Delhi Court March 1995 Judgments

Delhi High Court Bar Association and Another, Etc. Vs. Union of India ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 1995IAD(Delhi)1238; AIR1995Delhi323; II(1995)BC42; [1998]92CompCas849(Delhi)

ORDERD. P. Wadhwa, J.1. The petitioners have challenged the constitutional validity of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 (for short 'the Act') on the ground that the Act is unreasonable and is vocative of Art. 14 of the Constitution and that it is beyond the legislative competence of the Parliament to enact such a law. The petitioners have also challenged the appointment of the thirdrespondent as the Debts Recovery Tribunal under S. 5 of the Act. The immediate cause for filing this petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution was the notification dated 5 July, 1994 issued by the Central Government in the Ministry of Finance, Department of Economic Affairs, Banking Division, whereby, under S. 3 of the Act, Debts Recovery Tribunal, with the areas of jurisdiction as Delhi was established. It is alleged that the appointment of the third respondent is an exercise of fraud on the powers conferred on the Central Government under the Act.2. This petition wa...

Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. J.K. Synthetics Ltd.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: [1995]215ITR593(Delhi)

ORDERDr. M.K. Sharma, J.1. By this application filed under s. 256(2) of the IT Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), the Revenue seeks to have the following questions stated to be questions of law, referred to this Court, for its opinion : 1. Whether the Tribunal was right in law on facts in holding that 50% depreciation is admissible to the assessed on machinery installed at the premises of J.K. Cotton Spg. & Weaving Mills 2. Whether the Tribunal was right in law on facts and in circumstances in confirming the deletion of disallowance of Rs. 3,24,547 on account of interest and insurance on funds invested in the purchase of machinery installed at the premises of J.K.C.N. & F.P.L. 3. Whether the Tribunal was right in law on facts in directing the ITO to exclude the cash allowance from perquisites while considering the disallowance under s. 40A(5) 4. Whether the Tribunal was right in law on facts and in circumstances in allowing the liability on account of additional excise ...

Subash Chander Vs. Union of India and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 1995IAD(Delhi)1305; 59(1995)DLT449; 1995(33)DRJ64; 1995LabIC397

Anil Dev Singh, J.(1) While addressing the arguments on the application Cm 3400 of 1994 the learned counsel for the parties covered the entire gamut of controversy raised in the writ petition. Learned counsel for the parties agreed that the writ petition be disposed of instead of merely disposing of the application. Accordingly I proceed to dispose of the writ petition.(2) The petitioner was enrolled as a sepoy in the army on March 19,1982. At the time of his entry in the army no note of any disease was made, though his medical examination was conducted. It is stated in the petition that the petitioner performed his duties as per the following details: 1)MARCH1982 to February 1983 - He successfully completed the basic training and was posted to 10 Grenadiers. During this period he took active part in Athletics. 2)In February 1983 the petitioner joined his unit at Hyderabad and from February 1983 to May 1983 he took active part in sports. He secured first position in cross country runni...

Hori Lal Vs. State of Nct of Delhi

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 58(1995)DLT673; 1995(33)DRJ52

Vijender Jain, J. (1) This order will dispose of appeal filed by the appellant against the judgment and order of conviction and fine passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge dated 12.4.1994. (2) MR.J.S.ATTRI, learned counsel for the appellant, has argued that there was material contradiction in the statements of prosecution evidence. Secondly provisions of Section 52 and 55 of the Narcotic Drugs Psychotropic Substances Act (in short 'NDPS Act') were not followed. Thirdly the alleged independent witness was not brought in the witness box and the report of Cfsl is defective. (3) Elaborating his submissions, the learned counsel for the appellant has argued that PW-7 has stated in his evidence that the accused was taken to Sant Nagar whereas PW-6 has stated that Shri Hori Lal, appellant, was brought to the Police Station. Another contradiction pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellant is that PW-4 has narrated that raiding party consisted of six Police officials and one publi...

J.K. Industries Vs. Collector of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1995)(79)ELT335TriDel

1. The issue in this appeal is whether the appellant had correctly taken Modvat credit on the Retarder used by it in the processing of Rubber. The appellant filed a declaration, as required under Rule 57G of the Central Excise Rules on 8th March, 1986. In this declaration, it listed a large number of items specifically but retarder is not included in the specific list. The specific items were headed by a mere general declaration "Rubber processing chemicals and others", shown to be falling under Chapters 38 and 39. The credit was taken on the retarder on 21st August, 1986. Subsequently the appellant filed specific declaration for the product on 22nd August, 1986.2. The Addl. Collector of Central Excise has held that credit was not correctly taken and disallowed the credit on the ground that when it was taken the product had not specifically figured in the 57G declaration.3. It is the argument of Shri T. Ramesh, Advocate, for the appellant that the commodity is a rubber processing chem...

