Delhi Court February 1993 Judgments

Rajender Kishore Aggarwal Vs. Pawan Kumar Bansal

Court: Delhi

Reported in: AIR1994Delhi4; 50(1993)DLT518; 1993(25)DRJ369; 1993RLR217

ORDER1. This revision petition under Section 25B(8) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, (for short the Act), is directed against an cider passed by the Addi. Rent Controller, Delhi on 6-5-1988, dismissing the eviction petition filed by the petitioner under the provisions of clause (e) of proviso to Section 14(1) of the Act. The petition was dismissed on the sole ground that the petitioner had not been able to establish his plea of bona fide requirement for the tenancy premises in occupation of the respondent and as such not entitled to an evict ion order, on the ground of personal requirement.2. I have referred to the first order very succinctly for the reason that the main thrust of the arguments on both sides, during the present hearing, has been with reference to an order recorded on 2-5-1992 by the Addl. Rent Controller giving finding in respect to certain additional facts urged and proved by the petitioner, as well as subsequent events pleaded by the respondent.3. Before proceeding fur...

Narinder Kumar Vs. Vishnu Kumar Nayyar

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 49(1993)DLT684; 1993RLR247

Usha Mehra, J.(1) By this petition, Mr. Narinder Kumar has assailed the order dated 19th October, 1992 of the Additional Rent Controller dismissing his application for leave to defend and passing an order for eviction under Section 14(1)(e) of Delhi Rent Control Act (hereinafter called as the Act') against him. (2) The brief facts of the case are that Shri Vishnu Kumar Nayyar, the landlord instituted eviction petition on 4th February, 1992 against Narinder Kumar, the tenant on the ground of bonafide requirement. The landlord was working as Deputy Manager (Maintenance) Foundry in H.M.T. Ltd. Pinjore,Ambala, Haryana. The landlord let out the premises in question to the tenant consisting of two rooms, kitchen with common use latrine, bathroom and courtyard on a monthly rent of Rs. 800.00 vide agreement dated 15th July, 1986. The premises were let out for residential purposes. (3) The landlord retired from service with effect from 30th November, 1991. After retirement he wants to shift to ...

Ram Khilari Vs. K.S. Gupta and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 49(1993)DLT724; 1993(26)DRJ23; 1993RLR258

Santosh Duggal, J.(1) This is a petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, after the courts of the Addl. Rent Controller as well as the Rent Control Tribunal have held by concurrent judgments that the petitioner, on the facts of the case, was not entitled to the benefit of section 14(2) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1957, (for short 'the Act') and was hit by terms of the proviso thereto.(2) It is an admitted fact that the petitioner, on an earlier occasion, had availed of benefit of section 14 (2) of the Act, and it was admittedly a case of second default. There is no denial of the fact that notice of demand had been served by the landlords/respondents, and received by the petitioner/tenant. There is also no denial of the fact that at the time the notice was received, there had been a default in the payment of rent for preceding three consecutive months. It is also admitted that rent only of one month was sent by money order, after receipt of the notice and during ...

Akshay Finance and Trading Co. Vs. Income Tax Officer. (Also Arihant I ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: (1993)46TTJ(Del)630

ORDERJ. P. BENGRA, J. M. :These are appeals by four assesseds raising common contention arising out of identical orders of the CIT(A)-XI, New Delhi, pertaining to the asst. yrs. 1983-84 and 1984-85. Since issues involved in all these appeals are common, thereforee, for the sake of convenience, these appeals are being disposed of by this consolidated order.2. The common grievance in all these appeals is that the CIT(A) erred in confirming the action of the ITO imposing additional tax under S. 104 of the IT Act, 1961. While perusing the record of the assesseds, the ITO found that the assessed companies had not distributed dividend as required under the Act. thereforee, he initiated proceedings under S. 104 of the IT Act against all the assesseds. The reply of the assesseds to the show cause notices was that the company had borrowed funds and the payments were made during the year itself which reduced the loan liability. thereforee, the companies could not declare higher dividend. The rep...

M.L. Aggarwal Vs. National thermal Power Corporation Ltd.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 49(1993)DLT735

P.N. Nag, J.(1) By this petition the petitioner has challenged the order dated 12/09/1985, passed by Shri Shiv Charan, Sub Judge,1st Class, Delhi, whereby the application of the plaintiff under Order 6 Rule17 seeking amendment to the plaint was rejected.(2) The relevant facts of the case are that the petitioner/plaintiff has sought amendment to the plaint to the effect that during the pendency of the suit the plaintiff has retired from the service of defendant No. 1 on 30thApril, 1985 and that plaint is required to be amended by including the relief of declaration to the effect that the retirement of the plaintiff is illegal. The plaintiff has filed a suit for declaration and mandatory permanent injunction against defendant No. 1 that he should be retired on the basis of correct date of birth i.e. 4th Feb., 1928 on the ground that he was born on 4th Feb.,1928 at Dharam Kot, District Ferozepore, Punjab and his date of birth has been wrongly recorded in the service record as 5/04/1927. A...

