Delhi Court October 1994 Judgments

B.L. Gupta Vs. Sunita Khanna

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 1994IVAD(Delhi)842; 56(1994)DLT585; 1994(31)DRJ513

R.C. Lahoti, J. (1) This order shall dispose of an application under Order 37 Rule 4 Cpc filed by the defendant on 18.8.93 seeking setting aside of the ex-parte decree dated 7.8.91 in a suit under Order 37 of the CPC. (2) The plaintiff filed a suit for recovery of Rs.2,03,385.00 being license fee due and payable by the defendant to the plaintiff under license deed dated 30th November, 1988, confirmation deed dated 31st March. 1989, an acknowledgement dated 8.12.89 and letter of acknowledgment dated 18.9.89. (3) Summons for judgment in the suit having been served, the defendant filed an application for leave to defend. The application is belated and hence is accompanied by an application seeking condensation of delay in filing the application for leave to defend. It is noteworthy that in the application for leave to defend, the defendant has nowhere disputed her possession as licensee over the suit premises. What has been disputed is the right of the plaintiff to institute the suit. It ...

Pampa Mukherjee Vs. Suri Civil Contractor A.B.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 56(1994)DLT423; 1994(31)DRJ716

R.C. Lahoti, J. (1) This order disposes of is No.6859/93 (under Order 2 Rule 2 Cpc, filed by the defendant) and is No. 10506/93 (under Order 38 Rules 1 & 5 Cpc filed by the plaintiff). (2) The plaintiff is proprietor of a Firm engaged in fabrication of Maruti Gypsies. The defendant placed an order with plaintiff for fabrication of Maruti Gypsies in September, 1990 and a repeat order on 6th March, 1991. In December, 1991 the plaintiff apprehended forceful removal of the gypsies by the defendant without payment of fabrication charges. The plaintiff filed a civil suit on 30.11.91 in the Court of First Senior Subordinate Judge, Delhi wherein the limited relief sought for by the plaintiff was a permanent injunction restraining the defendant from removing the 23 gypsies from the workshop of the plaintiff without making the payment. (3) The suit is still pending. During the pendency of the suit, it is common case of the parties, that under interim directions made by the trial court, 18 gypsie...

Ashok Kumar Parmar Vs. B.D.C. Sankiila and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: ILR1995Delhi60; 1995RLR85

R.C. Lahoti, J.(1) This order would decide the following preliminary issue : 'whether the suit is barred by Imitation ?'(2) The suit is for recovery of damages for the tort of libel. The alleged insinuation is said to have been made on 11-9-1986 in a' newspaper. The plaint was prepared on 10-9-1987 and presented before the officer authorised to receive the plaint on the same day. The relevant office noting arc illegible to a large extent. However, whatever can be ascertain is briefly stated hereinafter. (3) The office found the presentation of the plaint to be defective on three counts : (i) the certified copy of the order accompanying the plaint did not bear the court fee stamp of 75 paise (ii) photo copies of documents accompanying the plaint were not attested as true copies (iii) a photo copy of the document was in Hindi and was not accompanied by transition in English nor the translation charges were paid. (4) On 15-9-1987. the plaint was returned to the plaintiff for rectifying th...

Radhey Shyam Vs. Ram Kishan

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 1994RLR556

Devinder Gupta, J.(1) [ED. facts: Respondent was a Govt. servant in Ministry of defense. He retired from service on 31.1.93. Within one year of date of retirement he sued petitioner for eviction u/S. 14C of Drc Act, 1958 as amended in 1988 alleging that he was living in his father's house as a licensee and accommodation in the said house is not sufficient as his father and other family members were living. He also alleged that he had let out suit premises to petitioner on 6.6.90 for 22 months and though giving of notice was not necessary he gave notice on 24.1.94. Petitioner applied for leave to defend contending that respdt. had ample accommodation in father's house and the said house is ancestral and that he had purchased suit house for renting out only and that landlord rented out premises to him in 1987 and had been repeatedly enhancing rent from Rs. 950.00 to 1050.00 and then to Rs. 1200.00 on 6.6.90 and then to Rs. 1300.00 (by enhancing @ 10%). Arc did not find these assertions e...

Jai Singh Rana Vs. Mohinder Mohan Goel

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 1994IVAD(Delhi)582; 1994(31)DRJ445; 1995RLR29

M. Jagannadha Rao, C.J. (1) The appellant who was a lessee of premises and against whom an eviction petition under Delhi Rent Control Act is pending, is the plaintiff in the Suit No. 2438 of 1993. The suit was filed in 1993 for specific performance of an alleged agreement of sale dated 12.1.1992 said to have been executed by the defendant-respondent. Pending suit, the appellant sought for an injunction under order 39 Rule 1 Civil Procedure Code praying that the defendant may be restrained from parting with possession of the property or from selling or creating any third party interest. An ex parte order of temporary injunction was granted on 1.11.93 and, upon an application by the defendant under Order 39 Rule 3 Cpc, the learned Single Judge, by a reasoned order dated 18.8.94 vacated the interim order and observed: 'THERE will be no bar to the Additional Rent Controller to decide the matter in accordance with the law without taking note of proceedings of this Court.'(2) The facts of th...