Hakeem Abdul Rahiman @ Abdul Kareem Vs. Union of India

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 1995CriLJ2856; 58(1995)DLT844; 1995(33)DRJ234

M.J. Rao, C.J.(1) The detenu is detained in the State of Kerala. The detention order is passed by the State of Kerala. It is true that Section 9 declaration has been made by the Union of India in Delhi and it is also true that Section 11 representation has been rejected in Delhi. The position is that both the High Courts of Kerala and Delhi have jurisdiction to entertain this writ petition. But the question is whether we should admit the writ petition here in Delhi and drive the State of Kerala to defend this case at Delhi. On this very question there is a Division Bench Judgment of this Court reported as Mambram Valiyatu Kammu @ Kammu vs. Union of India & Others 1991 (1) Delhi 161 wherein the Division Bench has given very good reasons as to why the petition should be returned to the petitioner for presentation in the High Court of Kerala. The Division bench Judgment also related to a detention by the State of Kerala and where a writ petition was sought to be filed in this Court. The o...

Stephen Joshus and anr. Vs. J.D. Kapoor

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 1995IAD(Delhi)1361; 58(1995)DLT57; 1995(33)DRJ258

Devinder Gupta, J.(1) The petitioners are Indian Christians and were married to each other on 25th August, 1973 under the provisions of the Indian Christian Marriage Act, 1872. A joint petition was preferred by them under Section 28 of the Special Marriage Act, 1954 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') seeking the dissolution of marriage by a decree of divorce by mutual consent. Petition was dismissed on 5.10.1991 by Shri J.D. Kapur, Additional District Judge, Delhi. One of the grounds for dismissal was that the marriage was solemnised under the Christian Marriage Act whereas divorce had been sought under the Special Marriage Act, thereforee, the petition was not maintainable. Petitioners have questioned the decision in this petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India and under Section 39 of the Act. (2) I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners. (3) The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners has been that Special Marriage Act, 1954 is a pi...

O.K. Bhalla Vs. Kamla Chopra

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 58(1995)DLT436

Arun Kumar, J.(1) The Counsel for the petitioner has challenged the impugned order dated 2.4.1993 whereby the Additional Rent Controller refused leave to contest the eviction petition and passed an eviction order against the petitioner. The first point of attack was regarding the finding of the Additional Rent Controller on the question of ownership of the respondent landlady. On this aspect, I do not find any infirmity in the order of the Additional RentController. However, the second question regarding personal bona fide need of the petitioner raises a triable issue particularly in view of the fact that the respondent landlady is admittedly residing in the Kucha Natwan property which was owned by her father. In the eviction petition, it is not disputed that she is an heir to herfather. However, the case set up is that it was the wish of her father that the property should go to his two sons alone. On this aspect of the case, the learned Additional Rent Controller has observed that 'T...

Kesho Ram Vs. Ramesh Kumar

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 1995IIIAD(Delhi)465; 1995(33)DRJ293

Arun kumar, J.(1) This revision petition under Section 25B(8) of the Delhi Rent Control Act (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') is directed against the judgment of the Additional Rent Controller dated 28th July, 1987 whereby the petition filed by the petitioner landlord under clause (e) to proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 14 read with Section 25B of the Act was dismissed. This revision was allowed by this Court vide judgment dated 9th August, 1990. However, the respondent tenant took the matter to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court remanded the case to this Court. The grievance of the tenant before the Supreme Court was that the subsequent events pleaded by the landlord had been taken into consideration by the High Court in its judgment dated 9th August, 1990 without formal proof thereof. The Supreme Court observed in its judgment dated 30th September, 1991 that 'It will be for the High Court to decide whether, having regard to the nature of the subsequent facts, it will be n...

Mahabir Parshad Goyal Vs. the New India Assurance Co. Ltd. and Another

Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi

R.N. Mittal, President: 1. Briefly, the facts are that the complainant is the owner of truck bearing No. AS-01 /4697. He got it insured with New India Assurance Co. Ltd., opposite party No.1 (OP-1) on 31.1.92 for an amount of Rs. 3 lacs. The Instalment Supply Ltd., opposite party No. 2 (OP-2), is the financier of the truck. It met with an accident on 16.4.92, in which it was badly damaged. The complainant filed a claim with OP-1 which was not accepted by them. Consequently, the complainant filed a complaint with the Commission for recovery of the price of the vehicle and damages. 2. The complaint has been contested by the OP. It has been inter-alia pleaded by them that the driver of the truck did not hold a valid licence and consequently, they were not liable to pay the insured amount and damages. 3. The main question that arises for determination is, whether Satyawan driver of the truck held a valid licence on the date of accident. The agent of the complainant has argued that the orig...