Delhi Court March 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.
Priya Nath Mehta Vs. Manju Aggarwal and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-18-1994
Reported in: 1994IIAD(Delhi)33; 54(1994)DLT34; 1994(29)DRJ47; 1994RLR245
Usha Mehra, J.(1) It is said that statute is an edict of the legislature and the conventional way of interpreting or construing a statute is to seek the 'intention' of its maker. The duty of judicature is to act upon the true intention of the Legislature. Delhi Rent Control Act.1958 (in short the Act) was amended by the amendment Act 1988. Special provisions like Sections 14-A to 14-D were added to provide rights to certain classified landlords in order to enable them to recover immediate possession of their premises for their residence. (2) The petitioner a tenant inhouseNo.B-126.Sarvodaya Enclave, New Delhi, has denied the relationship of landlord and tenant between him and the respondent No.1. The question raised is whether a nominee enrolled os member under Section 26 of the Delhi Co-operative Society Act or a legal heir of the deceased member would be the landlord of the tenanted premises. In order to appreciate his challenge to the impugned order, we have to have the facts before...
indrol Lubricants and Vs. Collector of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Mar-17-1994
Reported in: (1994)(74)ELT737TriDel
1. This appeal is directed against the impugned order classifying the subject goods, namely, 'SOLVEX ICE 49' under erstwhile Tarrif Item 15-AA and denying the benefit of exemption Notification No.101/66-C.E., dated 17-6-1966, as amended.2. When the case was taken up for hearing, S.R. Kabir, Manager, Indirect Taxation, appeared on behalf of the appellants and submitted that the appellants have already requested for a decision on merits in their absence. Accordingly, we perused the record and heard Shri Somesh Arora, Learned JDR.3. Shri Somesh Arora, learned JDR, submitted that there appears to be no dispute regarding the classification of the subject goods under Tariff Item 15-AA. As regards the denial of exemption Notification No.101/66-C.E., dated 17-6-1966, he submitted that it is a conditional Notification, that is to say, to avail the benefit of the said Notification, the appellants should have proved that surface active agents used in the manufacture of the subject products were ...
Shri Swaran Singh Vs. University of Delhi and Another
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-17-1994
Reported in: ILR1995Delhi129
ORDER1. This is a petition filed on behalf of Shri Swaran Singh (hereinafter referred to as the Contractor) under Sections 14 and 17 of the Arbitration Act, 1940, and in this petition it has been prayed that respondent No. 2, the sole arbitrator, be directed to file the award dated 21st March, 1989 along with the proceedings in this Court and thereafter the objections, if any, be called for and the award be made a rule of the Court.2. After the receipt of the award from the arbitrator, notice of filing of the award was issued to the parties on 4th July, 1989. Thereafter, respondent No. 1, University of Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the University) filed objections against the award vide application bearing is No. 6175/89. These objections were controverter by the Contractor in his reply to the said application. The following issues were framed on 26th February, 1990:--1) Whether the award dated 21st March, 1989 is liable to be set aside for the grounds taken by the respondent in th...
National Building Construction Corporation Ltd. Vs. Municipal Corporat ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-17-1994
Reported in: 1994(2)ARBLR80(Delhi); 54(1994)DLT651; (1994)107PLR65
Mr. J. K. Mehra, J.1. These are the objections to the award of Mr. V. R. Vaish and S. C. Jain, Arbitrators dated October 31, 1991. The Arbitrators dealt with both the claims of the objections as also counter-claims of the respondents. It is further noticed that the award is a non-speaking award. The objections are mainly taken to the findings of the Arbitrator on claims No. 2, 13, 15 and 23 and the findings on counter-claim No. 19 Item No. 12 of Sub-Head (ii) and 22. 2. Before considering various claims, I think it appropriate to state the legal position, which is as follows : 3. Even when an Arbitrator is required to give reasons, according to the settled law, it is not for the court to examine the reasonableness of the reasons given by the Arbitrator and it is also not necessary for the Arbitrator to discuss in detail the evidence placed before him. A reference in this behalf may be made to the case of Sudarshan Trading Company v. Government of Kerala and Another : [1989]1SCR665 , an...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. M.R. Dhawan
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-17-1994
Reported in: 1994IAD(Delhi)1100; (1994)119CTR(Del)84; 54(1994)DLT642; [1994]210ITR557(Delhi)
R. C. Lahoti, J. 1. This common order shall govern the disposal of Income-tax Cases Nos. 65 of 1992 and 66 of 1992. In both the cases, the parties and the facts and the question of law arising for decision are common except for a change of the assessment year and the amount of taxable income. Income-tax Case No. 65 of 1992 relates to the assessment year 1967-68 and Income-tax Case No. 66 of 1992 relates to the assessment year 1966-67. 2. The facts in brief, in so far as relevant for the present purpose, may be noticed. The assessed is an individual. He had a business of share broker. One of his clients was the late Rana Babar Shamsher Jang Bahadur. On behalf of Rana, the assessed was entering into transactions of purchase and sale of shares. Later on, Rana gave a power of attorney to the assessed who then started transacting business in his own name though, according to him, that was on behalf of his principal, the late Rana. Thus the assessed was having under his name several shares o...
Swaran Singh Vs. University of Delhi and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-17-1994
Reported in: 1994IAD(Delhi)1110; AIR1994Delhi290; 1994(1)ARBLR388(Delhi); 54(1994)DLT133
Sat Pal, J. (1) This is a petition filed on behalf of Shri Swaran Singh (hereinafter referred to as 'the Contractor') under sections 14 and 17 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 and in this petition it has been prayed that respondent No. 2, the sole arbitrator, be 'directed to file the award dated 21st March, 1989 along with the proceedings in this Court and thereafter the objections, if any, be called for and-the award be made a rule of the Court.(2) After the receipt of the award from the arbitrator, notice of filing of the award was issued to the parties on 4th July, 1989. Thereafter, respondent No. 1, University of Delhi (hereinafter referred to as 'the University') filed objections against the award, vide application bearing is No. 6175'89. These objections were controverter by the Contractor in his reply to the said application. The following issues were framed on 26th February, 1990 : (1) Whether the award dated 21st March) 1989 is liable to be set aside for the grounds taken by the r...
Trinagar Shiksha Pracharini Sabha Vs. Delhi Development Authority and ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-17-1994
Reported in: 54(1994)DLT75
Arun Kumar, J. (1) The petitioner has filed the present writ petition challenging the demand contained in the allotment-cum-demand letter dated 4/03/1993 issued by respondent No. 1. By the said letter he respondent has allotted 1.5 acres of land to the petitioner for purposes of a middle school at Rohini,Delhi. Out of this allotment 75 acre of land is meant for school building for which petitioner has been called upon to pay premium @ 45 lac per acre while for the remaining land meant for playground. The petitioner has to pay ground rent @Rs.5000.00per year.(2) The petitioner is a Society registered under the Societies Registration Act,1860 with the object of imparting education. Towards this object the petitioner is running a School. The petitioner Society applied for allotment of Nazul land to the Director of Education, Delhi, for construction of a new school building and a playground for the students of the school. The application was made on 1 8/12/1986. Since allotment of Nazul la...
Shah Builders Vs. Thapar Agro Mill
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-17-1994
Reported in: (1994)108PLR33; 1994RLR334
Mahinder Narain, J. (1) This is an application u/0. 39 R. 1 & 2 r.w. S. 151, Civil Procedure Code , wherein plaintiff says that he has filed a suit against Deft. which is pending. In the suit it is asserted that suit premises is in Greater Kailash and the Defts. took 3 rooms in a Lodging House, which is being run by the plaintiff as Saraswati Lodge for residential purpose for 750 days, and in that connection a sum of Rs 12,000.00 was received. This transaction is evidenced by a copy of a receipt. (2) There is no written agreement between the parties apart from this receipt, which has come on record of this case, as a result of the record of the sales-tax office, having been got produced in this Court. It is in the sales-tax office that this receipt was filed. This receipt, which is a photo copy, states 'received with thanks from Satish Thapar a sum of Rs. 12,000.00 by draft No. 890870 on C. Bank on account of room charges for room No. 101 102 and 103 up to 14.4.1986'. (3) Copy of recei...
Graubrakes Ltd. Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, (Dy. Cit V. Gra ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-17-1994
Reported in: (1994)50TTJ(Del)103
ORDERSATISH CHANDRA, A. M. :The assesseds appeal and the cross-appeal by the Revenue are directed against the learned CIT(A)s order dt. 30th Oct., 1989 for the asst. yr. 1986-87. For the sake of convenience, both the appeals are disposed of by this common order.2. We first take up the assesseds appeal in ITA No. 7387/Del/1989. The assessed has taken three grounds in all. Ground No. 3 relating to the denial of the claim of investment allowance has not been pressed. The same is, thereforee, dismissed, as not pressed. The remaining two grounds are reproduced below :'1. The CIT(A) has erred in confirming the view of the Dy. CIT (Asst.), who treated the business income of rent from surplus area of the factory building received by the appellant company as income from house property.2. The Dy. CIT (Asst.) wrongly disallowed 1/3rd depreciation out of the depreciation on factory building on the ground that a part thereof was let out. The CIT(A) has wrongly held that rental income from the surpl...
Darshan Singh Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Mar-16-1994
Reported in: (1994)(72)ELT42TriDel
1. This is an appeal against the order of the Additional Collector of Customs (Preventive) Muzaffarpur dated 27-1-1989.2. Learned Counsel stated that the appellant, Darshan Singh is the owner of the truck No. DIG-2605 which was detained along with the other trucks by the Customs for allegedly carrying contraband goods. The truck was subsequently released provisionally by the order of the Superintendent dated 11-10-1988 on the appellant depositing Rs. 50,000/- and executing a bond for Rs. 3 lakhs.3. It was his submission that the goods alleged to have been smuggled which were found in the truck had been loaded by the driver without his knowledge or permission and he had no connection with the contraband goods and their carriage and, therefore, it is the fault of the driver.4. It was his submission that actually he was ill and had gone away to his village and was away for nearly two months when the seizure took place and, therefore, he was not aware of what his driver had done and, ther...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- Next ›
- Last »