Delhi Court February 1992 Judgments

Commissioner of Sales Tax, New Delhi Vs. Hari Ram Oil Co. (12-02.1992)

Court: Delhi

B.N. Kirpal, J.1.  In respect of the assessment year 1973-74, the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal has referred the following question to this Court :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in directing the acceptance of the declarations issued by M/s. Narender Kumar Krishan Kumar and M/s. Sunrise Lubricants.'2. The facts as found by the Tribunal are that the dealer had made sales, inter alia, in favor of two parties, viz., M/s. Narender Kumar Krishan Kumar and M/s. Sunrise Lubricants. In the case of the former there were nine sales totalling Rs. 1,00,200 while the sale in favor of the latter concern was of Rs. 23,000.3. The dealer had obtained declarations from these purchasers and sought the benefit of exemption from sales tax in his return. The assessing authority, however, found that the registration certificate of M/s. Narender Kumar Krishan Kumar had been cancelled with effect from 1st April, 1973, while the registration certificat...

Vijay Kumar Sachdev and Another Vs. Baldev Raj Bhutani and Another

Court: Delhi

Reported in: AIR1992Delhi233; 46(1992)DLT474; 1992(22)DRJ283; 1992RLR121

ORDER1. This revision petition is directed against the order dated 6th March, 1991 passed by Shri Prem Kumar, Commercial Sub Judge, Delhi whereby the suit of the plaintiff (Shri Amar Nath Sachdev) has been dismissed for want of pecuniary jurisdiction.2. Facts leading to the revision petition are that the plaintiff (Shri Amar Nath Sachdev) filed a suit for declaration before the trial court on the ground that the plaintiff is the owner of premises No. T 29-C-1, Road No. 20, Baljit Nagar, New Delhi and for injunction restraining the defendants-respondents from selling, alienating or parting with possession of the premises in dispute. According to the plaintiff, he permitted purely on compassionate ground his daughter (defendant No. 2) and son-in-law (defendant No. 1) to live in the premises in dispute. However, the defendants have started quarrelling with him and now they are claiming that they are the owners of the house on the basis of a forged agreement to sell, stated to have been si...

Madan Gopal Jajoo and Others Vs. Union of India and Others

Court: Delhi

Reported in: AIR1992Delhi253; [1996]85CompCas153(Delhi); ILR1992Delhi877

ORDERD.P. Wadhwa, J.1. In this writ petition filed by four petitioners there are three respondents. The petitioners are holders of shares and debentures of the third res-Larsen &.Toubro Limited, a public limited company ('the Company' for brevity). The first respondent is Union of India in the Ministry of Finance, Department of Economic Affairs and the second is the Controller of Capital Issues (CCI) exercising its functions under the Capital Issues (Control) Act, 1947 (for short 'the Act).2. The petitioners have sought a writ of certiorari, or any other writ, or direction for setting aside the issue of Debentures Series IV of the Company, and for setting aside the amended consent order dated 8 November 1991 of the CCI amending the earlier consent order dated 29 August 1989. The petitioners also seek a restraint on the respondents from giving effect to the impugned amendment order, or acting in furtherance of that amendment order.3. The amendment order which is impugned may be reproduc...

Ram Das Chela of Late Mahant Net Ram Vs. Thakur Dwara Radha Kishan Soc ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 46(1992)DLT559

P.N. Nag, J.(1) Counsel for the parties state that the notice has only been issued in the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, i.e., in Cm 1179/91 and not in Cm 1180/91 which is an application for stay. (2) So far as Cm 1179/91 is concerned, pleadings are complete. (3) This is an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condensation of delay in filing the appeal. The ground on which the condensation of delay has been prayed for is that due to oversight of Counsel for the appellant, the Court fees could not be affixed on the appeal with the result the appeal was returned with office objection that the same was time barred and thereafter the Court fee stamp was affixed. thereforee, there was a bonafide mistake in not affixing the Court fees initially, which was filed subsequently. (4) Although, no details and particulars have been given in this application by the applicant explaining the delay, but, from the reply, filed on behalf of the respondent to this appl...

E.L. Chaudhary and anr. Vs. Avtar Singh and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: II(1992)ACC66; 47(1992)DLT31

D.K. Jain, J.(1) This is an appeal by the claimants under Section 110Dof the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (for short the Act) against the award of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal) dated 30/01/1980 in Suit No. 164 of 1975.(2) The claimants have filed this appeal for enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Tribunal from Rs. 25,500.00 to Rs. 2 lakhs, besidescosts. There is no cross appeal by the respondents. thereforee, the facts of the accident and the liability of the car bearing registration No. Usv 9305stands admitted. The only question for consideration, thus, is of the quantum of compensation.(3) I have perused the record and heard Mr. S.M. Suri, learned Counsel for respondent No. 3, the Insurance Company. In these cases there is no exact formula or set standard to determine the quantum of compensation.The compensation to be assessed is the pecuniary loss caused to the dependents by the death of the deceased. For the purpose of calculat...

