Delhi Court August 1995 Judgments

Harbans Lal Vs. Jagdeep Singh

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 65(1997)DLT595

Manmohan Sarin, J. (1) The petitioner who is defendant before the Trial Court, has filed this revision petition under Section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code assailing the order dated 7.4.95 passed by Shri Vipin Kumar Gupta, Civil Judge, Delhi, herein referred to as an impugned order. (2) The learned Civil Judge by the impugned order had consolidated a suit for recovery of damages for use and occupation filed by the respondent/plaintiff against petitioner on 4.1.88 with another suit for possession filed by him against the petitioner on the same day. The learned Civil Judge by the impugned order also decided the preliminary objections raised by the petitioner claiming the suit for damages to be barred under Older Ii Rule 2, Civil Procedure Code being a suit subsequently filed as well as the said suit being liable to be stayed under Section 10,C.P.C The learned Civil Judge by the impugned order held that the second suit was neither barred under Order Ii Rule 2 nor liable to be stayed und...

J.N. Bhardwaj Vs. Hindustan Insecticides Ltd.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 59(1995)DLT714

Vijender Jain, J. (1) This is a petition filed by the petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India against the award of the Labour Court dated 13th June, 1989. (2) Mr. Vohra, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner, has assailed the award on the ground that the Labour Court after coming to the conclusion that the termination by discharge of the petitioner was bad for non-compliance of Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act and the said termination amounted to retrenchment, the Labour Court ought to have allowed reinstatement of the petitioner or in lieu of reinstatement ought to have awarded full back wages. In support of his arguments, Mr. Vohra has cited Gammon India Ltd. v. Niranjan Dass, 1984 Ifj 60 and Punjab Land Dent. & Reclamation Corpn. Ltd., Chandigarh etc & Several Ors. v. Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Chandigarh etc. & Several Ors. (2) 1990 Llj 70. What Mr.Vohra has contended before me is that if the Labour Court comes to the conclusion that the act...

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Divya International (P) Ltd. (Al ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: (1996)54TTJ(Del)187

ORDERMANZOOR AHMED BAKSHI, J. M. :These cross appeals, four by the assessed and four by the Revenue, relating to asst. yrs. 1985-86 to 1988-89 are disposed of by this consolidated order. The learned counsel, Shri S. L. Batra, and the learned Departmental Representative, Smt. Surabhi Sinha, have been heard and records perused. assessed is an original promoter of a hotel project known as Bharat Hotels. On 11th March, 1981, Delhi Automobiles P. Ltd. (DAPL), another promoter company had entered into a license agreement with NDMC. On 18th June, 1981, DAPL had entered into an agreement with M/s Bharat Hotels Ltd. (BHL). On 22nd (sic), 1982, there was a direct license deed executed between the BHL and NDMC. On 31st March, 1984, there was a tripartite agreement between DAPL, M/s Divya International P. Ltd. and M/s Diksha Holdings P. Ltd. As per this agreement assessed was to receive 75% booking deposit whereas 25% was received by M/s Diksha Holdings. assessed was, however, required to bear 25%...

Kamlesh Bansal and Others Vs. Balaji Land Traders and Another

Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi

A.P. Chowdhri, President: 1. The appellant, who was complainant before D.F.-I, filed a complaint on 10.8.1993. Notice was issued to the O.P.. The O.P. failed to appear and was proceeded exparte. By order dated 23.3.1994, the case was fixed for exparte evidence and was adjourned from time to time until 6.3.1995. On that date the complainant failed to appear and the complaint was dismissed for default. Application for restoration was made on 29.3.1995 i.e., within 23 days of dismissal for default. The D.F. dismissed the application on the ground that it had no power to restore the complaint which had been dismissed for default. Aggrieved by the order the complainant preferred this appeal. Even though notice in the appeal could not be served for want of correct address of the respondent, we do not deem it necessary to serve the respondent in appeal as the order of dismissal for default was passed without the O.P. having put in appearance. There can be no doubt that whatever may be the pow...

Mangla Trading Co. Vs. Collector of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1996)(81)ELT397TriDel

1. The appellants imported vide the subject bill of entry a consignment of 18 MTs of Thiourea with a declared invoice of US $ 700/MT CIF Madras. The supplier is one M/s. Jovian Creations, Hongkong. However, the goods are of Chinese origin as declared in the bill of entry. A certificate of origin filed alongwith the bill of entry also indicates that the goods are of Chinese origin.2. Based on specific information that the goods are under invoiced/under-declared in value the bill of entry was taken up for investigations. The department obtained a quotation price of US 1580/Mt. CIF as furnished by M/s. Shanghai Chemicals Import & Export Corporation, Shanghai, China. The above quotation price was offered for a quantity of 40 MTs of Thiourea. This piece of evidence lends support to the doubt entertained by the department based on the information received as to the misdeclaration of value.3. During the course of further investigation, the department obtained particulars relating to clea...

