Delhi Court January 1995 Judgments
Home Cases Delhi 1995 Page 15 of about 158 results (0.021 seconds)Hans Raj Malik Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 57(1995)DLT255; 1995(32)DRJ96
Anil Dev Singh, J. (1) By these three writ petitions, which raise common questions, the petitioners-allotters of corner tenements, of 18C type double. storey quarters of the Ministry of Rehabilitation, Government of India, Lajpat Nagar seek, inter alia, direction to the Union of India and the Land and Development Officer for delivery of possession to them of common toilet for their exclusive use and for execution of supplementary lease deeds in respect of the same in their favor.(2) The brief facts leading to these writ petitions are as under:(3) 3. The Rehabilitation Department of Government of India constructed 18C type double storey quarters at Lajpat Nagar and other places for rehabilitation of displaced persons. 24 blocks were built with each block having 64 quarters, 32 on the ground floor and equal number on the first floor. The flat holders were provided common toilets and bath rooms. It is alleged by the respondents that the various flat owners unauthorisedly occupied certain ...
Tag this Judgment!Jiwan Lal Vs. Gurdial Kaur and ors.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 57(1995)DLT262; 1995RLR162
Arun Kumar, J.(1) This revision petition is directed against the judgment of learned Additional Rent Controller, Delhi dated 20/03/1993. The learned Addl.Rent Controller has passed on order of eviction under Section 14(l)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act for eviction of the respondents from the premises in question. The learned Counsel for the petitioner has assailed the judgment on the followinggrounds:-(a) ownership; (b) purpose of letting; and (c) bona fide requirement.(2) It is submitted that the petitioners have failed to establish that they are the owners of the premises in question. The husband of petitioner No. 1Raghubir Singh Was a lessee with respect to the premises under M/s Kanna Mal Chhanna Mal. The petitioner herein was inducted as a tenant by Kuldip Kaur, daughter of Raghubir Singh, in the year 1969-70.(3) There is a tendency on the part of tenants to deny ownership in cases under Section 14(l)(e). To test the substance of such a plea on the part of the tenants the Court...
Tag this Judgment!Sudhir Kumar Gupta Vs. Varshawati Sharma and ors.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1995IAD(Delhi)389; 57(1995)DLT236; 1995(32)DRJ139; 1995RLR94
Arun Kumar, J.(1) The petitioner filed a petition under section 14(l)(e) read with section 25B of the Delhi Rent Control Act for eviction of the respondents. Mr. Jagan Nath Sharma was the original tenant with respect to the premises in dispute. According to the petitioner the tenancy of Jagan Nath Sharma was terminated vide notice dated 5.3.1984. Jagan Nath Sharma died on 16.8.1985. The present petition was filed in March 1988. At the outset it was pointed out by the counsel for the respondents that Dharam Dev @ Pappi, respondent No.3 in the petition died about three months back. It is not disputed that. the said Dharam Dev died unmarried and did not leave behind any heir of his own. In these circumstances the learned counsel for the petitioner made a statement at the Bar giving up the said respondent. (2) The learned Additional Rent Controller dismissed the petition vide impugned judgment dated 30.10.92 holding that the tenancy of deceased Jagan Nath Sharma had not been terminated dur...
Tag this Judgment!Rakesh Kumar JaIn Vs. Devender Singh Mehta and anr.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 57(1995)DLT135; 1995(32)DRJ207
R.C. Lahoti, J. (1) The plaintiffs have filed this suit for specific performance of contract for sale of a property and in the alternative for recovery of damages. The suit is valued at Rs.4,90,000.00 and a court fee of Rs.7,126.40p has been paid. The suit was filed in the year 1980. Since then it has been vigorously prosecuted and contested. (2) The defendants No. 1 and 2 have been residing in U.K. It is their case in the written statement that they are British passport holders. On 16th July, 1991, the defendant's counsel delivered an information under Order 22 Rule 10 A Civil Procedure Code of Davinder Singh Mehta, the defendant No.1, having expired on 24th May, 1991. No certificate of death was filed. (3) On 29th July, 1991, the counsel for the plaintiff gathered information in the Court, at the time of hearing, that the defendant No.1, Davinder Singh Mehta had died in U.K. Counsel for defendant No.1 was directed by the Court to file the death certificate on or before 28.8.91. That ...
Tag this Judgment!Devinder Singh and anr. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1995IAD(Delhi)597; 58(1995)DLT705
D.P. Wadhwa, J.1. These two Writ Petitions raise common questions inasmuch as in both these petitions there is challenge to grant of Letter of Intent dated 31 March, 1994 issued by the Central Government in the Ministry of Industry in favor of the respondent Vipin Goel for him to establish a sugar unit of the capacity of 2500 TCD (Tonnes cane crush per day) at Chandak in District Bijnor, U.P. Both the petitioners, however, claim their individual right to the Letter of Intent issued, to them, and seek a mandamus for that purpose.2. Under the Industries (Development and Regulation) Act, 1951 (for short 'the I.D. Act') sugar falls under the first schedule and is, thus, a scheduled industry under Clause (i) of Section 3 of the Act. Under Clause (d), industrial undertaking means an undertaking pertaining to a scheduled industry carried on in one or more factories by any person or authority including the Government. Under Section 11 of the Act, a license is required for establishment of a ne...
