Delhi Court February 1995 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.
Kanta Bali Vs. Kalawati Devi
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-10-1995
Reported in: 1995IIAD(Delhi)1157; 58(1995)DLT4; 1995(33)DRJ219
Devinder Gupta, J. (1) In this petition preferred under Section 25B(8) of the Delhi Rent Control Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) tenant has challenged an order passed on 6.1.1993 by Shri M.K. Gupta, Additional Rent Controller, Delhi allowing the petition for eviction preferred by the respondent Kalawati Devi under Section 14(1)(e) read with Section 25B of the Act thereby ordering petitioner's eviction from a residential premises. (2) On 22.7.1987 respondents filed a petition seeking petitioner's eviction from the first floor of the premises bearing No. 95, Banarsi Dass Estate, Timarpur, Delhi comprising of three rooms, a kitchen, verandah, bath and latrine. It was alleged that respondent No.1 was the owner landlady. Premises had been let out for residential purpose and the same were required bonafide by her and her family's requirement. She was not having any other residential accommodation available to her within Delhi or anywhere else in India. Details were given by her in p...
D.S. Mehta and ors. Vs. N.D.M.C. and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-10-1995
Reported in: 58(1995)DLT788; (1995)111PLR70
Anil Dev Singh, J. (1) This is a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution against the order of Sub Judge, Delhi dated 5/11/1993 whereby the suit of the petitioners was dismissed on the ground that the Court had no jurisdiction to entertain the same. The facts giving rise to this petition are as under:-(2) The petitioners are the owners of property No. 35, Babar Road, New Delhi.According to the petitioners, the property was being assessed for the purpose of house tax and they were paying tax at the rate of Rs. 8104.00 per annum from the year 1981 to Assessment year 1989-1990. On 23/02/1990 the petitioners received a notice from Assistant Collector, Palika Kendra, Ndmc calling upon their tenant to pay a sum of Rs. 24,946.00 as arrears of house tax up to the period ending 31/03/1990. It is claimed that on receipt of the notice, the petitioners requested the Secretary, Ndmc to furnish the details of the arrears, but they failed to receive any response from it. Thereupon the petitione...
Prem Chand Vs. D.T.C. and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-10-1995
Reported in: 59(1995)DLT502
S.D. Pandit, J. (1) Prem Chand joined the service of the respondent- corporation as a Conductor on 22.6.198. On 12.3.1992, the Checking Party found hi in in possession of excess cash as well as re-selling the used tickets. Consequently, a departmental enquiry was held against him and on the charge against him being found proved, he had been dismissed vide order dated 6.7.1992. Thereafter, he had preferred appeal before the Chairman-cum-Managing Director, but the same has been dismissed and, thereforee, he has filed the present petition. (2) It is contended by the petitioner that the said order of dismissal is contrary to the Office Order No. I issued vide Circular No. ADMI-3(18)/65 dated 3.1.1966. He has also urged that the punishment awarded to him is also grossly excessive and harsh one. According to him, the Enquiry Officer was also not justified in holding that the charge against him was proved. thereforee, in the circumstances, he has come before this Court for quashing the order ...
K.B. Bakaya Vs. Pamela Kumar
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-10-1995
Reported in: 57(1995)DLT791; 1995(33)DRJ167
Devinder Gupta, J. (1) This is tenant's revision against an order passed on 3.2.1994 by Shri, Additional Rent Controller, Delhi allowing respondent's petition for eviction filed under Section 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') ordering petitioner's eviction from a residential premises. (2) On 7th July, 1989 the petition for eviction was filed by the respondent landlady against the petitioner tenant seeking his eviction on the ground that the premises in question comprising 2 bed rooms, one drawing-cum-dining room, two bath rooms, a kitchen, open verandah on front as well as on back, a store and a stair case, on the ground floor in building No. G-59, Lajpat Nagar Iii, New Delhi are required bonafide by her for her residence and for the residence of the members of her family, dependent upon her for the purpose of residence. It was alleged that she was in occupation of two bed rooms, drawing-cum-dining room, a kitchen, two bath rooms in the first...
ishwari Devi Vs. Rallia Ram
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-10-1995
Reported in: 1995IAD(Delhi)1143; 57(1995)DLT781; 1995(33)DRJ237; 1995RLR278
K. Ramamoorthy, J. (1) The tenant, whose petition for leave to defend filed under Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 was dismissed by the learned Additional Rent Controller, is the petitioner in this revision petition. The landlord on 7th of June 1984 filed a suit No. 207/84 for possession under section 14(1)(e) of Delhi Rent Control Act (herein after referred as the 'Act') for personal occupation. (2) The defense by the tenant was the petition was filed within 5 years from the date of purchase which is barred under the Act and that the landlord has not established his bona fide requirement. On 24th of September, 1988 the suit was decreed over ruling the objections of the tenant. The tenant preferred in this Court C.R. 109/89. This Court had that the sale certificate issued by the Competent Authority under the Evacuee Property Act was issued on 7th of January 1984 and, thereforee, the eviction suit filed within 5 years was premature under the provisions of Section 14(6) of the Act. The Civil...
