Delhi Court March 1995 Judgments

Kirpa Ram Vs. Ramesh Chand

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 1995IIAD(Delhi)557; 1995(33)DRJ482

C.M. Nayar , J.(1) This revision petition is directed against the judgment dated February 4, 1984, passed by the court of Shri T.D.Kashav, Sub Judge, 1st Class, Delhi. The learned judge disposed of an objection raised by the respondent/defendant regarding exhibiting a document dated April 4, 1977 which was filed as an agreement of contract with the list of documents by the petitioner/plaintiff on December 24, 1980. The appellant had given property No. 5307 fitted with flour mill with all its accessories including scales and weights etc. situated at Shora Kothi, Pahar Ganj, New Delhi, to the respondent/tenant Ramesh Chand with a condition that Ramesh Chand will pay a sum of Rs.300.00 per month and will also pay electricity charges directly to the authorities, by virtue of the Agreement as referred to above. The respondent was also to be responsible for all kinds of repair of the flour mill and its engine etc. The contract between the parties, it is alleged, was valid for a period of one...

Mohd. Tahir and ors. Vs. Mohd. Shakir and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 1995IIAD(Delhi)20; 59(1995)DLT6

N.G. Nandi, J.(1) By this application the plaintiffs seek to restrain defendants 6 and 7 from executing any sale deed with regard to the respective shares in the property bearing No. 2217, Naya Mohalla, Gali Qasam Jan, Balli Maran, Delhi and also seek direction to defendant No. 1 to maintain status quo in respect of the suit property till the final disposal of the suit. (2) It is averred in the plaint that the property originally belonged to one Shri Mohd. Ibrahim, who died, leaving Mst. Hazara Bi, Abdul Ghani and Mst. Marium Bi. That Mst. Hazra Bi, one of the heirs of deceased Mohd. lbrahim filed a Suit No. 187/79 for partition of the property by metes and bounds. In that suit it was offerred to the parties to the suit that they must offer bids in the Court itself and the said auction was confined only to the parties to the suit and the predecessor in interest of the plaintiffs and defendants No. 1 to 5, namely Abdul Ghani, made the highest bid of Rs. 4 lakhs. In the said suit it was ...

M/S. Seedheshwari Promotors and Builders (P) Ltd. Vs. Asha Thadani

Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi

R.N. Mittal, President: 1. This order will dispose of Appeal Nos. 421 and 412 of 1994 which arise out of the same judgment of the District Forum-II (D.F) dated 8th July, 1994. The brief facts in the order are being given from A421 of 1994. 2. The Opp. Party (OP) is carrying on the business of selling plots after developing them. They developed a residential area known as Vikrant Vihar in Ghaziabad. The complainant applied for a plot of 500 sq. yards therein. The 40% of the total price was to be paid at the time of booking the plot and the balance was to be paid in 36 monthly interest-free instalments. He was allotted Plot No. B-69 in December, 1988. He, in all paid to them Rs. 43,200/-. It is alleged that the plots have not been developed by the Opp. Party. Consequently, he filed a complaint for damages and refund of the amount. 3. The complaint was contested by the Opp. Party. They inter alia pleaded that there was an agreement between the parties that all the disputes between them wo...

Ram Kumar Aggarwal Vs. National Insurance Co. Ltd.

Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi

R.N. Mittal, President: 1. Briefly, the facts are that the complainant is a practicing Advocate on taxation side. Financial Consultant and Patent and Trade Mark Attorney and has office at 241, (3rd Floor), Fatehpuri, Chandni Chowk, Delhi-110 006 for the last more than 10 years. He got insured the assets of his office from the Opposite Party vide policy dated 10.2.92 for one year i.e., from 10.2.92 to 9.2.93 under the burglary policy. He also obtained money insurance policy from 10.2.92 to 9.2.93 from them. Both the policies were got renewed by him w.e.f. 10.2.93 for one year. 2. On the night intervening 8.10.92 and 9.10.92 a burglary took place by breaking the locks in the Office. The matter was reported to the Police on 9.10.92. It is alleged that cash amounting to Rs. 84,549.50 and some other articles were stolen from there. The total loss was of Rs. 1,07,480.50 paise. 3. It is further alleged that the Opposite Party was informed about the burglary who appointed M/s. V.K. Kharbanda a...

Apex Steels (P) Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1995)(80)ELT368TriDel

1. All the above captioned appeals raise a common question, arising from same set of facts and circumstances and hence they are all clubbed for a common hearing and disposal as per law.2. In all these appeals, the appellants have been issued with show cause notice during the year 1990 demanding various amounts of excise duty, and in all the cases mostly for the period from 20-5-1988 to 27-6-1989 in respect of manufacture and clearance of 'CTD bars twisted after hot rolling' (popularly known as "Tor Steel" in trade parlance, without due observance of the provisions of Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 and its Rules, with regard to obtaining licence, filing classification list etc. The Department, as usual, alleging contravention of the provisions of Rules 9(1), 52(A), 53 read with Rule 226, Rules 173B, 173F, 173G, 174 of Central Excise Rules, 1944. The Department has stated that the said goods are classifiable under Chapter sub-heading 7214.90 of Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985; which...

