Delhi Court August 1991 Judgments
Home Cases Delhi 1991 Page 10 of about 120 results (0.023 seconds)interocean Shipping Vs. Y.R. Puri
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 45(1991)DLT221
D.P. Wadhwa, J. (1) This is tenant's appeal against the judgment and decree dated 5/03/1991 of the learned Additional District Judge, Delhi,whereby he decreed the suit of the plaintiff landlord for possession. The property in question is Flat No. B on the Ninth Floor in Atma Ram House, 1,Tolstoy Marg, New Delhi, with a floor area of 941.52 sq. ft. The plaintiff is now respondent before us. He filed a suit for possession under the ordinary civil law staling that the defendant-appellant was his tenant at a monthly rent ofRs. 4,000.00 and, thus, outside the purview of Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958.He said this rate of rent was agreed w.e.f. 1/04/1988. The plaintiff also said that he had served a notice terminating the tenancy of the defendant and thereafter filed the suit which, as noted above, was decreed with costs.(2) It is unnecessary for us to refer to all the issues as in this appeal two principal points were raised by Mr. Rawal who appeared for the appellant,He said the notice termi...
Tag this Judgment!Girish Chand Gupta Vs. D.D. Aggarwal
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 45(1991)DLT454
S.C. Jain, J. (1) This is second appeal filed against the judgment passed by the Rent Control Tribunal on 26.3.91, v/hereby' he confirmed the order of the Addl. Rent Controller dated 1.2.90 and dismissed the appeal of the tenant. In brief, the facts of the case are that Shri D.D. Aggarwal, hereinafter referred to as the respondent filed a petition for eviction under Section 14(l)(h) of the Delhi Rent Control Act alleging that he had let out the premises T-24, Green Park Extn., New Delhi to Girish Chand, appellant for residential purpose only on a monthly rent of Rs. 550.00 and that the appellant tenant had been allotted flat No-155, first floor Ashok Vihar Phase Iv in category Ii Sfs, by D.D.A. Both the Courts below have relied upon the oral as well as documentary evidence and concurrently held that the appellant was the tenant and the purpose of letting was residential and that the appellant-tenant has acquired possession of flat No. 155 first floor, Ashok Vihar Phase Iv which has bee...
Tag this Judgment!Rahul Behl and ors. Vs. Ichayan Behl and anr.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1991(21)DRJ205
Usha Mehra, J.(1) Plaintiff Rahul Behl and others have filed this suit for declaration against Smt. Ichayan Behl and Dr. Surendes Nath Behl on the grounds that house No R-20 Greater Kailash Part I New Delhi, was the self-acquired property of Dr. Brij Nath Behl. father of defendant No. 2 and grand-father of the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs have 1/6th share in the same. According to them the said property after the death of Dr. Brij Behl devolved on his heirs i e. three sons : Surender Nath Behl, Ravinder Behl, Sidharath Behl, his daughter Smt. Savita Luthra, his widow Smt. Ichayan Behl. After the death of Dr Brij Nath Behl the property fell into the Hindu Joint Family and became a coparcenery property. Consequently the plaintiffs acquired I/6th share as co-parceners on their birth. Defendant No. 2, father of the plaintiffs had no right to release his 1/6th share in the house which actually belonged to co-parcenary consisting of the plaintiffs and defendant No 2 Relinquishment of his 1/6th...
Tag this Judgment!Manjit Singh Basi Vs. Wealth Tax Officer and ors.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: (1991)99CTR(Del)229
B. N. KRIPAL, J. :In this petition, the challenge is to the notices issued on 20th March, 1982, to the petitioner under s. 17 of the WT Act.2. This petition pertains to the asst. yrs. 1973-74, 1974-75, 1975-76 and 1976-77. At the outset we may note that Mr. Bishamber Lal, learned counsel for the petitioner restricts his challenge, in this writ petition, to the notices under s. 17 issued in respect to the asst. yrs. 1974-75 and 1975-76 and reserves his right to challenge the same in course of the reassessment proceedings before the authorities under the Act.3. In respect to the asst. yr. 1973-74, no assessment was made on the petitioner because no return had been filed. On 20th March, 1982, the impugned notice was issued on the ground that the petitioner had under-valued the shares. In our opinion, there was a complete non-application of mind in the issuance of the said notice The petitioner had, in fact, not filed any return and, thereforee, the question of under-valuation did not aris...
Tag this Judgment!C. L. Verma Vs. Inspecting Assistant Commissioner and ors.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: (1991)99CTR(Del)71
B. N. KIRPAL, J. :This judgment will dispose of Civil Writs 2285 of 1983 and 1111 of 1984. The first writ pertains to the notice under s. 17 of the WT Act seeking to reopen the assessment for the year 1973-74, while the second writ petition challenges the similar notice in respect of the asst. yrs. 1974-75 and 1975-76.2. The only reason for seeking to reopen the assessment is that the shares of M/s. Continental Construction Pvt. Ltd., held by the petitioner had not been properly valued as full and material facts were not alleged to have been disclosed by the petitioner.3. The respondents have placed before us the original records of the Wealth-tax Deptt. We find from perusal of the said records that prior to the completion of the assessment proceedings the petitioner had placed before the WTO all primary and material facts. The petitioner and disclosed the number of shares which were held by him of M/s. Continental Construction Pvt. Ltd. as well as the value of the said shares. It will...
