Delhi Court February 1996 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
Pushpa Wati Vs. Mahendra Kumar and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-29-1996
Reported in: 1996IIAD(Delhi)20; 62(1996)DLT87; 1996RLR213
C.M. Nayar, J.(1) The present petition is directed against the judgment dated September 7, 1987 passed by the Additional Rent Controller, Delhi, rejecting the petition for eviction moved under Section 14(l)(e) of Delhi Rent Control Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act').(2) The brief facts of the case are that the respondents are the tenants in respect of two bed rooms with attached bath room, drawing-cum-dining room, one kitchen and whole verandah in front and rear and one servant quarter with W.C. on the ground floor of the premises bearing No. 25-C(new) 78/48 (Old) Rajdoot Marg, Diplomatic Enclave, New Delhi for residential purpose at the rate of Rs. 550.00 per month. The petitioner contended before the Rent Controller that the suit premises were let out to the respondents for a period of 11 months with effect from December 1, 1965 by a written agreement with an option to the tenants to continue in the premises with the consent of the petitioner for another 11 months on the same...
AlimuddIn Vs. the Registrar Co-operative Societies and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-29-1996
Reported in: 63(1996)DLT655
R.C. Lahoti, J.(1) A short question relating to interpretation of Rule 25(l)(c) Delhi Co-operative Societies Rules, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules') arises for decision in this petition. (2) The petitioner Alimuddin, was a member of Panjatan Cooperative House Building Society Ltd. His membership in the Society has been ceased on the ground that during his membership of the Society, his wife had purchased a plot in one of the unauthorised colonies of Delhi, namely, Zafar Nagar and this act had rendered him disqualified to continue as a member of the Society under Rule 25(3) of the Rules. (3) The facts found by the Registrar, Cooperative Societies and as contained in her order dated 16.8.1991, (Annexure-D), are that one Pyarey Lal had executed a power of attorney in favor of the wife of the petitioner in respect of the said plot and later on she had executed another power of attorney in favor of some other parties for the same plot. The petitioner's defense was that a power o...
P.K. Gupta Vs. Gold Craft Cooperative Group Housing Society Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-29-1996
Reported in: 1996(37)DRJ69
R.C. Lahoti, J.(1) The petitioner was member of a Co-operative Group Housing Society, the respondent No.l. The Society passed a resolution expelling the petitioner from the membership of the Society. The expulsion has been approved by the Registrar of Co-operative Societies. This petition has been filed challenging the order of expulsion passed by the Society and order of approval passed by the Registrar. (2) On behalf of the respondents a preliminary objection to the maintainability of the petition has been raised submitting that the impugned orders being appealable and revisable respectively the High Court would not entertain a petition in exercise of its extraordinary writ jurisdiction, the petitioner having failed to avail an efficacious alternate remedy available to him under the Act. (3) We may notice the relevant provisions of law. 3.1A Co-operative Society is competent to pass a resolution expelling its member in specified circumstances. Section 76 of the Delhi Co-operative Soc...
Garware Paints Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Feb-28-1996
Reported in: (1996)(84)ELT118TriDel
1. This appeal is directed against Order No. 67/89, dated 18-9-1989.Demands of Rs. 4,27,602.74 and Rs. 1,15,360.40 relating to the period June 1971 to March 1973 and April 1973 to February 1974 respectively have been confirmed by the Additional Collector on the ground that the product declared as alkyd resin falling under Tariff Item 15A, as it then existed, was not entitled to the benefit of exemption under Notification No. 122/71.2. None present for the appellants when the matter was called on. The appellants have/however, requested for decision on merits.3. Arguing for the respondent, the DR submits that the product which were declared as alkyd resin was on subsequent enquiry found to be polyester resin and was not eligible to exemption. Since the appellants had misdeclared the product the demand for the larger period was correctly invoked and was not time barred. In this connection he cites the case reported in 1989 (40) E.L.T. 214.5. The period involved in this case runs from Jun...
Heminder Kumari Vs. Assistant Commissioner of
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Decided on: Feb-28-1996
Reported in: (1996)57ITD409(Delhi)
1. The assessee is in appeal against the order of CIT(A)-III, New Delhi dated 17-8-1994 mainly on the ground that the agricultural land sold by the assessee, which is situated in village Dera Mandi, Tehsil Mehrauli, Delhi, is not liable to long term capital gains, as the same does not fall within the definition of "capital assets" given in section 2(14)(iii)(a) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.2. The case was heard on 20-12-1994, 19-1-1995 and 4-4-1995 and lengthy submissions were made by the learned council for the assessee Shri R.Ganeshan and the learned DR, Shri D. D. Goel. At the conclusion of the hearing on 4-4-1995, both the parties also made written submissions.3. The thrust of the arguments and written submissions by the learned counsel is that the land in question, which is situated in village Dera Mandi, is agricultural land. A reference has been made to the provisions of section 2(14)(iii), which are reproduced below for the sake of convenience :- "(14) 'Capital asset' means pro...