income-tax Officer Vs. Jitender Mehra

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi

Reported in: (1995)53ITD396(Delhi)

Even an ex parte assessment, made under section 144, must conform to rules of justice, equity and good conscience and cannot be arbitrary and capricious. There may be some guess work, but still there should be nexus between material available on record and income taken for assessment--CIT v. Laxminarain Badridas (1937) 5 ITR 170 (PC) followed.1. This appeal by the Revenue for the assessment year 1989-90 is directed against the order of CIT(A), Range-I, New Delhi. The facts of the case, briefly stated, are that the assessee is an individual and in the relevant period derived income from salary and interest on National Savings Certificates. He filed return declaring income of Rs. 11,380 after claiming deduction of Rs. 66,466 which has been duly allowed and there is no dispute on that account. However, in an ex parte assessment Under Section 144 of the Act, the Assessing Officer made additions of Rs. 30,000 and Rs. 20,000 for not explaining deposits Under Section 80CCA and 80CCB respecti...

Mahli Devi Vs. Chander Bhan and Others

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 1995IAD(Delhi)1434; AIR1995Delhi293; 58(1995)DLT162; 1995(33)DRJ121

ORDERArun Kumar, J. 1. The question for consideration by the Full Bench is whether aLetters Patent appeal under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent applicable to this court is maintainable in view of the provisions of Sec. 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). The reference has arisen on the basis of an objection raised by the learned counsel for the respondent questioning the maintainability of the present appeal. Reliance was placed on two judgments of Division Benches of this Court in L.P.A. No. 97 of 1980 (Basant Kumar v. UOI) and L.P.A. 148 of 1988 (Jugti (deceased) through LRs. v. UOI). These judgments are based on a judgment of the Supreme Court dated 30-7-1987 in Civil Appeals No. 1663 to 1668 of 1982 Baljit Singh etc. v. State of Haryana, holding that a Letters Patent appeal is not maintainable against the judgment of a single Judge of the Court. It is noted in the referring order dated 22-8-1994 that the said Supreme Court decision arising in ...

Mrs. Evelyn J. Disney Vs. Rajeshwar Nath Gupta and Others

Court: Delhi

Reported in: AIR1996Delhi86

ORDERD. K. Jain, J.1. This is defendant No. 7's appeal under S. 10 of the Delhi High Court Act, 1966, against the order of the learned single Judge dated 6th May, 1994, dismissing her application under 0.6, R. 17, C.P.C. for amendment of written statement filed on her behalf on 15th November, 1988 in Suit No. 662/1988.2. The learned single Judge, in the impugned order, in brief, narrated the progress in the suit proceedings from the beginning till the filing of the application for amendment and observed that it was manifest there from that the application was moved after five years of the institution of the suit and after the conclusion of arguments by Counsel for the contesting parties and after filing of written arguments by the plaintiff and defendant No. 7. The Court thus, felt that the application for amendment was highly belated and had been moved with a view to delaying the disposal of the case. The application for amendment was thus dismissed in limine.3. The dismissal of the a...

Suraj Bhan Goel Vs. Delhi Development Authority and anr.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 1995(33)DRJ174

N.G. Nandi, J.(1) This is an application under Section 20 of the Indian Arbitration Act, requiring respondent No.1 to file original arbitration agreement and appointment of the arbitrator and reference of the dispute with regard to the delay in completion of work narrated in paragraph 2.(2) In the petition, it has been the say of the petitioner that the petitioner, a partnership firm, M/s. Suraj Bhan Goel, is a government contractor and engineer having its office at WZ-3, Kailash Park, Najafgarh Road, New Delhi. Respondent No.1/DDA invited tender rates for the work of M/O Central Store with Railway siding facilities at G.T.K. Road SH: A/R and M/O Roads. That the petitioner was given the contract for the said work. That the arbitrator was appointed and the parties filed their statements before the arbitrator and that the said proceedings are in progress. That on 29.6.1992, the Director(MM)/SE(Store) of respondent/DDA served a show cause notice No.EE(P)/D- IV/Store/SD-I/F.1(14)87/644 dat...

Primetime Communications and ors. Vs. Prakash Chandra Dwivedi

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 1995(33)DRJ159

Usha Mehra, J.(1) M/S Prime Time Communications, a partnership firm, has sought specific performance and injunction against Shri Prakash Chandra Dwivedi, sole proprietor of M/s Shagun Films, defendant No.1 and others. (2) It is the case of the plaintiff that some where in June,1991, Mr.Sunil V. Khanwalkar, defednant No.3 a close friend of plaintiffs 2 & 3 introduced Mr.Prakash Chandra Dwivedi, defendant No.1 to plaintiff No.1. Defendant No.1 informed them that he was engaged in producing 55 episodes of a Seriall titled 'Chanakya'. It was to be telecast on Indian Doordarshan (National Network). Since Mr.Dwivedi was facing lot of problem like law suits and financial hardship, thereforee, he needed help. Plaintiffs 2 & 3 gave him necessary help and assistance at Delhi in contesting the law suits and also financial help from time to time. On or about 5th September,1991, Mr.Dwivedi told plaintiffs 2 & 3 at New Delhi that as they helped him in his difficult days he, thereforee, wanted to pay...