Hari Chand and ors. Vs. D.T.C. and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-10-1995
Reported in: 1995IAD(Delhi)985; 58(1995)DLT751; 1995LabIC1261; (1996)ILLJ197Del
S.D. Pandit, J. 1. All these seventeen petitions are raising common questions. All the petitioners in these seventeen petitions are the employees of Delhi Transport Corporation. Out of these petitioners Shri Ram Dev, petitioner of Petition No. 3723/94 and Ram Kumar, petitioner of Petition No. 3461/94 are working as drivers. Petitioner Mahavir Prasad of Petition No. 124/95, is working as Assistant Fitter whereas remaining petitioners are working as conductors. As the contention raised on behalf of all these petitioners as well as the respondents in all these petitions are similar, all these petitions are being considered and disposed of by this common judgment.2. It is an admitted fact that these petitioners were charge-sheeted by the Officers of Delhi Transport Corporation. They were charge-sheeted by the Depot Manager to which they were attached and disciplinary inquiry was held against each of them and on finding of the Inquiry Officer that they had committed the misconduct, each of ...
Collector of Customs Vs. Travancore Titanium Products
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Feb-09-1995
Reported in: (1995)(78)ELT211TriDel
1. Collector of Customs, Madras has filed an appeal being aggrieved from the order passed by the Collector of Customs (Appeals), Madras.Shri K.K. Jha, ld. SDR is present on behalf of the appellant. He pleaded that the respondent had imported 9 numbers Rupture Disks for explosion flaps to be used in their Sulphuric Acid Plants vide Bill of Entry No. AC 122, dated 6-12-1982 and were duly classified under Heading No. 73.33/40 CT and 68 CET based on the material of manufacture (stainless steel}. Thereafter, the respondent filed refund claim seeking re-classification either under Heading 84.14 or 84.17(1) CT. He pleaded that the assessment made by the adjudicating authority is correct and the appeal filed by the revenue be accepted. Shri Jha referred to exclusion note under Heading 84.61 on page 1378 of the Explanatory Notes on CCCN wherein it is mentioned that Bursting discs (thin discs of artificial plastic material or metal) are used in certain cases as safety devices instead of valves:...
Walchand Nagar Industries Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Feb-09-1995
Reported in: (1995)(79)ELT485TriDel
1. The above appeals arise out of the order dated 24-4-1991 of the Collector of Central Excise, Pune, confirming demand of duty of Rs. 14,69,880/- on 4 milling machines viz. 2 Nos. HB 630 and 2 Nos. VA 50 imported by the appellants in terms of Phased Manufacturing Programme with agreement with M/s. Hitachi Seiki Company of Japan and imposing penalties of Rs. 5 lakhs upon the appellants and Rs. 10,000/- upon Shri Chokor L. Doshi, Managing Director of the company and Rs. 5,000/- upon Shri M. Mohan Das, General Manager of the Cooper Division of the company.2. The facts leading up to the filing of the appeals are briefly as follows: The appellants are a DGTD Unit who obtained approval for a Phased Manufacturing Programme (hereinafter referred to PMP) for the manufacture of machining centres in collaboration with M/s. Hitachi Seiki of Japan. Under Phase-1 of approved PMP, the appellants were permitted to import 10 machining centres (2 pieces each of 5 models proposed to be manufactured VA ...
Sumeru and Sehri Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Feb-09-1995
Reported in: (1995)(77)ELT669TriDel
1. M/s. Sumeru & Sehri, Panchkula has filed an appeal being aggrieved from the order passed by the Collector of Central Excise, New Delhi.The said appeal was received in the registry on 22-11-1994. A stay application duly supported with an affidavit was also presented simultaneously. Shri B.B. Gujral, ld. Advocate appeared. He pleaded that the appellant is manufacturer of tractor parts and is an ancillary to Hindustan Machine Tools, Panchkula. The appellant is claiming the benefit of Notification No. 175/86-C.E., dated 1-3-1986 and the period in dispute is November 1986 to 31-3-1990. The show cause notice is dated 3-12-1991. The Collector has invoked proviso to Section 11A. He pleaded that the extended period of limitation cannot be invoked as the appellant did not conceal anything from the department. He pleaded that earlier adjudicating order was passed by the Collector and the appellant had come in appeal before the Tribunal. A stay application was filed and the Tribunal had ac...
Polservice as Agent of Mr. Wiech Vs. Assistant Commissioner of
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Decided on: Feb-09-1995
Reported in: (1995)53ITD44(Delhi)
1. Since a common point is involved in all these appeals, they can be taken up together and disposed of, for the sake of convenience.2. The assessees herein are all foreign technicians who were employees of M/s Polservice, a Polish company which was carrying out seismic survey and drilling operations in India. These assessees derived income from salary. Apart from salary they were given free boarding and lodging facilities at the site of work by the Oil and Natural Gas Commission, who had engaged M/s Polservice as a contractor to dig oil wells and also to do seismic survey in Indian territory. The perquisite value of the boarding and lodging has been declared by M/s Polservice in the case of employees working for seismic survey. However, the value of free boarding and lodging in the case of drilling crew had not been disclosed. The authorised representative expressed his inability to provide any details regarding the value of free boarding and lodging facilities provided to the drilli...
- ‹ Prev
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 15
- Next ›
- Last »