Delhi Court April 1995 Judgments

Ex-risaldar and Hony. Capt. Bijai Singh Sardar Bahadur, Obi (Deceased) ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 1995IIAD(Delhi)485; 1995(34)DRJ261

Anil Dev Singh, J. 1. This writ petition was filed by Ex.Risaldar and Hony.Captain Bijai Singh for securing military pension Along with adhoc increases in the pension sanctioned by the Government of India from time to time i.e. w.e.f 1.9.69,1.3.73, 1.8.73 and 1.1.74. Besides he prayed for the arrears of pension and grant of O.B.I. allowance with effect from 1.4.73.2. This petition was filed in 1976 but before it could be heard and disposed of Bijai Singh did not survive to see the outcome of his petition. He died on April 10,1982. This petition is being continued by his legal heir, Umed Singh, who was brought on record on September 19, 1984.3. The facts giving rise to this petition are as follows:4. On July 15, 1912 the deceased petitioner was enrolled as an active military personnel in 27 Cavalry division. Later 27 Cavalry was amalgamated with 16 Cavalry. In the year 1915, he was sent to Basra(Iraq) with 16th Cavalry and participated in the first world war. In 1923 the deceased petiti...

Anand Parvat Residents Association (Regd.) Vs. Ramjas Foundation

Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi

A.P. Chowdhri, President: 1. This revision is directed against the order of District Forum-I dated 18.8.94. Brief facts necessary for the disposal of this petition are that on a complaint, filed by Anand Parvat Residents Association, the District Forum issued certain directions by Order dated 6.2.92. These were in regard to supplying of water to the complainants and levy of charges for the use thereof, apart from keeping the water supply lines and tanks etc., in clean and hygienic condition. Both the parties to the dispute filed appeal against those directions but the same were dismissed. By orders passed from time to time, efforts were made by the District Forum to implement the aforesaid directions given in order dated 6.2.92. One such order is dated 14.7.93 in which the District Forum reiterated the directions referred to above and further directed that the same shall be implemented within a period of three months, on pain of a punitive action. Various suggestions to implement the a...

Friends Wire Industries Vs. Collector of Central Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1995)(80)ELT219TriDel

1. This appeal by M/s. Friends Wire Industries is against order in original No. 48-CE/ADC/90, dated 4-1-1991 passed by Additional Collector of Central Excise denying them Modvat credit of Rs. 1,11,153.49 and directing them to pay the said sum from their PLA or in cash. In addition a penalty of Rs. 25000/- was also imposed on them under Rule 173Q of Central Excise Rules, 1944 for wrongful availment of Modvat credit. The wrongful availment of credit was alleged and adjudged on the ground that they had declared enamelled copper wire as their final product for payment of duty on which they had taken Modvat credit whereas they had utilised the said credit for payment of duty on copper wires which had not been declared as a final product by them.The availment of credit was during the period January 1990 to June 1990 and the show cause notice was dated 11-7-1990. The Additional Collector while passing the impugned order also held that since the inputs which had been used in the manufacture o...

Collector of Central Excise Vs. Multi Metals Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1995)LC351Tri(Delhi)

1. This is an appeal by Revenue against the order in appeal No.62-CE/JPR/90, dated 24-5-1990 passed by Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), New Delhi whereby he had allowed the appeal filed before him by M/s. Multi Metals Limited, who are respondents herein and set aside the order passed by Assistant Collector, Central Excise, Kota holding that they had been issued no notice for recovery of duty on account of reversal of credit taken in their R.G. 23A Part I account within six months under Section 11A and hence the Assistant Collector was not the competent authority to adjudicate the case. He, therefore, set aside his order and remanded the case for de novo adjudication by the competent authority under Section 11A of Central Excises & Salt Act, 1944, if considered warranted and necessary.2. In the appeal it has been urged that the impugned order in appeal passed by the Collector (Appeals) is not based on the correct application of the facts of the case and is misconceived. It ha...

Sarju Pershad Vs. State and Others

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 1995CriLJ4213

ORDER1. The petitioner was convicted under Sections 279, 338, I.P.C. by Shri M. A. Khan, Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Delhi vide judgment dated 17th July, 1980. He was sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for one month and to pay a fine of Rs. 200/- under Section 279, I.P.C. or in default to suffer further simple imprisonment for 15 days and under Section 338, I.P.C. was sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for four months and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- or in default to undergo further simple imprisonment for one month. Conviction and sentence were challenged by the petitioner by way of filing an appeal which was however dismissed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Delhi vide judgment dated 12th September, 1980. Aggrieved by the impugned judgment the petitioner has preferred this revision before this court. 2. It is well settled that normally the jurisdiction of this court under Section 401, Cr.P.C. is to be exercised only in exceptional cases when there is a glaring defect in the...

JaIn Exports (P) Ltd. Vs. Tipson Cycle Industries and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 59(1995)DLT16

Jaspal Singh, J.(1) On March 10, 1981 the plaint was registered as a suit. More than fourteen years have passed by since then and written statement is yet to be filed. Why this delay? The Explanationn is (if at all it can be called one) that there was an application under Order 6 Rule 5 and under Order 7 Rule 14 of the Code of Civil Procedure (I.A. 176/82) calling for better particulars and some documents. It came in the way and what is more unfortunate is that it has still not been disposed of. As if it was not enough it was followed by yet another application by the defendant bearing I.A. 3967/92 calling for the dismissal of the suit. Dismissal was sought on the ground that orders passed in respect of application under Order 6 Rule 5 had not been complied with. Let me first refer to those orders. The first is of September 3, 1985. It was passed by the Joint Registrar on the Original side. It reads :- 'ANapplication (I. A. No. 176/82) was filed by the defendants under Order 7 Rule 1, ...

Jethu Ram Rice Mill Vs. Ashok Kumar Verma and anr.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 1995IIAD(Delhi)326; 58(1995)DLT628; 1995(33)DRJ309; (1995)111PLR13; 1995RLR370

D.K. Jain, J.(1) This appeal under Section 10 of the Delhi High Court Act is directed against the order of the learned Single Judge dated 6 February 1995, whereby the objection of the appellant regarding the maintainability of respondent's application under Order 33 Civil Procedure Code has been rejected. (2) The respondent herein filed on 17 July 1986 an application under Order 33 Rule 1 Cpc, for permission to sue as an indigent person. Plaint was annexed with the application. The same was returned by the Registry the following day with the endorsement 'petition is not presented in person by petitioner before Joint Registrar(O)'. On 7 August 1986, the petitioner in person presented the same before the Deputy Registrar. The petition was placed before the Registrar on 18 August 1986 who directed notice in the application to be issued to the respondents, the appellant herein being one of them. The appellant filed reply and raised objections to the maintainability of the application, in m...

Kanshi Ram Vs. Om Parkash Jawal and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 58(1995)DLT575; (1995)111PLR4

Mr. M.K. Sharma, J.1. This appeal by the defendant No. 1 has been preferred against the judgment and decree dated 24.2.1972 passed by Shri B.B. Gupta, Commercial Sub-Judge, Delhi, in Suit No. 111/1970 decreeing the suit filed by the plaintiff for specific performance of contract entered into between the plaintiff and the defendant No. 1.2. The aforesaid suit being suit No. 111/ 1990 was filed by the plaintiff, (respondent No. 1 herein) stating inter alias that defendant No. 1 is the owner of the property detailed in para 1 of the plaint and that on 7.4.1969 the defendant No. 1 entered into an agreement to sell the suit property in dispute to the plaintiff for a sum of Rs.16,000/- out of which Rs.1,500/- were paid towards part payment of sale price and the balance price was to be paid before the Sub-Registrar at the time of registration of the sale deed. It was further stated that the defendant No. 1 was to execute the sale deed within 15 days on receipt of permission of the Land and De...

Capt. K.C. Saigal Vs. Income-tax Officer

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi

Reported in: (1995)54ITD488(Delhi)

1. The assessee is in appeal against the order of CIT(A)-XVII, New Delhi dated 6-6-1994 mainly on the ground of disallowance of the claim for deduction of Rs. 14,74,272 under Section 80-O of the Income-tax Act.2. The assessee filed the return of income on 30-10-1992 declaring nil income. The case was processed under Section 143(1 )(d) on 19-2-1993 and it was selected for scrutiny to vouch-safe the correctness of claim of deduction under Section 80-O to the extent of Rs. 14,74,262. A notice was issued under Section 143(2) and the assessee filed information/details and documents like copies of agreements etc. The Assessing Officer observed that the assessee was carrying on brokerage activites under the name and style of M/s. Interocean Company, 75 Link Road, New Delhi and that the assessee was a ship broker of the foreign ship-owners/ship charteres and received a specified commission @ 1.25% out of the hire charges remitted by the Indian clients to foreign ship-owners/charterers in acco...

Bharat Hotels Ltd. Vs. Deputy Commissioner of

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi

Reported in: (1995)53ITD450(Delhi)

1. Appellant is a company and its appeal for assessment year 1987-88, for which the previous year ended on 31-12-1986, is directed against the order dated 7-9-1994 of CIT (Appeals)-XV, New Delhi. The dispute is relating to assessment of Rs. 10.28 crores assessed as income of the assessee out of the receipts shown as deposits from the sub-licensees.2. Assessee had filed the return of income on 13-4-1988 declaring income of Rs. 36,350. The assessment was originally made on 30-3-1990 at an income of Rs. 8,65,57,166. A sum of Rs. 8,63,37,963 was included in the assessed income as profits from transferring the right to use space in the shopping-cum-commercial building known as World Trade Centre (hereinafter called as WTC). The Assessing Officer held that the so-called shop deposits were the revenue receipts of the assessee for the year under appeal as WTC was completed during the year and the space was allotted to the users. For computing the income of the assessee in respect of this sour...