Delhi Court March 1996 Judgments

Amita Gulati and ors. Vs. Union of India and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: ILR1996Delhi327

J.B. Goel, J.(1) Rule D.B. (2) Both the parties have filed detailed pleadings and documents in support thereof. We have also heard the counsel for the parties at length and so this writ petition is being disposed of at this stage finally. (3) Respondent No. 2. Indian Institute of Technology, New Delhi (hereinafter called the Institute) is a statutory body corporate constituted 'declared as Institution under the Institutes of Technology Act, 1961 as amended by Act No. 29 of 1963. (4) Petitioners Nos. 1 to 5, it is alleged, have been working as Sr. Research Assistants, (for short SRA) in. this Institute from various dates 1987 onwards continuously and uninterruptedly during the periods of their employment with the Institute their appointments have been extended from time to time vide separate letters/memos. Vide office memorandum No. IITD/E.I/U. 2/88 dated 9-6-1995 (Annexure P-45), (besides some others) four of the petitioners, namely. Sh. Sunil Kumar, Mrs. Anjana Gupta. Sh. Bhaskar Jha ...

Didi Modes Pvt. Ltd. and anr. Vs. Hind Trading Manufacturing Company

Court: Delhi

Reported in: ILR1996Delhi144

Dalveer Bhandari, J.(1) This appeal is directs against the judgment and a decree dated 25th February, 1993 passed by the learned Single Judge in Suit No. 746181. 'The plaintiff M/s Hind Trading and Manufacturing Company has filed a suit for recovery of the possession of the premises in question and for the recovery of license fee and damages. In the plaint, the case set up by the plaintiff is that the plaintiff firm is a Joint Hindu. Family partnership firm registered under the Indian partnership Act. The appellant company was the defendant in the suit, attorney to the partnership firm by paying license fee. The plaintiff firm had taken a plot B-243, Phase 1. New Industrial Area, New Delhi from the President of India on a perpetual lease under the deed dated 18-6-1973 and as such the plaintiff firm is a perpetual lessee of the said plot. After taking the said plot on lease the plaintiff firm constructed the building to run the industry for the purpose of sanitary fittings and castings....

S. Ajit Singh Vs. Ramswaroopi Devi

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 1996IIAD(Delhi)309; 63(1996)DLT599; 1996(37)DRJ330; 1996RLR299

Usha Mehra, J.(1) The question for determination is whether the civil Court had the jurisdiction to try the suit for possession or was the suit barred under Section 50 of the Delhi Rent Control Act (in short the D.R.C. Act). To determine the same we have to first ascertain whether the appellant was inducted as a tenant on a vacant piece of land or of a tin shed which would constitute 'premises' within, the meaning of Section 2(i) of Drc Act. In case of former, the suit would be the remedy and in case of later the remedy would be under the D.R.C. Act. (2) IT. must be understood at the outset that for the purpose of determining whether the tenancy was of a premises or not one must keep in mind as to what was actually let out at the initial stage. To my mind, that would be the determining factor. Supreme Court in. the case of Prabhat Mig Society v. Banwari Lal 37 (1989) Dlt 439 SC(1) called out the factors which would determine as to when a property becomes premises in order to make D.R.C...

Chairman Sterlite Industries (India) Ltd. Vs. Deepak Gupta

Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi

A.P. Chowdhry, President: 1. Brief facts giving rise to this appeal are that Mr. Deepak Gupta, complainant, purchased 100 fully convertible debentures of Sterlite Industries (India) Ltd., arrayed as opposite party @ Rs. 360 / - from the secondary market and lodged the debentures alongwith duly executed transfer deeds etc. with the aforesaid company in two lots of 50 FCDs each on 30.1.1994 and 10.4.1994 for transfer in favour of the complainant and his mother Smt. Shashi Gupta. The complainant, vide his letter dated 18.5.1994 sent two Bank Drafts both dated 18.5.1994 drawn on Syndicate Bank, Bombay for Rs. 4,600/- and Rs. 4,535/- respectively towards payment of the first call money and second and final call money. The complainant received acknowledgement slips regarding the said drafts. The complainant, however, failed to receive back the FCDs duly transferred in their favour. He, therefore, filed the complaint before District Forum-II for a direction to the OP to return the FCDs duly t...

Kay Polyplast Limited Vs. Collector of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1996)(83)ELT681TriDel

1. Shri M.P. Devnath, learned Advocate appearing for the appellants states that the issue involved in the present case is whether Modvat credit is permissible in respect of imported goods on the strength of endorsed Bills of Entry to the extent of countervailing duty paid thereon. He refers to a series of Tribunal decisions on this issue, two of which are as follows :-Krishna Insulations v. Collector of Central Excise, New Delhi - 1995 (7) R.L.T. 59.Krishna Strips Limited v. Collector of Central Excise, New Delhi.2. Shri Nanak Chand, learned Departmental Representative supports the impugned order and states that, as had been held therein, the facility of Modvat credit is admissible on the strength of endorsed bill of entry only in the case of high seas sale. In the present case, the goods have apparently been sold by the importers after the import was completed. In such a case, endorsed bill of entry would not be a valid duty paying document. He pleaded that the impugned order be uphe...