Tag this Judgment!Ankur Batra and ors. Vs. Surinder Singh and ors.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: II(1991)ACC669
Santosh Duggal, J.1. This appeal was admitted only on the point of interest. It is on board since 5th August. 1991 and Mr. P.K. Seth. Advocate through whom this appeal was filed, has not appeared.2. I have gone through the impugned award and heard Mr. V.P. Chaudhary, counsel for respondent No. 3.1 find that on the awarded amount of Rs. 2,30,400/- the Tribunal has allowed interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of the institution of the petition. Mr. Chaudhry states that the claim petition was instituted on 20th December, 1984 whereas the award was given on 29th March, 1990, which means that interest has been allowed for a period of five years, and about four months, during which the petition was pending, even without going into the question, as to whether the petition could not be disposed of earlier inspire of due diligence by the petitioners. This question though is not before the Court because the respondents have not filed any appeal or co-objections either on merits or on the point of in...
Tag this Judgment!Eicher Motors Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1992)(58)ELT90TriDel
1. The case of the appellant is that they are engaged in the manufacture of Light Commercial Vehicles (LCVs) covered under Chapter 87 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Traiff, 1985. During the relevant period, they were selling the goods i.e. Light Commercial Vehicles in retail and filed Price Lists in Part V. In the said Price Lists they claimed deduction from retail price on account of: (i) Dealers margin described as trade discount amounting to Rs. 5100/- per vehicle; and non-inclusion of (ii) "Material Service Performance Security Deposit" (MSPSD) amounting to Rs. 2000/- per vehicle accepted from customers opting for the appellants' "MSPSD" Scheme.2. The appellants have appointed authorised representatives all over the country to facilitate sale of its vehicles to the customers and enter into agreements under which the primary responsibility of the authorised representatives are as follows : (c) Transmit the customers order and payments to the appellant's Marketing Division; (...
Tag this Judgment!Prabhu Steel Industries Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1991)(37)LC677Tri(Delhi)
1. Prabhu Steel Industries Ltd., Nagpur has filed an appeal being aggrieved from the order passed by the Collector of Central Excise, Nagpur. The said appeal was presented in the Registry on 27th May, 1991. The stay application duly supported with an affidavit was also presented on the same day. Shri A.N. Haksar, the learned advocate has appeared on behalf of the applicant. He reiterated the contentions made in the stay application and pleaded that the duty amount involved is Rs. 17,46,402.00 and penalty of Rs. 5,00,000.00 and the period involved is 1st August, 1983 to?lst July, 1986 and the show cause notice is dated 5th June, 1989. The Collector while adjudicating restricted the demand to five years. Shri Haksar, the learned advocate pleaded that on the same product of the applicant an appeal pertaining to the subsequent period viz. 1st August, 1986 to 20th February, 1987 had come up before the Tribunal and the Tribunal had passed an order vide order No. 129/90-B1 dated 26th July, 1...
Tag this Judgment!Goodless Nerolac Paints Ltd. Vs. Collector of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1991)LC408Tri(Delhi)
1. This appeal is directed against the order dated 22-4-1987 passed by the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), Bombay by which he had upheld the order dated 28-11-1985 passed by the Assistant Collector of Central Excise Division IV, Ahmedabad. Briefly, the facts are that the appellants are engaged in the manufacture of paints and varnishes falling under T.I. 14-I of the C.E.T. They filed a classification list No. 3/84-85 dated 30-11-1984 for their product described as 219/002 Polybutadiene Epoxy Electro Deposition Primer claiming exemption under Notification 220/77. This Notification exempted goods, mentioned in the table annexed thereto, falling under Item 14 of CET of duty in excess of 10%. Sl. No. 7 of the table is Epoxy based primers and varnishes.They claimed the product to be Epoxy based primer. The classification list was approved provisionally under Rule 9B of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 by the Assistant Collector. Subsequently, the appellants filed refund claim for diff...
Tag this Judgment!Hukam Singh Vs. Delhi Development Authority and ors.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 45(1991)DLT73; 1991RLR510
B.N. Kirpal, J. (1) Rule D.B.(2) This is yet another case which shows, we only hope, the in-efficiency of the Dda at the cost of, as usual, the citizens of this country. (3) The petitioner had registered himself under the Special Housing Registration Scheme for retiled/retiring public servants and was allotted an Mig flat in a draw which was held on 13th January, 1989. The petitioner was required to make and did deposit on 27th January, 1989, a sum of Rs. 65002.50 being 50/o of the total disposable cost of the flat. The flat which was allotted to the petitioner was in Pocket A, 219-B, 1st Floor of Mayur Vihar. The petitioner was also informed that he would have to pay Installments at the rate prescribed in the letter of allotment. (4) The petitioner then received a letter dated 30th November, 1989 whereby he was informed that in lieu of the earlier flat, he was now allotted flat No. 21-D, Pocket-111, 1st Floor, Mayur Vihar. It was further stated that a formal demand-cum-allotment lette...
Tag this Judgment!