Court : Delhi
Decided on : Jul-28-1992
Reported in : I(1993)BC35; 49(1993)DLT145
C.M. Nayar, J. (1) This is an application by the plaintiff under Order 12 Rule 8 read with Section 151 of Civil Procedure Code, praying that a decree may be passed in favor of the plaintiff against the defendant, in respect of the amount admittedly payable by the defendant to the plaintiff. The brief facts of the case are that the suit for declaration has been filed in this Court by Smt. Manju Goel, who is the wife of Shri Munish Chander Goel son of Shri Devi Dayal, to the effect that the said Shri Munish Goel died between 17th August and 20th August, 1978, or in any event prior to June, 1980. and for the recovery of amount of Rs. 2,17,78070 or in the alternative Rs. 2,23,500.00 , being the amount of death claim in respect of the Life Insurance Policies of said Shri Munish Goel. The said Shri Munish Goel was holder of four Life Insurance Policies, issued by the defendant Corporation and the particulars of these policies are mentioned in paragraph 3 of the plaint. The plaintiff has furt...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Feb-13-1992
Reported in : 47(1992)DLT403
D.P. Wadhwa, J. (1) These are three different writ petitions. The petitioners question the legality and validity of order of the respondents asking them to report for election duty in Punjab and to act as Presiding Officers of the polling stations. Writ Petition No. 507/92 has been filed by the Delhi State Civil Supplies Corporation Employees' Union and certain employees.The Corporation is a Company, though a government company under the Companies Act, 1956. Writ Petition No. 579/92 has been filed by Northern Railway Promotee Officers' Association, and Writ Petition No. 616/92 by the employees of the Delhi Development Authority, a body corporate constituted under the Delhi Development Act enjoined to perform various functions under that Act.(2) Polling date for general elections in the State of Punjab is 19/02/1992. To understand the rival contentions we will refer to the facts in C.W. No. 507/92 as only in this writ petition answers to show-cause notices have been filed by the Chief E...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : May-28-1992
Reported in : AIR1993Delhi1; 48(1992)DLT75; 1992(24)DRJ327; 1992RLR347
P.N. Nag, J. (1) This revision petition under Section 25-B(8) of the Delhi Rent Control Act (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') has been filed by the tenant-petitioner against the order dated 16.7.1991 passed by Smt. Sunita Gupta, Additional Rent Controller, Delhi whereby she has allowed the eviction petition of the respondent-landlord under Section 14(l)(e) of the Act for bonafide requirement and consequently an order of eviction in respect of Kothi No. 5, Sri Ram Road, Delhi has been passed. (2) The relevant facts as stated in the petition are the respondent-landlord was the owner of the premises in his capacity as the Karta of the Joint Hindu Family known as Rajan Chand Khanna & Sons comprising of the respondent-landlord himself, his wife and two sons. The premises Kothi No. 5, Sri Ram Road, Civil Lines, Delhi were let out to the tenant on a monthly rent of Rs. 198.00 p.m. besides Rs. 26.78 as house tax and Rs. 2.00 p.m. as sweeper charges for residential purposes and has been us...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : May-28-1992
Reported in : ILR1993Delhi138
ORDER1. This revision petition under S. 25B of the Delhi Rent Control Act (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') has been filed by the tenant-petitioner against the order dated 16-7-1991 passed by Smt. Sunita Gupta, Additional Rent Controller, Delhi whereby she has allowed the eviction petition of the respondent-landlord under S. 14 of the Act for bona fide requirement and consequently an order of eviction in respect of Kothi No. 5, Sri Ram Road, Delhi has been passed.2. The relevant fads as stated in the petition are that the respondent-landlord was the owner of the premises in his capacity as the karta of the Joint Hindu Family known as Rajan Chand Khanna & Sons comprising of the respondent-landlord himself, his wife and two sons. The premises Kholi No. 5, Sri Ram Road, Civil Lines, Delhi were let out to the tenant on a monthly rent of Rs. 198/- p.m. besides Rs. 26.78 as house tax and Rs.2/-p.m. as sweeper charges for residential purposes and has been used as such since the inception...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Decided on : Mar-13-1992
Reported in : (1992)41ITD234(Delhi)
1. This is an appeal filed by the Income-tax Officer, Rishikesh urging that the learned Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) erred in law and on facts in reducing the interest charged under Section 201(1 A) for the assessment years 1985-86 and 1986-87.2. The assessee a firm had paid interest of Rs. 1,46,216 and Rs. 2,20,793 in the assessment years 1985-86 and 1986-87 respectively to M/s United Rosin Industries, Calcutta. No tax was deducted from this interest as per the provisions of Section 194 A of the Income-tax Act, 1961. For this default interest under Section 201(1 A) was charged by the Income-tax Officer of Rs. 7,750 for the assessment year 1985-86 and of Rs. 8,556 for the assessment year 1986-87. Aggrieved by the levy of this interest the assessee preferred appeals to the Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), who by his order dated 4th August, 1988 reduced the levy of interest to Rs. 1,444 in the assessment year 1985-86 and Rs. 3,198 in the assessment year 1986-8...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : May-20-1992
Reported in : 1992(23)DRJ479
B.S. Yadav, J.(1) It is not necessary to give in detail the facts giving rise to this appeal as the only question urged before us by the learned counsel for the appellant was about Limitation. However, we may give here (he facts in brief as those are necessary for determining the question of Limitation.(2) The respondent is S.M.N. Consumer Protection Council, Madras through its President R. Desikan. The said Council had filed the complaint under Section 17 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short the Act) on behalf of Mr.& Mrs. Chidambaram. who are the parents of unfortunate C. Nagarajan, who lost his life in the lift accident on 25.08.1988. The deceased Nagarajan was an Agent of Life Insurance Corporation of India at the time of accident. The appellant herein is the owner of the building known as 'Sorrento building', in Adayar Circle, Madras. A lift is maintained in it by the appellant for the use of the tenants of that building. The office of the Life Insurance Corporation of ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Mar-31-1992
Reported in : AIR1993Delhi219; 1992(22)DRJ594; 1992RLR277
Sat Pal, J.(1) In this writ petition the petitioner has challenged the letter of intent granted by the Government of India to one Mr. K.K. Bajoria (respondent No.5 in the writ petition) on 7th August, 1990 for the purposes of establishing a new sugar factory at a place called Agauta, District Bulandshahr, U.P. with crushing capacity of 250 Tonnes Cane Crushing Per Day (hereinafter referred to as 'I'CD').(2) The tact of the case as briefly stated are that the petitioner is a company registered under the Companies Act, 1956 and is having a sugar factory at Simbhaoli, District Ghaziabad, U.P. Prior to 1982 the licensed crushing capacity of the petitioner's factory was 2000 TCD. In the year 1982 this crushing capacity was raised to 2750 TCD. On 29th December, 1989 Government of India granted license to the petitioner for expansion of its crushing capacity from 2750 Tcd to 5000 TCD. It may be pointed out here that in June 1990 the petitioner had filed an application for further expansion of...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Feb-03-1992
Reported in : II(1992)ACC220; 1993ACJ93; 47(1992)DLT177
D.K. Jam, J.(1) This appeal by the claimants under Section 110-D of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (for short the 'Act') is directed against the award of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (for short the 'Tribunal') dated 26 July19.88 in Suit No. 186/81.(2) On 30/07/1977 at about 2 P.M. Surinder Kumar, son of theappellants, aged about 13 years, along with one Ved Prakash, both on a cycle left from their residence at Prithviraj Road from the service road. They saw a truck bearing registration No. Dll 8003, emerging from Tughlak Road side on the Tughlak Lane, driven by respondent No. 1, at a high speed. The truck took a sharp turn on the right hand side towards service road and it dashed against the cycle. Surinder Kumar and Ved Prakash fell down from their cycle. Surinder Kumar died on the spot and Ved Prakash received injuries on his right' leg and other parts of his body. It is the case of the claimants that after the accident respondent No. 1 tried to run away from the spot but was app...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Jan-31-1992
Reported in : 47(1992)DLT363; 1992(22)DRJ431
Anil Dev Singh, J.(1) IANO.318/92 This case reflects a sad commentary on the gross abuse of the process of the courts resulting in thwarting the Annual General Meeting (for short 'AGM') of Roshanara Club,defcndant No.1, and preventing its members from exercising their democratic right of franchise. By order dated November 11, 1991 in the suit filed by the plaintiffs for declaration and injunction the Managing Committee of the Club was directed to meet within two weeks and fix a date for holding the 'AGM' before January 10, 1991 under the Chairmanship of Justice J.D.Jain who was invested with all the necessary powers to carry out the purpose and spirit of the order. In view of this direction the counsel for the plaintiffs withdrew the suit, the same having been satisfied. He also withdrew all allegations against the defendants unconditionally. That seemed to be the end of the controversy. But that was not to be so.(2) On January 8, 1991 the date fixed by the defendant No.1 for holding t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Oct-12-1992
Reported in : [1993]200ITR341(Delhi)
B.N. Kirpal, J.1. Two questions of law have been referred to this court by the Income-tax (Tribunal) under section 256(1) of the Act, one question has been referred at the instance of the Revenue and the other at the instance of the assessed. 2. The question which has been referred at the instance of the assessed is as follows : 'Whether there was any evidence before the Tribunal to arrive at the finding that the applicant had not proved that the expenditure of Rs. 1,42,289 representing a part of the commission paid to M/s. Standard Electrode Corporation was an expenditure incurred wholly and exclusively for the purposes of business ?' 3. This reference is in respect of the assessment year 1965-66. Some commission had been paid by the assessed to M/s. Standard Electrode Corporation. Out of the total amount so paid, a sum of Rs. 1,42,289 was disallowed. This Corporation had been appointed as the sole selling agent of the assessed-company for a period of five years with effect from July ...
Tag this Judgment!