Tag this Judgment!South India Sugar Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1995)(77)ELT611TriDel
1. M/s. South India Sugars Ltd. have filed this appeal being aggrieved by the Order-in-Appeal passed by the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals). The ld. Collector (Appeals) in his order had held :- "I have considered his plea, but I find that the word, 'complete machinery' has been taken out of context in order to support his claim. The word, 'complete machinery' has to be read with any machinery which is complete in itself and serves the purpose of production or processing of goods upto a certain stage. Otherwise, there will be difficulty in describing 'complete machinery' as per this notification. It is not an incomplete part of the vacuum pan which"has been installed by the appellants. The vacuum pan itself serves the function as stated by the appellants. As per the write up submitted by them, "settled muddy juice is taken out and sent to the vacuum filter for filtration. The filtration obtained thus are taken back to process while the mud is thrown after weighment and is used as...
Tag this Judgment!Super Rubber Enterprises Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Delhi
Reported in: (1995)129CTR(Del)421; [1995]215ITR49(Delhi)
Vijender Jain, J.1. This is a petition filed by the petitioner for quashing the proceedings based on the criminal complaint dated March 11, 1991, filed against the petitioner-firm and its partners, namely, Satish Chawla, B. L. Chawla and Labha Mal Chawla, under sections 276C and 277 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), for the assessment year 1985-86. In the complaint, it is alleged that the assessed is alleged to have willfully attempted to evade tax. Thereafter, on the complaint of the respondent the petitioner and its partners were summoned. The main contention of learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Chawla, is that in view of the provisions of section 245F(2) of the Act, this prosecution is illegal. The provisions of section 245F(2) of the Act are reproduced herein : 'Where an application made under section 245C has been allowed to be proceeded with under section 245D, the Settlement Commission shall, until an order is passed under sub-section (4) ...
Tag this Judgment!Tribhuvan Nath and ors Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1995IAD(Delhi)441; 1995CriLJ1215; 1995(32)DRJ189
P.K. Bahri, J.(1) The appellants namely Tribhuvan Nath @ Raju Pradhan, Sita Ram and Wazir Pradhan have come up in appeal challenging their conviction and sentences imposed on them vide judgment and order dated March 30, 1991 and April 1, 1991 of an Additional Sessions Judge, Delhi. They have been convicted of offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 302 read with Section 149, 395 read with Section 149 and 436- read with Section 149 I.P.C. and have been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year each under Section 147 Indian Penal Code . and for two years each for the offence under Section 148 Indian Penal Code , rigorous imprisonment for five years each for the offence under Section 395/149 Indian Penal Code . with a fine of Rs.2,500.00 each, rigorous imprisonment for five years with a fine of Rs.2,500.00 each for the offence under Section 436/149 Indian Penal Code . and imprisonment for life each for the offence of murder under Section 302/149 Indian Penal Code . with...
Tag this Judgment!Batra Steels Vs. the Commissioner of Sales Tax and ors.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: ILR1995Delhi516
Dalveer Bhandari, J.(1) (ORAL).-THIS petition is filed under article 227 of the Constitution of India against the order dated 7th December, i993, 9th December, 1993 and 15th January, 1994 passed by the learned Appellate Tribunal, Sales Tax in appeal Nos. 886, 887 in the assessment years 1988-89 and in the review petition No. 80193 arising out of appeal Nos. 886-887. Brief facts necessary to dispose of this petition are recapitulated as under :- (2) The proceedings in this case where initiated on 15-5-1992, when the petitioner was called to cause appearance and produce evidence in support of the returns filed. On these dates of hearing, the petitioner did not appear before the Assessing Authority. and thereafter he appeared on 15-6-92 only to get the hearing adjourned as some of the required statutory forms could not be received. The Assessing Authority again on the request of the petitioner adjourned the case and observed that no further opportunity shall be granted. (3) On 18-8-92, th...
Tag this Judgment!Harriet Ezikile and ors. Vs. Municipal Corporation of Delhi and ors.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1995IAD(Delhi)337; 1995(32)DRJ133
Usha Mehra, J. (1) Plaintiffs I and 2 are stated to be the active members of the Methodist Church of India. They have been regularly participating and attending each and every religious function organized by the Methodist Church of India, (defendant No.3 herein), which was established for the advancement of religious and charitable purposes. Defendant No.1 is the Municipal Corporation of Delhi. Defendant No.2 is the competent authority. Defendant No.4 is the Chavan Rishi International Ltd. Defendant No.5 is M/s Cosmos Builders & Promoters Ltd. (2) It is the case of the plaintiffs that defendant No.3 has committed the breach of the express or constructive clauses of the Trust created for public purposes which are of charitable and religious nature. The said defendant has also mis administered the Trust property for their personal gain. Plaintiffs having interest in the affairs of the Trust filed this suit. (3) It is further the case of the plaintiffs that defendant No.3 is possessed of ...
Tag this Judgment!