Shama Magazine Vs. Collector of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1995)LC50Tri(Delhi)

1. The appellant is the importer and they have challenged the order-in-original dated 5-10-1983 passed by the Collector of Customs, Calcutta. The importer had imported one automatic 2 colour sheet fed off-set printing machine Model No. J 2203A valued at Rs. 4,49,165,40P (CIF) and filed a bill of entry for the clearance of the same. The clearance of the consignment was sought to be made under OGL as in force during the policy period April-March 1983 utilising the benefit of importation during the extended period of shipment as provided under condition (7) of Appendix-10 of the said policy, as the goods were said to have been despatched on 22-4-1983 which falls within the policy period AM '84.2. The department had issued a show-cause notice dated 4th Aug., 1983 alleging contravention of Clause 3(1) of Import (Control) Order, 1955 as amended read with Section 3 of the Imports & Exports (Control) Act, 1947. Hence, the Importer was called upon to show-cause as to why the offending good...

Roop Rani and anr. Vs. Ramesh Chander and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 1996ACJ1173; 61(1996)DLT117; (1996)112PLR27

C.M. Nayar (1) The present appeal is directed against the award dated October 13, 1981 passed by Shri P.R-Thakur, Judge, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Delhi. (2) Ramesh Kumar who was aged about 15 years at the time of accident was son of the appellants. He died in the road accident which took place on October 14,1976 at about 7.15 a.m. at Dina Nath Road within the jurisdiction of Police Station Subzi Mandi. The deceased was sitting on the front rod of the cycle which was being plied by Sat Pal, when truck No. DLL-1555 driven at a fast speed in a reach and negligent manner by respondent No.1 came from the opposite direction and struck against the cycle as a result of which the front wheel of the truck passed over the deceased. Sat Pal had got down from the cycle before the truck struck. The deceased was removed to Hindu Rao Hospital and thereafter to Northern Railway Hospital where he died on October 16,1976. The claim petition was filed by the appellants for the award of Rs. 1,00,00...

Manta Ram Vs. Ram Babu

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 60(1995)DLT386

Jaspal Singh, J.(1) In North Delhi there is a sprawling locality known as Paharganj where there is a place known by the name of Laddoo Ghati. It is interspersed with residential houses as well as commercial establishments. In that Ladoo Ghati is a shop bearing private number 93 Municipal No. 4804. Ram Babu owns that shop. Not long time back he used to sit there and prepare and sell Indian sweet meats. As his business did not flourish he decided to wind it up and to sell away the shop. On June 4,1980 he entered into an agreement of sale of the shop with Manta Ram. The sale consideration was fixed at Rs. 1,25,000.00 out of which a sum of Rs. 5,000.00 in cash was paid towards advance. The sale deed was to be executed by the 5th of July, 1980 on which date he was to receive the balance consideration of Rs. 1,20,000 .00 and to deliver vacant possession of the shop. That shop is now at the center-storm of this suit instituted by Manta Ram against Ram Babu for specific performance of the said...

Kapoor Fabrics Vs. Kamla Marwaha

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 60(1995)DLT175

Arun Kumar, J. (1) The main argument on behalf of the appellant is that the judgment of this Court dated 28th October, 1992 inter parties is not correct. By the said judgment, this Court had remitted the case to the Rent Control Tribunal for issue of a fresh notice to the Land & Development Officer to state the position clearly, as to whether the said office was contemplating any action of re-entry in face of continued misuse or whether they arc willing to condone it for all time to come. The relevant portion of the judgment is reproduced as under : '...THE orders passed by the Add). Rent Controller and confirmed by the Tribunal cannot be faulted with, but it is a fit case that while confirming the orders for the past misuser, the case is remitted to the Rent Control Tribunal for issue of a fresh notice to the L&DO; to state the position clearly, as to whether the said office was contemplating any action of re-entry in face of continued misuse or whether they are willing to condone it ...

West Coast Paper Mills Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1996)LC140Tri(Delhi)

Appellants are manufacturers of wrapper paper, used in the packing of other varieties of paper manufactured and cleared by them. The issue is the determination of the value of such wrapper paper (captively consumed) for purposes of assessment to Central Excise duty. In this case, as there are no comparable goods, approval of price at Rs. 4000/- per M.T. was sought for under Rule (b)(ii) of Valuation Rules, 1975 in respect of price list No. 12/80 effective from 1-7-1980, without including the margin of profit. As the above rate was tentatively claimed by appellants, the Assistant Collector issued a show cause notice dated 16-2-1981 as to why the price List No. 12/80 should not be approved provisionally based on the actual cost of production of the previous year including the margin of profit of the same year under the said Valuation Rule. Since particulars of balance sheet for the year 1980-81 (1-7-1980 to 30-6-1981 - their accounting year) were made available, the Assistant Collector ...