Dr. Chanemouga Soundaram C. and Others Vs. All India Institute of Medi ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-28-1996
Reported in: AIR1996Delhi291
ORDERM. Jagannadha Rao, C. J.1. Themain points arising in this writ petition are whether the 33% quota for the MBBS graduates of the All India Institute of Medical Sciences, New Delhi (hereinafter called 'AIIMS') in Post Graduate courses in the same Institute is valid in law or on fact and whether there could also be discipline/department wise quota in Post Graduate courses for the said MBBS students of AIIMS 2. On 3-12-1995 an all-India entrance examination for admission to Post Graduate courses in AIIMS was conducted. Any person who secured 55% in MBBS was eligible to take the examination. The three writ petitioners in this writ petition, who are MBBS graduates from outside AIIMS, appeared for the said examination. They sought admission in Post Graduate courses for the January Session. AIIMS conducts examinations twice in a year for its January and July Sessions in Post Graduate courses. The prospectus was issued in September, 1995 declaring that selection shall be by merit of the ca...
Raj Bahadur Alias Denny and Another Etc. Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-28-1996
Reported in: 1996CriLJ2364
Mohd. Shamim, J. 1. These are two connected appeals bearing Nos. 75/92 and 81/92. thereforee, they are being taken up together as they have been preferred against the same judgment and order dated March 28, 1992 and April 8, 1992. They have arisen under the following circumstances : that in the wake of assassination of late Mrs. Indira Gandhi, Prime Minister of India, on October 31, 1984 riots took place throughout the length and breadth of this contrary on different dates i.e. on November 1, 1984 and November 2, 1984. Despite the promulgation of prohibitory orders under Section 144, Cr.P.C. by the Commissioner of Police, on October 31, 1984 the area of Union Territory of Delhi was also engulfed in the flames of the said riots on November 2, 1984. These was a general animosity and hatred against the Sikh community as the assassins of the late Smt. Indira Gandhi belonged to that community. The Sikhs were thus killed. Their houses and properties were set at flame. There was a general bre...
The East India Hotels Ltd. Vs. Jyoti Private Limited
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-28-1996
Reported in: 1996(36)DRJ706
K. Ramamoorthy, J.1. Suit No. 1808/95 is filed by East India Hotels Limited for the appointment of the arbitrator. Suit No. 622A/95 is filed by Jyoti Private Limited for appointment of the arbitrator. 2. I do not want to deal with an detail the contentions of the parties because the parties have agreed for the appointment of an arbitrator with a difference, Mr. H. L. Tikku, learned counsel appearing in suit No. 1808/95 stated that the arbitration proceedings should be distinct and separate in respect of the two suits while Mr. Rajiv Nayyar, learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the same arbitrator can deal with the subject matter of the two suits. 3. The petitioner in suit No. 1808/95 relies upon the agreement called 'Loan Agreement' dated 8th of August 1980 in and by which Jyoti Private Limited had agreed to pay certain amounts to the petitioner. The petitioner in Suit No. 622A/95 relies upon 'Hotel Operation Agreement' between Jyoti Private Limited and East India Hotels L...
Municipal Corporation of Delhi Vs. Rohtas
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-28-1996
Reported in: 62(1996)DLT524; 1996(37)DRJ389; (1996)IILLJ554Del; (1996)113PLR62
J.K. Mehra, J.(1) In the present case the Management of Mcd is challenging the decision of the Labour Court rendered under Section 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act whereby the Labour Court had taken upon itself in an application under Section 33-C(2) the determination of the dispute relating to conditions of service between the employer and employee and the entitlement of the workman on the basis of law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of Dhirendra Chamoli and Surender Singh. The determination of right is not based on the contract of employment or any prior adjudication and is in the nature of determination which could be undertaken only as a reference of the dispute under the Industrial Disputes Act. Such prior determination or written contract of employment alone give rise to an existing right in favor of the workman and only the benefits flowing there from can be computed under Section 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act. This question has since been sett...
Municipal Corporation of Delhi Vs. Sujan Singh and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-28-1996
Reported in: 62(1996)DLT542
J.K. Mehra, J.(1) In the present case the Management of Mcd is challenging the decision of the Labour Court rendered under Section 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act whereby the Labour Court had taken upon itself in an application under Section 33-C(2) the determination of the dispute relating to conditions of service between the employer and employee and the entitlement of the workman on the basis of law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of Dhirendra Chamoli and Surender Singh. The determination of right is not based on the contract of employment or any prior adjudication and is in the nature of determination which could be undertaken only as a reference of the dispute under the Industrial Disputes Act. Such prior determination or written contract of employment alone give rise to an existing right in favor of the workman and only the benefits flowing there from can be computed under Section 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act. This question has since been sett...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »