Delhi Court November 1994 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
A.D. Mehndroo Vs. Assessing Officer
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Decided on: Nov-28-1994
Reported in: (1995)52ITD138(Delhi)
1. This appeal is directed against the order passed by the CIT(A) raising for the consideration of the Tribunal on various grounds.2. The learned counsel for the assessee, however, at the time of hearing stated that he was under instructions only to press the ground pertaining to the claim for deduction under Section 80C(2)(h)(ii)(b) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 and the other grounds of appeals were being withdrawn. The subsequent discussion disposes of the main issue which has been argued by the parties before the Tribunal.3. The appellant in this case is an Advocate who admittedly was a Member of the Lawyers Cooperative Group Housing Society Ltd., and had been allotted a flat, the construction in respect of which had not been completed during the assessment year under consideration, viz., 1990-91. It is also an admitted fact that the assessee had during the previous year under consideration paid a sum of Rs. 10,000 as an instalment to the said Group Housing Society towards the flat w...
Canara Bank Vs. Pushpa Gupta and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-28-1994
Reported in: 1995IAD(Delhi)35; 1995(32)DRJ421
Swatanter Kumar, J.(1) By this Order, I propose to dispose of interim application filed by the plaintiff, in this Suit under Order 38 Rule 5, Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. (2) The facts relevant for the purpose of disposal of this application are, that the plaintiff instituted a simple Suit for recovery of money for a sum of Rs. 3,71,863.37. The bank claims that at the request of P.P.Gupta, overdraft limit was sanctioned on 15th January, 1982 and was enhanced to Rs. 2,09,931.11 on 23rd September, 1985. In the year 1985, P.P.Gupta and his wife stated to have executed a demand promissory note under which late Shri P.P.Gupta and defendant No. I jointly and severally promised to pay to the plaintiff bank the said sum of Rs-2,09,931.11 vith interest @ 7.5% per annum above Rbi rate with the minimum of @ 17.5% per annum compounded quarterly for value receipt. (3) This case of the plaintiff is denied by the defendants in their written statement...
Ashoka Builders and Promoters and anr. Vs. Edward Keventer (Succrs.) P ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-28-1994
Reported in: 1994IVAD(Delhi)953; 57(1995)DLT218; 1995(32)DRJ238; (1996)112PLR19
Vijender Jain, J. (1) These are applications filed by defendant Nos.1 to 3 under Order 7 Rule 11 (b) read with Section 151 of the Civil Procedure Code . (IA No-8136/93 filed by defendant No.1, is No-8137/93 filed by defendant No.2 and is No.8138/93 filed by defendant No.3). Identical prayers have been made inter alias stating that prayer of plaintiffs in paragraph-88 of the plaint is that they are entitled to 23,219 sq.rntr.clean (25% of 22.95 acres) with permission to construct thereon, of the construction, plaintiffs will have 63% leaving 37% to the delivered to defendant Nos.1 and 2 against return of the safe deposit a sum of Rs.2 crores, thus making the suit for specific performance to the extent of 23,219 sq.mtr. of land. (2) MR.MADAN Bhatia, learned counsel for defendant No.3, has argued that the plaintiff has under-valued the subject-matter of the suit by stating that subject-matter of .the suit cannot be valued in terms of money and thus 'have valued the suit wrongly for the pu...
United Commercial Bank Vs. Deekor and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-28-1994
Reported in: 1995IAD(Delhi)78; I(1996)BC238; 57(1995)DLT45
R.C. Lahoti, J.(1) This is a suit filed by a bank for recovery of Rs.1,17,050 77Pwith future interest @ 19.50% p.a. on Cash Credit Facility Account and B.P. Account.(2) According to the plaintiff, the defendant No. 1 is a partnership-firm. Later on it was converted into a sole proprietorship concern of defendant No. 2. The defendant No. 3 is the father of defendant No. 2. He had stood guarantor for repayment of all dues against the defendants Nos. 1 and 2. The plaintiff-Bank sanctioned two facilities to the defendants 1 to 2. One was a Cash Credit Hypothecation Limit. The other was Bill Purchase Limit. In the Cash Credit HypothecationLimit, the defendants 1 and 2 executed a Pro-note dated 27.8.77 for Rs. 30,000.00 in favor of the plaintiff. The same was renewed from time to time. The defendant No. 3 executed a guarantee bond dated 1.5.79. The defendants land 2 drew the following Hundies in favor of the plaintiff-Bank on defendant No. 4 -SI. Hundi No. Date of Hundi Amount of HundiNo. Rs...
Perfect Public Secondary School and ors. Vs. the Administrator of Nati ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-28-1994
Reported in: 59(1995)DLT482
D.P. Wadhwa, J. (1) By this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioners seek to have issued an appropriate order or direction setting aside the order dated 10 June, 1994 passed by the Lt. Governor of the National Capital Territory of Delhi under Section 20 of the Delhi School Education Act, 1973 (for short 'the Act') by which order the Lt. Governor was pleased to take over the management of the Preet Public Secondary School, for a period of three years with immediate effect. The petitioners also seek to challenge the provisions of Section 20 of the Act as being ultra virus the provisions of the Constitution being vocative of Articles 14,16, 19, 31 and 300-Aofthe Constitution. Section 20 is as under:- 20. Taking over the management of schools, (1) Whenever the Administrator is satisfied that the managing committee or manager of any school, whether recognised or not, has neglected to perform any of the duties imposed on it by or under this Act or any rule made t...
