Court : Delhi
Reported in : 1994IVAD(Delhi)521; 1994(30)DRJ725; 1994RLR454
M. Jagannadha Rao, C.J. (1) This appeal is filed under Section 10 of the Delhi High Court Act read with Order 43, Rule 1 Civil Procedure Code against the order of the learned Single Judge dated 27.9.1993. The appeal is preferred by the plaintiffs. (2) The appellants filed the suit under Section 20 of the Indian Arbitration Act seeking the filing of the arbitration agreement and a reference to arbitration as Suit No. 3708/91. In the suit, the appellants relied upon the agreement dated 27.8.1990 (Annexures G & H in this F.A.O) contending that certain disputes have arisen between the parties which required to be referred to arbitration. The appellants are contending that the two agreements are license agreements while the respondents are contending that though the agreements dated 27.8.1990 are true and purport to be agreements of license, their real nature is that they must be treated as lease agreements. A further objection has been raised that the agreements , though they bear stamp du...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : 1994IIIAD(Delhi)1491; 1994(3)Crimes402; 1994(31)DRJ98
Dalveer Bhandari, J. (1) This petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. for quashing the proceedings under Section 145 Cr.P.C. pending before Mr. Virender Kumar, learned S.D.M., Punjabi Bagh, New Delhi. (2) The petitioner has further prayed that the order dated 9th February, 1993 passed by the S.D.M. directing the petitioner to handover possession of the shop bearing number H-24, Main Market, Rajouri Garden, New Delhi under the name of Middas Herbal Beauty Parlour be quashed. (3) Respondent No.2 Ram Rattan Goel moved an application before the Deputy Commissioner, Delhi dated 3rd February, 1993 inter-alia, stating that he had opened a beauty parlour at Rajouri Garden where he, Along with the petitioner Manisha Devi used to sit. The exact words incorporated in the application reads as under: 'I opened a beauty parlour and we both used to sit in the beauty parlour at Rajouri Garden.'(4) On the basis of complaint filed by respondent No.2, the S.H.O. of Police Station, Rajour...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Reported in : (1995)52ITD551(Delhi)
1. These three appeals - two by the assessee for assessment years 1984-85 and 1985-86 and one by the revenue for assessment year 1985-86, are directed against orders of CIT(A). As common points are involved, these appeals were heard together and are being disposed of through this consolidated order for the sake of convenience. The main controversy relates to denial of deduction Under Section 80TT of the Income-tax Act on the sum of Rs. 2,14,78,116 and Rs. 3,16,09,892 in the A.Ys. 1984-85 and 1985-86, respectively which according to the assessee were "winnings from lottery".2. Facts of the case briefly stated are that as per agreements in writing, the assessee was appointed "agent" to organise and conduct lotteries on behalf of Governments of Nagaland and Manipur on All India basis. The agreements provided that the assessee was to get lottery tickets printed of different denominations, carry and conduct lotteries for State Governments, realise sale proceeds against payment of guarantee...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : (1996)55TTJ(Del)719
VIMAL GANDHI, J. M. :These three appeals - two by the assessed for asst. yrs. 1984-85 and 1985-86 and one by the Revenue for asst. yr. 1985-86, are directed against orders of CIT(A). As common points are involved, these appeals were heard together and are being disposed of through this consolidated order for the sake of convenience. The main controversy relates to denial of deduction under s. 80TT of the IT Act on the sum of Rs. 2,14,78,116 and Rs. 3,16,09,892 in the asst. yrs. 1984-85 and 1985-86, respectively which according to the assessed were 'winnings from lottery'.2. Facts of the case briefly stated are that as per agreements in writing, the assessed was appointed 'agent' to organise and conduct lotteries on behalf of Governments of Nagaland and Manipur on All India basis. The agreements provided that the assessed was to get lottery tickets printed of different denominations, carry and conduct lotteries for State Governments, realise sale proceeds against payment of guaranteed s...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : [1996]221ITR787(Delhi)
D.K. Jain, J. 1. By this application under section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, the assessed seeks a direction to the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal to state the case and refer the following questions, stated to be of law, for the opinion of this court : '(i) Whether, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the miscellaneous application of the appellant was an attempt to review the order of the Tribunal and not a petition pointing out mistakes in the order which were apparent from the record (ii) Whether, in the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was correct in law in holding that the arguments of the appellant in the miscellaneous petition were based on misconception and wrong appreciation of facts (iii) Whether, in the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was correct in holding that five per cent. of the chit amount appropriated by the company as foreman's commission was adequate for m...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : 2000IIIAD(Delhi)662
M. Jagannadha Rao, C.J. (1) This appeal is preferred by the appellant Canara Bank against the judgment and decree passed by the learned trial Judge on 12th January, 1994 in the Suit No. 3025/ 90. The limited point urged before us is with regard to the refusal of the learned trial Judge to award pendente lite interest from the date of the plaint till the date of the decree. The learned Judge no doubt granted interest at 16.5% from the date of the decree i.e. 12th January, 1994 till the date of payment. This refusal to grant the interest from October, 1990 till 12th January, 1994 is the subject matter of this appeal. (2) The judgment of the learned trial Judge shows that the decree was passed under Order 20, Rule 11 Civil Procedure Code and while refusing to grant interest pendente lite the learned Trial Judge stated that he was bearing in mind Section 34 Civil Procedure Code as well as Order 20, Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure. He dearly held that the interests of the justice wou...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi
R.N. Mittal, President: 1. This appeal has been filed by the complainant against the order of the District Forum (DF) dated 1-992 by which his complaint was dismissed. 2. Briefly the facts are that the complainant applied for a flat in 1987 under retired persons category to the DDA and a flat was allotted to him by them in May '89. He had made that application on the basis that he had applied for voluntary retirement. In December '87 his application was rejected by the government. After the rejection of the application he did not remain eligible for allotment of the flat. 3. However, he was allocated a flat in 1989. He had deposited the price of the flat in instalments as required. The O.P. after allocation of the flat asked him to furnish retirement certificate which he failed to do. Consequently his allotment was cancelled. It is stated by him that he is entitled to interest on the amount deposited by him with the DDA. 4. The complaint was contested by the O.P. They inter alia pleade...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : 2001(59)DRJ193
ORDERM. Jagannadha Rao, C.J. 1. This appeal is preferred by the appellant Canara Bank against the judgment and decree passed by the learned trial Judge on 12th January, 1994 in the Suit No. 3025/90. The limited point urged before us is with regard to the refusal of the learned trial Judge to award pendente lite interest from the date of the plaint till the date of the decree. The learned Judge no doubt granted interest at 16.5% from the date of the decree i.e. 12th January, 1994 till the date of payment. This refusal to grant the interest from October, 1990 till 12th January, 1994 is the subject matter of this appeal. 2. The judgment of the learned trial Judge shows that the decree was passed under Order 20, Rule 11 CPC and while refusing to grant interest pendente lite the learned Trial Judge stated that he was bearing in mind Section 34 CPC as well as Order 20, Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure. He clearly held that the interests of the justice would be met if simple interest on...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : 1994IIIAD(Delhi)1520; 1994(3)Crimes333; 56(1994)DLT531; 1994(31)DRJ252; 1994RLR482
Dalveer Bhandari, J. (1) This petition under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed for quashing the order of respondent No.3, Deputy Commissioner of Police dated 1st December, 1987. The order reads as under : 'THE order issued under Section 33 Delhi Police Act 1970, vide order No.37011-50/s.o./DCP/N., dated 6.10.87, against dispute over property plot No.20, In block No.24, Shakti Nagar, Delhi between Sh. Partap Singh s/o Kanwar Singh r/o 25/103, Shakti Nagar, Delhi and Gobind Singh s/o Man Singh r/o 1/1, Roop Nagar, P.S.R. Ara, Delhi. Enquiry has been conducted by ACP/S. Mandi, and finding report in favor of Partap Singh s/o Kanwar Singh. SHO/R Ara will lift the seal and the possession of the plot No.20, in Block No. 24, Shakti Nagar, Delhi be given to Sh. Partap Singh. Order of sealing passed earlier is cancelled, hence forth.'(2) This order was passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Police under Section 3...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in : (1995)LC550Tri(Delhi)
1. This is an appeal by M/s. Continental Car Scanning Centre against the Order No. 81/90 dated 20/21-6-1990 passed by Additional Collector of Customs, New Delhi holding that the goods imported by them namely Automatic Reprogrammable Industrial Robot for Car Washing, Model 46835 is classifiable under Tariff Heading 8479.89 as against 8424.89 claimed by them. He had, however, dropped the charge raised in the show cause notice issued to them that the said import was not permissible under the Import Trade Control Provisions and that they had also mis-declared the goods.2. Shri Rakesh Tikku, learned advocate appeared for the appellants. He submitted that the Additional Collector fell in error in deciding the classification in the manner he did, rejecting their contention, as the Heading 8479.89 is residual in nature and would not be applicable where the goods fall under a specific Heading. The classification claimed by them is specific in that manner. The Explanatory Notes under Harmonised...
Tag this Judgment!