Collector of Central Excise Vs. Hindustan Everest Tools Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1995)(56)LC340Tri(Delhi)

1. This Reference Application from Revenue seeks reference on the following question of law said to arise out of Tribunal's Final Order No. A/473-474/94-NRB dated 10.5.1994 in the case of Hindustan Everest Tools v. CCE, N. Delhi: Whether PVC Resin, Cellulose acetate & PVC sheeting used for making tubing of tools rolls which turn/used/are for packing hand tools are eligible for modvat credit. Whether PVC Resin, cellulose acetate & PVC sheeting are packing material as per Rule 57A and if so whether Modvat credit is eligible after their conversion into tubing of tool rolls.Tribunal in the aforesaid order held that Modvat credit of duty would be admissible on PVC resins, Cellulose Acetate and PVC Sheeting, used in packing tools even if tubing and tool rolls manufactured by resins are exempted from duty.2. Ld. DR for the revenue submits that resins and other materials are used in making tubing in the premises of job worker where such goods were removed under Rule 57F2 and that such...

Delhi Tourism and Transportation Vs. C.C.E.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1994)(74)ELT658TriDel

1. The appellants have filed the 1994 above captioned appeals as well as stay applications being aggrieved from a common order passed by the Collector of Central Excise, New Delhi. Shri Joseph Vellapally, learned Senior Advocate with Shri Naveen Kumar, Advocate, has appeared. Ld.Senior Advocate pleaded that Beams and Girders are constructed partly and further casting is done at site. He pleaded that the goods are not marketable and no duty is leviable. In support he cited the latest decision of the Supreme Court in the case of The Indian Cable Company Ltd. v. Collector of C. Excise reported in 1994 (74) E.L.T. 22 (SC) - JT 1994 (6) SC 243 and laid special emphasis on para 11 of the said judgment, wherein the Supreme Court has referred to the earlier decision in the case of Union of India v. Delhi Cloth & General Mills, AIR 1963 SC 791 and also referred to the other decisions on the subject, namely, South Bihar Sugar Mills v. Union of India, AIR 1968 SC 928 and Ujagar Prints and Or...

Manavjit Singh Sandhu Vs. Shri Ram College of Commerce and Others

Court: Delhi

Reported in: AIR1995Delhi258

ORDERD. P. Wadhwa, J. 1. The petitioner, a minor, by this petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution, seeks admission to the first year B.Com. (Hons.) Course in Shri Ram College of Commerce ('College' for short), respondent No. 1, for the academic year 1994-95. He seeks admission in sports quota. He says he is a sportsman of international calibre and had represented India in various international shooting events. He says he is entitled to admission on the basis of sport quota.2. We issued notice to show cause as to why rule nisi be not issued and in answer thereto an affidavit has been filed by Dr. D.C. Sancheti, Principal of the College. He does not question the attainments of the petitioner in shooting events, but his objection is that the game of shooting is not inter-university or inter-college item and, thereforee, the college could not accept the candidature of the petitioner. It is submitted that the petitioner hasnot been admitted in the college in the sports quota as per the ...

Suman Bala Gupta Vs. Akash Ganga Builders and Engineers Pvt. Ltd.

Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi

R.N. Mittal, President: 1. The complainant died on 24th June, 1994 in a road accident. An application has been moved to bring her legal representatives on the record. The application of the complainant has been contested by the opposite party on the ground that right to continue the complaint does not survive to the legal representatives of the deceased. It is further pleaded that in any case, the letters of administration should be obtained by the legal representatives. 2. We have duly considered the matter. An affidavit has been filed by Shri Surya Kant, the husband, that the deceased left him and the two minor daughters as her legal heirs and that she left no other legal heir. Both the children are minors. There is no ground to disbelieve his affidavit. Consequently, we hold that the applicants are legal heirs of the deceased. 3. Reference has not been made to any provision of law by the Counsel for the O.P. that the legal representatives of the deceased are not entitled to continue...

Alok Udyog Vanaspati and Plywood Vs. Collr. of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1994)(74)ELT261TriDel

1. When the matter was called none was present for the applicants who have sought decision of the matter on merits. Shri R.K. Kapoor, the learned Senior Departmental Representative is present for the Department. On hearing Shri Kapoor, we find that the matter lies in a short compass and is covered by the precedent decisions of the Tribunal following High Court judgments. As such, we grant stay and take up the appeal itself for disposal. The issue that arises for consideration is whether the three products namely, Peeled over Rollers, Cinder Ash and Cinder Coal are excisable goods not elsewhere specified under the erstwhile Central Excise Tariff Item 68. Shri Kapoor, the learned Senior Departmental Representative very fairly submitted that there are decisions by the Tribunal following the High Court judgment to the effect that where the goods emerged as waste in the course of manufacture of a finished product, and where the goods do not emerge as a final intended products themselves, t...