Slum Wing Dda Graduate Engineers Association (Regd) and ors. Vs. Delhi ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 46(1992)DLT486; 1992(22)DRJ548

Gokal Chand Mital, C.J.(1) Herein, the main controversy is whether a Diploma-holder Junior Engineer, who obtains degree while in service becomes eligible for promotion as Assistant Engineer on rendering three years' service would include therein the period of service rendered by him prior to the obtaining of the Degree or he has to render three years' service after obtaining the degree to become eligible for promotion to the post of Assistant Engineer. In view of the direct decision of the Supreme Court in N.Suresh Nathan and another v. Union of India, Jt 1991 (4) S.C. 354, we render the answer that such a Diploma-holder Junior Engineer will have to serve for a period of three years after obtaining the degree to become eligible for promotion to the post of Assistant Engineer and he cannot include the service period rendered prior to the obtaining of the degree in claiming three years ' service. (2) The private parties to this litigation are the Degree-holders from the inception of serv...

Amalgamated Industries and anr. Vs. Collector of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1992)(43)LC68Tri(Delhi)

1. Since we propose to dispose of the appeals themselves today on a question of law, we grant waiver of pre-deposit of duty pending disposal of appeals.2. The appeals are directed against the common impugned order of the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals) Ahmedabad dt. 30.9.1991 confirming the order of the Asstt. Collector of Central Excise, Ahmedabad dt. 16.4.1991.3. Shri Paresh Dave, Advocate for the appellants contended that the duty has been levied in respect of HDPE bags manufactured by the appellants and cleared for the period March 1988 to March 1990 denying the appellants the benefit of Central Excise Notification No. 175/86 dt. 1.3.1990 (sic) as amended. The learned Counsel at the outset contended that the original authority proceeded on the basis that the suppliers of the raw materials namely, M/s Associated Cement Co. Ltd. (ii) M/s Priyanka Carbon and Chemical Industries Ltd. (iii) M/s Gujarat State Fertilizers Company Ltd. are the manufacturers in terms of Section 2-F o...

Japan Dyeing Works Vs. Collector of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1992)(39)ECC22

1. This appeal arises out of and is directed against the Order-in-original No. 56/MP/89 dated 19-10-1989 passed by the Additional Collector of Central Excise and Customs, Vadodara.2. The facts of the case, in brief, are that according to the Department, the appellants have manufactured/processed and removed the processed man-made fabrics valued at Rs. 2,78,138.75 Paise falling under Chapter/Sub-heading No. 5409 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 during the period from 19-12-1987 to 21-1-1988 from their factory by recourse to fraud, wilful mis-statement, suppression of facts and with a deliberate and wilful intent to evade payment of duty of excise amounting to Rs. 54,297.56 illicitly without obtaining any Central Excise Licence for such manufacture/process, without following the central excise procedure and without payment of central excise duty at the appropriate rate leviable thereon. The main charges against the appellants are that they have processed fabrics by Tapela process ...

Ajarjeet Singh Vs. Municipal Corporation of Delhi

Court: Delhi

Reported in: AIR1992Delhi317

ORDER1. This revision petition u/ S. 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short the Code) is directed against the order dated 25 September 1990 of Shri S. P. Garg, Sub Judge 1st Class, Delhi dismissing petitioner's/ plaintiff (termed plaintiff hereinafter) application under Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code seeking amendment of the plaint.2. The plaintiff, alleging to be an allottee doing business for over twelve years, filed the suit against the respondent-MCD for perpetual injunction in respect of Stall No. 117, Dewan Hall Road, Old Lajpat Rai Market, Delhi for restraining the MCD from dispossessing or demolishing the said Stall otherwise than by due process of law. The suit was instituted on 28 November 1987. Written statement on behalf of the Municipal Corporation of Delhi (termed defendant hereinafter) was filed on 3 November 1988. The defendant denied that the plaintiff was allottee or in occupation for the last twelve years or more or had any right, title or interest in the Stall i...

Amarjeet Singh Vs. Municipal Corporation of Delhi

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 46(1992)DLT483

D.K. Jain, J.(1) This revision petition under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short the Code) is directed against the order dated 25 September 1990 of Shri S P. Garg, Sub Judge 1st Class, Delhi dismissing petitioner's/ plaintiff (termed plaintiff hereinafter) application under Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code seeking amendment of the plaint. (2) The plaintiff, alleging to be an allottee doing business for over twelve years, filed the suit against the respondent-MCO for perpetual injunction in respect of Stall No. 1 17, Dewan Hall Road, Old Lajpat Rai Market, Delhi for restraining the Mcd from dispossessing or demolishing the said Stall otherwise than by due process of law. The suit was instituted on 28 November 1987. Written statement on behalf of the Municipal Corporation of Delhi (termed defendant hereinafter) was filed on 3 November 1988. The defendant denied that the plaintiff was allottee or in occupation for the last twelve years or more or had any right, title or inte...