persons as co-owners is not disputed. The share of each of the persons is also given below: (i) Shri 0m Prakash 1/6th (ii) Shri Atam Prakash 1/6th (iii) Shri Vijender Singh 1/6th (iv) Shri Rajinder Singh 1/25th ShriJi tender Singh 1/25th Shri Anil Gupta 1/25th Smt. Kushal Wati 1/25th Smt. Pushpa Gupta 1/50th (v) Shri Padam Singh 1/24th Smt. Gayatri Devi 1/24th Shri Madhukar Singh 1/24th Shri Diwakar Singh 1/24th (vi) Smt. Savitri Devi 1/30th Smt. Vimla Devi 1/30th Smt. Memo Devi 1/30th Smt. Vidya Wati 1/30th Smt. Santosh Bala 1/30th (2) In the first instance Skipper Sales Pvt. Ltd. entered into an agreement with the owners on 24.6.1977 for the purchase of the property. Tha...
- ‹ Prev
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 16
- 17
- 18
- 20
- Next ›
- Last »