Delhi Court March 1995 Judgments

Cholamandalam Investment and Finance Co. Ltd. Vs. Cec Ltd. and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 1995(34)DRJ379

R.C. Lahoti, J.(1) This order disposes of several applications filed by the decree holder and judgment debtors during execution proceedings. (2) The High Court of Madras in exercise of its Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction passed a money decree dated 28th June, 1991 based on a compromise. The three judgment debtors who are respectively a Company, its Managing Director and Director were directed to pay the decretal amount in Installments. The decree having not been honoured, the decree holder took out execution. By transfer certificate dated 24.2.92, the decree accompanied by a certificate of non-satisfaction at Madras has been transferred for execution to Delhi High Court (Original Side). Yet again the decree accompanied by transfer certificate and certificate of non-satisfaction at Madras has been transferred to Punjab High Court for execution on its Original Side(3) Ea 282/94 and 283/94 have been filed by the Company (Judgment Debtor No.1) raising objections to the maintainability...

Nabha Investment Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Harmishan Dass Lukhmi Dass

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 1995IAD(Delhi)1411; 58(1995)DLT285; 1995(33)DRJ496

R.C. Lahoti, J.(1) This order proposes to dispose of an application under Order 7 Rule 11 (d) of the Civil Procedure Code filed by defendant No.4 and seeking rejection of plaint filed by the plaintiff. (2) The facts as set out in the plaint may briefly be noticed. The plaintiff, a private limited company owned 86469 equity shares of ten rupees each in M/s. Hmm Ltd, the defendant No.3. In April, 1982 the plaintiff borrowed a sum of Rs. 14 lakhs from defendant No.1 on pledge of the said equity shares. The pledged share certificates were accompanied by blank transfer deeds. In August, 1992, fresh blank transfer deeds were signed by an authorised signatory of the plaintiff and delivered to defendant No.1. In November, 1982, on a request made by defendant No.1, they being in dire need of money, were allowed to pledge the shares only as security with State Bank of India, the defendant No.2. It was specifically understood that the defendant No.1 would utilise the transfer forms only for the p...

Keshav Das and ors. Vs. Prem Nath

Court: Delhi

Reported in: AIR1996Delhi47

C.M. Nayar, J.(1) The present second appeal arises out of the judgment dated 23.4.76, passed by Shri S.R. Goel, A.D.J. Delhi. The learned Judge affirmed the findings of the trial court as recorded in the judgment dated 28.4.75 in Suit No. 142/75. (2) The respondents filed a suit for possession and for recovery of Rs. 380.00 on the allegations that they were owners of property No. 703, Ward No. B, Kundewalan, Delhi. (3) The property was taken on rent by Bal Kishan by means of a rent note dated 24.3.58 w.e f. 16.3.58 for a period of eleven months expiring on 15.2.59, that from 16.2.59 Bal Kishan became a statutory tenant and was protected by the Rent Control legislation in force in Delhi. Bal Kishan died on 30.1.69 and on his death the tenancy came to an end. The decessed Bal Kishan left behind his widow Ram Kali and sons, who are appellants 1 to 4 and are in possession of the suit premises. The respondents further contended that the said legal heirs of Bal Kishan have no right to contin...

D.P. Bhalla Vs. Cement Corporation of India Ltd.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 1995IAD(Delhi)1425; 58(1995)DLT188

R.C. Lahoti, J. 1. This suit for recovery of money and a decree of declaration, valued at Rs, 1,09,218.50 for the purpose of Court fee and jurisdiction was filed in Delhi High Court (Original Side) on 20.12.1985 in accordance with the pecuniary jurisdiction conferred on this Court by Section 5(2) of the Delhi High Court Act, 1966. 2. Section 5(2) of the Delhi High Court Act, 1966, conferred ordinary original civil jurisdiction on the High Court of Delhi in every suit the value of which exceeds Rs 1 lakh. The Delhi High Court (Amendment) Act, 1991 which came into force on 9-11-92 substituted the words Rs. 5 lakhs in place of Rs. 1 lakhs in Section 5(2) of Delhi High Court Act, 1966 and thereby raised the minimum value of pecuniary jurisdiction of Delhi High Court ( Original Side). Section 4 of the Amendment Act which made provision for the transfer of pending suits and proceedings from the High Court to Subordinate Courts conferred power on the Chief Justice in the following terms. '4. ...

Ajai Kumar Sah Jagati Vs. Income-tax Officer.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: [1995]55ITD348(Delhi)

ORDERPer Vimal Gandhi, J. M. - This appeal by the assessed for the assessment year 1989-90 is directed against order of CIT (A) confirming addition of Rs. 4,45,000 under the head long term capital gain.2. The facts of the case are that assessed entered into an agreement to sell 7,000 sq. meters of vacant land to M/s. Kumaon Constructions, Nainital for a total sum of Rs. 25,00,000. The agreement was registered with Sub-Registrar, Nainital on 26-4-1988 and a sum of Rs. 2,00,000 was received as advance. In the period relevant to assessment year under consideration, assessed transferred 24 plots to different persons (which according to the Assessing Officer were nominees of M/s. Kumaon Construction company) for total consideration of Rs. 15,20,900 (inclusive of Rs. 2 lacs received as advance). The assessed did not return any capital gain as a sum of Rs. 15,00,000 out of sale consideration was invested in IDBI Bonds. There is no dispute on this investment of Rs. 15,00,000 and the exemption ...

