Delhi Court October 1993 Judgments

Hindustan Lever Ltd. Vs. L.R. Kakkar

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 1993IVAD(Delhi)414; 52(1993)DLT336; 1993(27)DRJ555

D.K. Jain, J.(1) The petitioner, M/s. Hindustan Lever Limited, is a tenant and in possession of the premises bearing No.C-108, defense Colony, New Delhi. The respondent Mr. L.R.Kakkar is the landlord/owner of the said premises, which he had purchased from Lt. Col. A.K. Sachdeva in the year 1974. (2) The respondent filed a petition on 28 March 1985 under section 14(l)(e) read with section 25B of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (for short the Act), for eviction of the petitioner from the said premises on the ground of bona fide requirement on the pleas of (i) paucity of existing accommodation and (ii) unsuitability of the existing accommodation. The petition was subsequently amended on 29 May 1985. The pleas raised by the respondent in his amended eviction petition were that he was residing in a tenanted first floor premises at 2/11, West Patel Nagar, New Delhi, comprising of four rooms (including Pooja room), a kitchen and bath which was insufficient for him and his family, which consi...

Parekh and Co. Vs. Collector of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1995)LC178Tri(Delhi)

1. This is an Appeal filed by M/s. Parekh & Co. Bombay, against the Order-in-Original No. 38/Collr/1989 dt. 24-7-1989, passed by the Collector of Customs, Rajkot. (1) Whether the goods imported by the appellants locks and accessories were covered for proper importation, by the REP Licences under paras 175 & 177 of the Import - Export Policy, 1988-91. (2) Whether the invoice value was the correct price for the purposes of levying the duty of customs, under the provisions of the Customs Act, 1962.3. The appellants had imported a consignment of 3,000 pieces of locks and accessories. They sought clearance of the said goods under REP Licences, which were endorsed for flexibility as per para 175 read with para 177 of the Import - Export Policy 1988-91. These licences were valid for import of Appendix 3-A items, and it was claimed by the importers that the imported goods were covered by the description against Sl. No. 569 of that appendix. In the show-cause notice dt.11-5-1989, it wa...

Graphite India Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1994)(54)LC273Tri(Delhi)

1. This is an Appeal preferred agains the Order-in-Appeal dt. 16.8.1985 passed by the Collector (Appeals), Calcutta.2. The point to be decided in this case is whether 'Head Blocks' manufactured by the Appellants for captive consumption are classifiable as excise goods falling under T.I. 67 of C.E.T.3. It was held by the Lower Authorities that Graphite Head Blocks manufactured by the Appellants for captive consumption are classifiable under Item 67 of the CET since the goods in question are having a commercial name and are also capable of being bought and sold. Further it was observed that the words 'all sorts' appearing in Tariff description, i.e. T.I. 67 cover Graphite Electrodes and Anodes all sorts (sic) including Graphite Head Blocks.4. The nature and use of the product in question which is not in dispute, is as follows: These Head Blocks are rectangular pieces of material and its use is located in the Graphitising furnace for the graphitisation of Electrodes and Anodes at high te...

Appollo Trade Links Vs. Income-tax Officer

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi

1. These are three appeals by the assessee involving a common issue in regard to disallowance of the interest paid to the bank on the basis that the amounts taken on loan from the bank are diverted or withdrawn by the parties.2. Shri K.P. Bhatnagar, appearing for the assessee submitted that, for the assessment year 1985-86, interest was disallowed on the basis that a loan of Rs. 3,10,000 credited to the current account with the bank was utilised for withdrawal by one of the partners. Shri Bhatnagar referring to the details submitted that the amount was withdrawn from the bank only for 22 days after which the account got adjusted with various credits. He, accordingly, pleaded that the disallowance at best could be for 22 days. He further submitted that the partners have credit balances in the capital account and it was only in the case of one of the partners that the balance was a debt. He pleaded that the overall account of all the partners had to be taken into account and, on that ba...

Radnik Vs. Janata Bank and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: ILR1995Delhi538

Mahinder Narain, J.(1) (ORAL).-SUIT No. 1021 of 1990 has been filed under Order xxxvii of the Code of Civil Procedure seeking recovery of money upon an unpaid letter of credit.(2) In the instant case, plaintiff exported goods to its buyers in Dhaka who are defendants No. I and 2. The buyers in Dhaka had got a letter of credit issued by their bankers for ensuring payment to the plaintiff.(3) A question which arises is whether Order xxxvii of the Code of Civil Procedure covers this case or not.(4) Order xxxvii ( i) (2) of the Code of Civil Procedure reads as under :- '(1)This order shall apply to the following Courts, namely:- (a) High Courts, City Civil Courts and Courts of Small Causes; and (b) Other Courts : Provided that in respect of the Courts referred to in clause (b), the High Court may, by notification in the Official Gazette, restrict the operation of this Order only to such categories of suits as it deems proper, and may also, from time to time, as the circumstances of the cas...

Hazari Lal JaIn and Brothers and ors. Vs. Municipal Corporation of Del ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 1993IVAD(Delhi)361; 52(1993)DLT526

Gokal Chand Mital, C.J.(1) The petitioners have filed this petition with the prayer that respondents No. 3 and 4 or their employees, associates and agents be restrained from carrying on the business activity in front of shop No. 455, KatraMohan, Chandni Chowk, Delhi.(2) The petitioner-firm is carrying on its business of retail, of ladies garments at 455, Chandni Chowk, Delhi under the name and style of M/s Hazari Lal Jain & Bros., and Shri Lal Chand Jain and Shri Lalit Mohan Jain are the partners of the aforesaid concern. It is alleged in the petition that respondents 3 and 4 who do not hold any Tehbazari and/or any license from respondent No. 1/Municipal Corporation of Delhi, have started blocking the entire entrance to the shop of the petitioner for about last 1/2 months by placing two tables starting from the corner of the foot-path which in itself is 10' X 12' wide. The Approximate size of each table is 6'x4'. RespondentsNo. 3 and 4 place ready-made shirts on the said tables and se...

Ammonia Supplies Corporation (P) Ltd. Vs. Modern Plastic Containers (P ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: [1994]79CompCas163(Delhi); 52(1993)DLT252; 1993(27)DRJ482; 1994RLR83

Y.K. Sabharwal, J.(1) The short point for determination in this matter is the nature of jurisdiction the Company Court exercises under Section 155 of the Companies Act, 1956 (for short 'the Act') while dealing with petitions seeking rectification of register of members. Whether the jurisdiction is of summary nature and can the Company Court decline to entertain a petition which involves complicated and disputed questions of facts requiring extensive evidence, is the main question that is required to be answered by us in this reference. The other question is whether the jurisdiction of the Civil Court to entertain disputes relating to title of shares is barred.(2) One ofus(J.K.Mehra,J.)afternoticingtheconflictofopinionin judgments of this Court has made the order of reference so that the conflict may be resolved by a larger Bench. It would be useful to reproduce the order of reference dated 12th May, 1993 which reads as under:- 'THE question has arisen in this case whether complicated a...

Kalima Enterprises Vs. Collector of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1994)(69)ELT35TriDel

1. This stay application is filed by the applicants for the waiver of pre-deposit of duty amounting to Rs. 7,66,965.15 Paise and stay of recovery proceedings.3. Shri A.K. Mahajan, learned Advocate, appearing for the appellants submitted that modvat credit was denied on the ground that gate passes were fictitious ones. The Adjudicating Authority has come to the conclusion based upon the statements of various consignors, and in view of this fact that the appellants requested for cross-examination of the persons/consignors mentioned in para 2 of the show cause notice before making detailed submissions in reply to the show cause notice but the request of the party for cross-examination of the persons/consignors was not acceded to and in view of this fact the Advocate of the party again stressed for cross-examination of the concerned parties and requested for adjournment of the personal hearing fixed for 26-4-1991.He said that the impugned order suffers from denial of principles of natural...

Ram Avtar Vs. State

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 1993IVAD(Delhi)289; 1994CriLJ323; 52(1993)DLT508

R.L. Gupta, J. (1) This criminal Appeal is directed against the judgment/order dated 19-8-76/20-8-76 of the learned Special Judge, Delhi by which he convicted the appellant under Section 161 of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 5(2) read with Section 5(l)(d) Prevention of Corruption. Act, 1947 (hereinafter called the Act, and sentenced him to Rigorous Imprisonment (Rl) for one year under first count and a similar sentence with finis of Rs. 100 or in default to suffer further Rl for one month under the second count. The substantive sentences of imprisonment were made to run concurrently.(2) The prosecution case is based upon a complaint made by Rajesh PW7 to the Superintendent of Police, Cbi, Kota House, New Delhi. He stated in the complaint as follows: 'I am running my philately business for the last about 3 years. On 22nd July, 1974 my house No. A-45, East of Kailash, New Delhi-24 was searched by Shri Ram Saran MaliK, Dsp Economic Offences Wing, Jam Nagar House, New Delhi. After...

Thakur Dass Vs. Parbati Devi

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 1993IVAD(Delhi)385; 52(1993)DLT212

V.B. Bansal, J. (1) Shri Thakur Dass has filed this revision petition against the order dated 2/09/1992 of Shri M.K. Gupta, Additional Rent Controller, Delhi, thereby dismissing the application of the petitioner for leave to defend and thus, passing an eviction order in favor of Smt.Parbati Devi, under Section 14(l)(e) read with Section 25B of the Delhi Rent Control Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') from the premises, shown in the site plan Ex. A-1, with a further direction that the order shall not be executable for a period of six months.(2) Smt. Parbati Devi (hereinafter referred to as 'the owner') filed a petition for eviction against Thakur Dass (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tenant') under Section 14(l)(e) read with Section 25B of the Act, inter alias pleading that she was the owner of House No. 265. Block-U, Street No. 4, Mangol Puri, Delhi, which was let out to the tenant in 1984 for residence on a monthly rent of Rs.125.00per month excluding water and electricity. It...