Nirmala Devi Vs. Jagdish Kumar

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 1993(25)DRJ524

Sat Pal, J.(1) This case has been called for hearing and even at 2.40 Pm none is present on behalf of the petitioner or for the respondent. However, I proceed to dispose of the case on merits on the basis of records before me.(2) In the present case, the Metropolitan Magistrate vide his order dated 3rd 0ctober, 1980 fixed the maintenance allowance of Smt. Nirmala Devi who is the petitioner in the present case at Rs.200- per month. The order passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate was challenged by Jagdish Kumar, the respondent herein, in Cri. R. 34/80. The said revision petition of the husband was allowed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Delhi vide his order dated 6th August, 1982. The learned Addl. Sessions Judge held that the marriage between the parties was not solemnised according to the Hindu Rites. Accordingly, the revision of the husband was allowed and the petition of the Nirmala Devi under Section 125 Cr.P.C. was dismissed.(3) Aggrieved by the Judgmentdated6th August...

Om Prakash Bhatia Vs. M/S. Deepu Chits Pvt. Ltd. and Others

Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi

R.N. Mittal, President: 1. The Commission in a complaint by Shri Om Parkash Bhatia against the respondents, vide order ated 4th March, 1992 directed the respondents to pay an amount of Rs. 1,20,000/- (Rs. One Lacs Twenty thousand only) with interest @ 12% p.a. from the date of filing the complaint i.e. 4.11.1991 till the date of repayment of the amount, within a period of three months. The respondents have not paid the amount till-date. Consequently, the complainant filed an application under Section 27 of the Consumer Protection Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') that action be taken against them under the said Act for non-compliance of the order of the Commission dated 4th March, 1992. The notice of the application was given to the respondents. 2. Shri Ramesh Chand Gupta, Managing Director of the Company, respondent No. 3 appeared on 12th August, 92. A copy of the paper book was given to him and the case was adjourned to 2nd September, 92 for reply. On that date his Advocate...

S.K. Mehta Vs. State and anr.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 1993(1)Crimes958; 51(1993)DLT662; 1993(27)DRJ53

R.L. Gupta, J. (1) This petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Code for short) read with Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed for quashing an order dated 26.10.1991 of the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, New Delhi whereby the petitioner was summoned for an offence under Sections 403 and 406 Indian Penal Code and for quashing of the aforesaid complaint on the basis of which the petitioner was summoned.(2) The case in the complaint is that the complainant M/s Comtel International (P) Ltd. New Delhi issued four bank drafts of different amounts towards earnest money for purchase of four plots from New Okhla Industrial Development Area (NOIDA). The complainant, however was not successful in the draw of lots and, thereforee, the amount of two drafts of Rs.21,500.00 and Rs.l6,200.00 was refunded to the complainant. Initially the refunded. cheques were issued by Noida in the name of the petitioner, S.K. Mehta who was one of the Directors of the Compan...

Nichimen Corporation Vs. Union of India and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 50(1993)DLT218; 1993(26)DRJ64

Sat Pal, J. (1) This appeal is directed against the order dated 6th May, 1986 passed by the Chairman, Foreign Exchange Regulation Appellant Board (for short called 'FERA Board') and the order dated 30th August, 1984 passed by the Special Director, Enforcement Directorate, Foreign Exchange'Reguation Act, 1973, New Delhi, (for short called 'FERA') By order dated 30th August, 1984 the Special Director, Enforcement Directorate, FERA, New Delhi imposed on the appellant company a penalty of Rs.26,000.00 and this order was upheld by FERA Board vide its order dated 6th May, 1984 mentioned hereinabove. (2) The facts of the case briefly stated are that pursuant to an application submitted by the appellant company under section 29(2)(a) of FERA, the Reserve Bank of India, Bombay vide its order dated lst/6th January, 1976 granted no objection certificate to the appellant company for continuing offices in Bombay, New Delhi and Calcutta for undertaking liaison activities relating to import and expor...

Mohd. Yousuf @ Ashif Khan Vs. Union of India and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 49(1993)DLT732

R.L. Gupta, J.(1) This petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for issue of appropriate writ, order of directions for quashing detention order No. F.5/22/92-Home(P-ll) dated 15.5.1992 passed by the Administrator of Delhi under Section 3(1) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 (for short COFEPOSA Act). On 9.3.1992, the petitioner was intercepted outside Railway Station, Delhi when he was about to board a rickshaw by the Customofficers. He was found to be carrying eight gold biscuits in three small packets wrapped with adhesive tape and carbon paper in his shoes. Besides ''proceedings against him under the Customs Act, the impugned detention order was passed on 15.5.1992 with a view to preventing him from smuggling goods and from engaging in concealing, keeping smuggled goods and also preventing him from dealing in smuggled goods etc. The petitioner m...