Atul Gupta Vs. Delhi Development Authority
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-28-1994
Reported in: 1994(31)DRJ502; 1995RLR99
R.C. Lahoti, J.(1) This is a suit for recovery of Rs.2,98,000.00 with future interest at the rate of 18% per annum. (2) On the facts, there is no controversy. Delhi Development Authority, the defendant no.1 had built up certain flats in the Asian Games Village Complex. Though the flats were originally built for the purpose of housing the athletes and players participating in the Asian Games, subsequently it was decided to allot/ sale the flats to the public by auction. On 29.8.86, flat no.A-32, was put to auction. The plaintiffs made the highest bid of Rs.l 4,85,000.00 which was accepted. 29.8.86 the plaintiffs paid to the Dda Rs.3,71,250.00 itself, being an amount equivalent to 25% of the bid amount. Of these, Rs 10,000 .00 were paid by means of a bank draft and Rs 3,61,250/ were paid in cash. On 8-9.86, the plaintiffs were issued a letter by the defendant calling upon to pay the balance 75% amount. The plaintiffs failed to pay the balance amount. The reasons are not material. The fac...
C.B. Aggarwal Vs. P. Krishna Kapoor
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-28-1994
Reported in: 1995IAD(Delhi)239; AIR1995Delhi154; 1995(32)DRJ41
Swatanter Kumar, J.(1) The present suit has been instituted by the plaintiff for recovery of Rs. l,10,000.00 with costs and future interest. The case of the plaintiff is that he is the Principal of Government Senior School, and, at the time of institution of the suit, was working in Government Co-educational Senior Secondary School, Issapur, Delhi. The plaintiff, along with one Ishwar Dass Mahajan, had taken on rent the premises bearing No. F-122, Rajouri Garden, New Delhi, at a monthly rent of Rs. 350.00 exclusive of electric and water chargers vide lease deed dated 27th May, 1964 from the defendant.' The lease deed dated 27th May, 1964 provided the terms and conditions which were to govern the relationship of the landlord and the tenant. Clause (f) of the lease deed reads as under :- 'NOT to use the said premises or any part thereof for any purpose other than for residence or for school but in case of opening any school, not to take any third person or other person(s) as partner(s) a...
Shriram Industrial Enterprises Ltd. Vs. Municipal Corporation of Delhi ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-28-1994
Reported in: 1994IVAD(Delhi)981; 1995(1)ARBLR92(Delhi); 1994(31)DRJ497; 1995RLR314
R.C. Lahoti, J.(1) This is a petition under Section 20 of the Arbitration Act seeking appointment of an arbitrator consistently with the arbitration clause contained in the contract between the parties. (2) The petitioner is a consumer of electriGity. There are two types of disputes which have arisen between the parties. Firstly, the Desu has revised its tariff by increasing the percentage of load violation charges to 30% w.e.f 11.4.92. The petitioner has been billed by the impugned bill for the period on 25.3.92 to 24.4.92. The contention of the petitioner is that for the period 25.3.92 to 31.3.92, governed by the old tariff, it could not have been charged at the rate of 30% at the rate of 30% percentage came into effect from 1.4.1992 only. Secondly; for the period 23.11.1992 to 19.12.1992 the maximum demand indicator meter was allegedly found to be faulty. The petitioner has invited attention of Desu towards the faulty meter. It was for the Desu to have replaced or rectified the mete...
Suneet Kalra Vs. Bal Raj Ahuja
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-28-1994
Reported in: 1994IVAD(Delhi)1163; 56(1994)DLT666; 1994(31)DRJ708
P C. Lahoti, J. (1) This order shall dispose of the four applications. The first three applications are under Order 39 Rules q & 2 Civil Procedure Code filed by the plaintiff at different stages of the suit, all seeking interim injunctions against the defendant. The last one is an application under Order 11 Rules 4 and 12 of the Civil Procedure Code read with Section 73 of the Evidence Act. (2) First the facts in brief in so far as they are relevant for the purpose of disposing of these applications. The suit property consists of a residential plot bearing municipal No.537 in Block S, Greater Kailash, Part-11, New Delhi. The suit has been filed on 4th October, 1993 seeking specific performance of an agreement to sell dated 18.3.75 and ancillary relief of declaration and permanent injunction. (3) The plaintiff Suneet Kalra is the grand-son of late Bhagwan Dass Kalra. He claims to have inherited the estate left by late Bhagwan Das Kalra pursuant to a Will dated 15.12.87. The plaintiff al...
Ester Industries Ltd. Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Nov-25-1994
Reported in: (1995)LC619Tri(Delhi)
1. The appellants are engaged in the business of manufacturing of polyester chips, polyester film and polyester filament yarn at its works at Khatima, Distt. Nainital. For the manufacture of above-named items, plant and machinery were imported from various countries abroad.The second-hand plant for the manufacturing of polyester chips was imported from USA and subsequently, the appellants applied for grant of a supplementary licence for the import of spares for a value of Rs. 87,89,707/- for the second-hand Polyester Chips Plant vide letter dated 20th June, 1986. The licence dated 30th October 1986 was granted for the import of spares for a value of Rs. 87,89,707/-. As the said licence did not contain bifurcation of the products covered under OGL and not covered under OGL, the appellants applied vide letter dated 30th April 1987 to DGTD for doing the necessary bifurcation of the amount of Rs. 87,89,707/- as :(i) Scientific and measuring instruments for Rs. 2,00,0007-(ii) Restricted sp...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »