Delhi Court March 1996 Judgments

State Bank of India Vs. Vijay Kumar Tayal and Others

Court: Delhi

Reported in: [1997]89CompCas424(Delhi)

Manmohan Sarin J. 1. By this common order, I would be deciding the question of transfer of suits instituted by banks and financial institutions to the Debt Recovery Tribunal, constituted under 'the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993' (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). 2. By virtue of section 17 of the Act, the Debt Recovery Tribunal has been conferred the jurisdiction to try and entertain an application for the recovery of debts due to banks and financial institutions. An Appellate Tribunal has also been constituted to entertain appeals from orders of the Debt Recovery Tribunal. The jurisdiction of the civil courts has been excluded in relation to matters falling within the jurisdiction of the Tribunal except under articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. Reference may usefully be made to section 31, which deals with transfer of pending cases. Section 31 of the Act is as under : 'Transfer of pending cases. - (1) Every suit or other procee...

N.S. Padmanabhan Vs. Padmini

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 62(1996)DLT533; (1996)113PLR70

J.K. Mehra, J.(1) This is a peculiar case where both husband and wife have been litigating with each other after the relations between them became strained. Both the parties have been litigating for a considerable length of time, levelling allegations against each other of ill treatment etc. The respondent had moved to Pondicherry to stay with her parents, which resulted in the petitioner filing proceedings in the Hon'ble Supreme Court seeking a writ of Habeus Corpus. That matter was concluded upon the respondent appearing before the Supreme Court and slating that she i s staying with her parents of her own free will and that she shall not rejoin her husband. Those proceedings were concluded. The parties reached some kind of settlement. Even that settlement had failed to work. The matter was pending in the matrimonial Court where by the Trial Court had ordered the parties to lead evidence relating to the plea of desertion primarily because even if the affidavit of the respondent filed ...

D.T.T.D.C. Vs. D.R. Mehra and Sons

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 62(1996)DLT234; 1996(37)DRJ183

M. Jagannadha Rao, C.J.(1) The plaintiff is the appellant in Suit No. 1693/95. This appeal is preferred against the order in is 7540 of 1995 and is 7930 of 1995 dated 8.11.1995 vacating the temporary injunction granted earlier on 24.7.95.(2) The facts of the case are as follows: (3) The appellant Corporation wanted to run a liquor shop and gave an advertisement on 16.4.82 inviting tenders from owners of shops for entering into a licence' agreement. The respondent-owners submitted their offers and the said offer was accepted by the appellant on 3.5.82. Thereafter a license deed was executed on 5.5.1982 whereby the appellant agreed to pay certain percentage as compensation with a minimum guarantee of Rs. 6,000.00 p.m. The license was to be up to 31.3.83. It was continued up to 31.3.84. On 1.6.84, appelliant wrote to the owners inquiring if the respondent would allow appellant to continue till 31.3.85. By letter dated 22.11.84, the appellant wrote to respondent that it would increase the ...

Assistant Commissioner of Vs. Chaddha Wine Stores (P.) Ltd.

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi

Reported in: (1996)57ITD507(Delhi)

1. This is a Departmental appeal for assessment year 1988-89 and it arises out of the order of the CIT(A), Bareilly dated 7-9-1990.2. The only point involved in this appeal is whether depreciation on mini truck and car was rightly allowed by the CIT(A). According to the revenue, the learned CIT(A) ought to have followed in Parthas Trust v.CIT [1988] 169 ITR 334 (Ker.) and Kulpaka Tourist Home (P.) Ltd. v. CIT [1988] 172 ITR 364 (Ker.) and ought to have justified the disallowance of depreciation to the assessee on the ground that the assessee is not the owner of the above vehicles and hence not entitled to depreciation.3. We have heard Mrs. Deepali Bahadur, the learned D. R. for the Department and none appeared for the assessee. Though notice through RAPD was sent to the assessee on 15-11-1995 itself for the dated of hearing fixed on 13-12-1995. We treat it that there is sufficient notice to the assessee and the assessee's absence on 13-12-1995 is intentional. We, therefore, proceeded ...

S.L. Associates Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Karnataka Handloom Development

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 1996VAD(Delhi)473; 2(1996)CLT364; 62(1996)DLT386; (1996)113PLR42

S.D. Pandit, J.(1) This is an application filed by the plaintiff M/s. S.L. Associate Pvt. Ltd. under Order 12 Rule 6 CPC. (2) Suit No. 3835/90 is filed by applicant plaintiff to get a decree of eviction and future mean profits. Plaintiff has come before the Court with a case that defendant Kamataka Handloom Development Corporation Ltd. came in possession of their premises described in para I of the plaint as per the terms of the lease agreement dated 7.11.86. After taking the possession of the premises on 8.11.86 they failed to vacate the possession of the same after the efflux of time covered by the said agreertnent. As per the said agreement, they were to vacate the premises on 31.10.89. No doubt, the agreement deed contain a clause that by mutual agreement between both the parties the period of lease could be extended further for period of three years by giving rise in the rent by 10 per cent but the defendant had never moved for extending the said lease beyond three years and the m...

Avtar Singh and Others Vs. New India Assurance Co. Ltd.

Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi

A.P. Chowdhri, President: 1. This is a very unfortunate case. The complainants are Avtar Singh, father, Smt. Jagdish Kaur, widow, and two minor children aged 5 and 3 years. The deceased was Daljit Singh, 27. The case of the complainants is that Avtar Singh was the owner of 1988 model Ambassador Car No. DAQ 3057. He had employed his son Daljit Singh as a paid driver for the said car. He too a comprehensive insurance policy for the ca for the period 22.11.90 to 21.11.90, the insured value being Rs. 1 lac. On payment of additional premium, certain supplementary endorsements had also been obtained in the policy. On 20.5.91, Daljit Singh was reported to have been murdered and the car taken away by the robbers in the area of Bullandshehar in U.P. From the driving licence found in the pocket of the deceased, the police contacted the father of the deceased in Delhi. FIR was lodged by him on 23.5.91 at P.S. Jahangirabad, Uttar Pradesh. The Insurance Company was informed of the incident on 1.11....

Rajinder Kumar Vs. All India Deaf and Dumb Society

Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi

A.P. Chowdhri, President: 1. All India Deaf and Dumb Society (Regd.), arrayed as opposite party in this complaint, appears to have been running a weekly prize lottery under the name of Durga Luxmi is approved by the State Government of Andhra Pradesh. Rajinder Kumar Sachdeva, hereinafter referred to as the complainant, is stated to have purchased lottery ticket DT 182948 for the 102nd draw which was held on 8.7.90. The complainant claimed that as a result of the draw, he claims to have won the first prize. He, accordingly, deposited the ticket in original alongwith three attested photographs and an affidavit on 3.8.90. As payment was to be made subject to verification of the lottery ticket from the printing press, the lottery ticket was referred to the printer namely, Thomson Press (India) Ltd., Faridabad and it was reported that three digits appearing in the number appeared to be forged with the result that the ticket was not found to be genuine. Based on the report of the Press, the...

Union of India Vs. Shri Kishan Gupta

Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi

A.P. Chowdhri, President: 1. Shri Kishan Gupta, hereinafter referred to as the complainant, appears to be carrying on the business of outdoor catering. He received an order for making arrangements in connection with certain function to be held at Ahmed Nagar from 2.12.92 to 3.12.92. He booked some cooking material and utensils by Karnatka Express on 29.11.92. Separately a team of 18 cooks and waiters were sent by train. The aforesaid material and utensils were not delivered at the destination until 29.1.93. The complainant claimed compensation amounting of Rs. 71,167/-. The General Manager, Northern Railway, Baroda House was arrayed as opposite party. The opposite party failed to appear and by an ex-parte order District Forum-I directed the opposite party to pay compensation of Rs. 10,000/ -. Aggrieved by the order, the opposite party has preferred this revision petition. 2. The main contention being that the District Forum had exercised jurisdiction not vested in it. We have heard Mr....

Mr. and Mrs. S.R. Bhanrale Vs. the Union of India and Others

Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi

A.P. Chowdhri, President: 1. The complainant retired as Asstt. Director (General) TP Cell, Department of Telecommunications, Government of India, Sanchar Bhawan New Delhi in July, 1984. He had been receiving his pension through Post Office. The same was being received through Post Master, Aminabagh, Lucknow. The complainant applied to the Post Master, Aminabagh, Lucknow on 10.8.94 for transfer of the Pension Pay Order to the Post Master, Parliament Street, New Delhi. He hoped to get the pension disbursed at New Delhi from 1.9.94. He had been following up his request by writing as well as personally approaching the various persons concerned but to no purpose. The complainant, who is 70 and a man of modest means, had to suffer great hardship set out in necessary detail in the complaint. It was only on 8.6.95, after a period of about 10 months, that the letter reached the Post Office, Parliament Street, New Delhi. The delay constituted deficiency in service on the part of the opposite par...

Kissan Products Ltd. Vs. Collector of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1996)(84)ELT335TriDel

1. In this appeal, the appellants are aggrieved with the order of the Collector (Appeals) dated 6-3-1987. The ld. adjudicating authority have classified the crushed fruits under sub-heading 0801.10 of the Central Excise Tariff and has also granted the benefit of the Notification No.33/83 dated 1-3-1983 in so far as the goods are utilised for captive consumption are concerned. However, it has been held that of the impugned goods are sold to consumers then the benefit of the notification would not be available to the appellants. The appellants are contesting the order on the following ground: (i) that the crushed fruits which have been administered with sodium metabisulphate and not brine in sulphur water for provisional preservation for the duration of transport are not in a marketable condition and that they are not goods. (ii) The second contention is that they are not put in unit container designed to hold a pre-determined quantity or number and that they are being sent in a contain...