Usha (India) Ltd. Vs. Manjul Kishore

Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi

R.N. Mittal, President: 1. This appeal has been filed by the opposite party (OP) against the order of the District Forum (D.F.) dated 9th March, 1994 by which they have been directed to refund Rs. 20,000/- with interest @15% p.a. from the date of receipt of the money till the date of payment. 2. Briefly, the facts are that the complainant was allotted 200, 14% fully convertible debentures of Rs. 100/- each on rights basis by the Opp. Party She paid the amount of Rs. 20,000/- as required by them. It is alleged that she has not been paid the interest on the debentures since its inception. It is further pleaded that she had also not been given the dividend on the shares received by her on conversion of the debentures. Consequently, she filed a complaint before the District Forum. 3. The opposite party was proceeded against ex-parte. The District Forum, after hearing the complaint, passed the order as mentioned above. The Opp. Party has come up in appeal against the said order to the Commi...

Amulya General Trading and Agencies Ltd. Vs. Assistant Commissioner of ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: [1995]55ITD233(Delhi)

ORDERPer Shri Vimal Gandhi, J.M. - These appeals, by the assessed for the assessment year 1986-87, are directed against the orders of CIT (Appeals) dated 5-11-1990 and 25-2-1994. The main ground agitated before us was that the assessments made by ACIT, Company Circle 1(4), New Delhi were without jurisdiction. The above objection was raised in the following circumstances.2. The assessee-company, with its registered office at 316, Essel House, 10 Asaf Ali Road, New Delhi, filed a return declaring a loss of Rs. 52,616 on 30-9-1986 with ITO Company Circle 1(4), New Delhi. Simultaneously the assessed filed a similar return with ITO, Ghaziabad. The Assessing Officer C.C. 1(4) New Delhi made assessment for the year 1986-87 on a total income of Rs. 20,79,226 vide order dated 20-3-1989. The ITO, Ghaziabad also made separate assessment for the same assessment year 1986-87. The assessee, thereforee, took up the plea before the CIT (Appeals) that two assessments for the same assessment year by two...

Ankleshwar Paper Board Mills Vs. Coll. of Central Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1996)(83)ELT87TriDel

1. The issue in this appeal is whether the product manufactured by the appellant is Kraft Paper, as claimed by the appellant as Mill Board by the Collector in her order.The appellant from 1977 onwards, has been filing classification list indicating the product manufactured by them as Mill Board and claimed them accordingly. In April, 1979, the appellant filed a classification list, describing the goods manufactured by them as paper commonly known as Kraft Paper reads as : "All sorts of paper commonly known as Kraft paper including paper and paper board of the type known as Kraft Liner or corrugating medium, of substance equal to or exceeding 65 gms. per square meter in each case, kraft liner paper ranging from 80 to 280 gms containing more than 50% by weight of pulp made from waste paper." This classification list was approved. The appellant also filed a price list on 13-4-1979 describing his product as Kraft Liner Paper.Consequent on the Budget changes in April, 1980, the appellant f...

U.P. State Cement Corpn. Ltd. Vs. Collector of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1995)LC347Tri(Delhi)

1. This appeal is against the Order of the Collector of Central Excise, Allahabad in which he has demanded duty on the clinker which was lost in transit by the appellant company.2. The appellant is a manufacturer of cement. It transported clinker manufactured in its unit at Dalla and Churk to its factory at Chunar.Clinker was ground into cement at the Chunar factory. The authorities found that the entire quantity of clinker despatched from Dalla and Churk did not reach the unit at Chunar and there was a shortage of clinker amounting to 32072.30 M.T.-6%. Accordingly, a show cause notice was issued demanding duty on this quantity of clinker. After considering the reply, and hearing the appellant, the Collector confirmed the demand for duty.3. Shri L.P. Asthana, Advocate for the appellants, says that the shortage of clinker was due to natural causes. The Clinker had to be transported for a distance of about 110 kms over hilly terrain. During such transport, it was subjected to loss by na...

Rainbow Gold Products Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Collr. of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1996)(86)ELT309TriDel

1. This is an appeal against the order dated, 3-8-1993 passed by the Collector-II (Customs & Central Excise), Hyderabad. The appellants, herein, imported various components such as LCD display, Zebra Connectors. Electronic Control Board, Button Cells, plastic housing, metal parts etc. for making Electric Watch Modules of various sizes and filed Bills of Entry in July and September, 1992 and in January and March, 1993 alongwith related invoices for the consignment. The goods have been supplied by M/s. Himali Electronics International, Hongkong.The Department conducted certain investigations during which they obtained copies of export declaration related to the goods supplied under two invoices No. 4149/27-6-1992 and 4188/18-9-1992 which related to the present consignments. These declarations have been given by the supplier to the Governmental authorities at Hongkong as per the requirement of their Import and Export Regulations. Value of the goods declared by the exporter to his Gov...