Shriram Bearings Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1996)(84)ELT296TriDel

1. In this appeal filed by M/s. Shriram Bearings Limited three points for our consideration:- i. whether the trade discount higher than normal given to one bulk buyer under contract is admissible for deduction, ii. whether transportation cost, when ball bearings were transported from the factory gate to depot were eligible for deduction, iii. whether the cost of the wooden packing used in all the cases their being no factory gate sale was eligible for deduction from the declared price.2. We have heard, Shri Gopal Prasad, the Learned Advocate and Shri G.D.Sharma, the Learned JDR. We have carefully considered the matter and we discuss all these three issues serially.3. Trade Discount. The normal trade discount given to the wholesale buyers was 30%. It was seen that in one case 35.77% of Trade Discount was given in respect of only one bulk buyer. The price list in respect of these bulk buyer were filed in Part II. It is, however, seen that the Learned Collector of Central Excise (Appeals...

Dr. V.J.A. Flynn Vs. S.S. Chauhan and Another

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 1996CriLJ3080; 1996(37)DRJ195; ILR1998Delhi426

ORDER1. The petitioner Dr. V. J. A. Flynn is stated to be the second accused in a complaint case filed by the Custom Officer. He has sought the quashing of the said complaint case No. 91/1/94 pending in the Court of Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Delhi. The grievance of the petitioner is that said complaint filed under section 135 of the Customs Act, 1962 on the basis of the alleged offence committed under the Antiquities & Art Treasures Act, 1972 (hereinafter called the Antiquities Act) is not maintainable. 2. Briefly the facts leading to the filing of this complaint are that the petitioner Along with another person named Sadasivan Mudaliar were leaving for Sydney via Hong Kong by Air India Flight on 21st June, 1994. On being intercepted at the Airport, it transpired that in the baggage of the petitioner there were coins which were suspected to be antiquities the export of which is prohibited under Section 3 of the Antiquities Act. Shri V. D. Sharam, Superintending Archaeol...

Apogee International Ltd. Vs. Union of India and anr.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: [1996]220ITR248(Delhi)

D.K. Jain, J.1. Since the issues involved and the prayers in both the writ petitions are the same, both the petitions can be dealt with under a common judgment. 2. In respect of the asst. yr. 1989-90, the petitioners submitted their returns of income, which were accompanied by statements showing computation of taxable income. It appears that though initially the AO had issued to the petitioners notices under s. 143(2) of the IT Act, 1961 (for short, 'the Act'), as also a questionnaire to the petitioners in CWP No. 496 of 1994, calling for information on certain points but ultimately the returns filed by them were accepted and intimations under s. 143(1)(a)(i) of the Act were issued. Subsequently the AO issued fresh notices under s. 143(2) of the Act calling upon the petitioners to appear and clarify certain points with a view to assess their income for the relevant assessment year. It is these notices which are under challenge in these petitions. 3. Although in the writ petitions, the ...

Pepsi Foods Vs. Jai Drinks (P) Ltd.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 1996(36)DRJ711

S.K. Mahajan, J.(1) The plaintiff in suit No.l570/92 is Pepsi Foods Limited (In short referred to as 'PEPSI').(2) This suit has been filed by 'PEPSI' for declaration, injection and rendition of accounts. Suit No.2110/92 has been filed by Jai Drinks Private Limited (In short referred to as 'JAI') against Pepsi Foods Limited for declaration and for recovery of money. This order will dispose of the application for injunction filed by 'PEPSI' in suit No.l570/92 as also the application of 'JAI' in the same suit for vacation of stay, which had been granted ex parte on April 29, 1992. It will also dispose of the application of 'JAI' in suit No.2110/92 for an injunction against 'PEPSI'. The facts in short which have given rise to the filing of these suits are that : - (3) 'PEPSI' being the proprietor of the trade mark Lehar Pepsi, Seven Up and Lehar Mirinda, manufactures soft drink concentrate for beverages being bottled under the aforesaid trade marks. 'PEPSI' then enters into an agreement fo...

Apogee International Ltd. Vs. Union of India and anr. (Anil Kapoor V. ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: (1997)137CTR(Del)93

D. K. JAIN, J. :Since the issues involved and the prayers in both the writ petitions are the same, both the petitions can be dealt with under a common judgment.2. In respect of the asst. yr. 1989-90, the petitioners submitted their returns of income, which were accompanied by statements showing computation of taxable income. It appears that though initially the AO had issued to the petitioners notices under s. 143(2) of the IT Act, 1961 (for short, 'the Act'), as also a questionnaire to the petitioners in CWP No. 496 of 1994, calling for information on certain points but ultimately the returns filed by them were accepted and intimations under s. 143(1)(a)(i) of the Act were issued. Subsequently the AO issued fresh notices under s. 143(2) of the Act calling upon the petitioners to appear and clarify certain points with a view to assess their income for the relevant assessment year. It is these notices which are under challenge in these petitions.3. Although in the writ petitions, the pe...