Delhi Court May 1996 Judgments

Pnb Capital Services Ltd. Vs. Sumac International Limited and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 1996IIAD(Delhi)621; II(1996)BC56; 63(1996)DLT12

S.K. Mahajan, J. (1) This order will dispose of the application of the plaintiff for the grant of an interim injunction as also the application of defendant No. 2 under Order 39, Rule 4 Civil Procedure Code for vacating the ex parte order of injunction granted on April 22, 1996. The brief facts which have resulted in the filing of the present suit, are that: Defendant No. 1 had taken lease finance from the plaintiff for acquisition of certain plants and machineries for use/installation at the factory known as Khalilabad Sugar Mills. The total amount granted by way of lease finance by the plaintiff to defendant No. 1 was Rs. 150 lacs. The amount was repayable in the manner mentioned in the agreements entered into between the plaintiff and defendant No. 1. In the event of default in the payment of rentals, the plaintiff was entitled to remove and repossess the equipments installed at Khalilabad Sugar Mills which would have been without prejudice to other rights of the plaintiff. With the...

Aggarwal Hotels (P) Ltd. Vs. Focus Properties (P) Ltd.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 1996IIAD(Delhi)625; 63(1996)DLT52

S.K. Mahajan, J. (1) The plaintiff company has filed this suit for specific performance of the agreement to sell dated 17th June, 1995 whereby the defendants had alleged to have agreed to transfer the defendant No. 1 company Along with its assets in favor of the plaintiffs. It is alleged that only asset of the defendant company is the land measuring 13 bighas and 2 bids was in Village Bijwasan, Tehsil Mehrauli, New Delhi and defendants 2 and 3 were holding the total equity capital of defendant No. 1 company. One Shri S.P. Aggarwal is stated to have negotiated on behalf of the plaintiff with defendant No. 2 for sale of the shares of defendant No. I company and a concluded contract is alleged to have been arrived at between the parties whereby the price of Rs. 34 lakhs was fixed for transfer of shares of defendant No. 1 company. A sum of Rs. 1 lakh is stated to have been paid by the plaintiff in cash to defendant No. 2 and a receipt was executed by the said defendant in his own hand and ...

Megh Raj Gupta Vs. K.K. Gupta and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 62(1996)DLT521; (1996)113PLR59

S.K. Mahajan, J. (1) The plaintiff has filed this suit for a declaration, partition, rendition of accounts, mandatory and permanent injunction. The suit is in respect of two properties; one being house No. 2460, Chhipiwara, Delhi and the other being nine shops known as Tata Ram shops, Muradnagar, Uttar Pradesh. The allegations made in the plaint are : (2) That the Chhipiwara property was purchased from the common savings of the Tata Ram, Ganga Sahai and Bhairon Prasad in which they all lived together being joint in mess. However, the property was purchased in the individual name of Bhairon Prasad; that it was the desire of the said Tata Ram, Ganga Sahai and Bhairon Prasad that the Chhipiwara properties should never be sold and should remain the ancestral house of the family and it was with this intention that Bhairon Prasad dedicated the house at Chhipiwara to the private deity of the family. The dedication is alleged to have been made in the name of Shri Radha Kishanji Maharaj where i...

K.K. Sharma Vs. S.D. Sharma

Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi

A.P. Chowdhri, President: 1. This order would dispose of appeals A-372 and A-401 of 1994, as common question of law has been raised therein. In various complaints detailed in the order of the District Forum, the opposite parties failed to appear and were proceeded ex-parte. The complaints were disposed of ex-parte. On behalf of the opposite parties, applications for setting aside the ex- parte order were moved. The same were contested : The various applications were dismissed by the District Forum by its order dated 16.8.94 on the ground that the District Forum had no power to set-aside the final order passed. Aggrieved by the order, both these appeals have been filed. 2. We have heard Mr. Virender Bhatt, Advocate, for the appellants and Mr. Vivek Srivastava, Advocate for the respondents. 3. It would be convenient to notice the facts in appeal No. A. 401/94, The complaint was instituted in the District Forum in 1992. The opposite party failed to appear and the complaint was allowed by ...

S.L. Gupta Vs. Ramesh Kumar

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 1996RLR357

S.N. Kapoor, J.(1) This revision is directed against an order dated 22.10.84 dismissing an application under 0. 14 R. 5, Civil Procedure Code moved by the plaintiff for framing several additional issues. (2) Relevant facts : The wife of the petitioner had let out a portion on the first floor to the defendant respondent No. 1. An eviction petition was filed on the ground of subletting. It was decreed ex-parte. Thereafter dispute arose relating to enjoyment of the common passage on the ground floor, on the first floor and about the user of the terrace on the second floor. The learned Sub Judge Shri D.S. Bawa framed only two following issues : (i) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the injunction prayed for (ii) Relief. (3) Feeling that other issues were necessary, an application was made for framing 11 additional issues.... (4) The application was rejected. (5) In the present case, after going through the pleadings, it appears that the prayer was made for framing necessary and relevant...

Pragati Paper Mills (P) Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1996)(88)ELT137TriDel

1. M/s. Pragati Paper Mills P. Ltd. have filed this appeal aggrieved with the order-in-appeal dated 31-1-1996 passed by Commissioner (Appeals), Ghaziabad whereby he had rejected their contentions raised in their appeal filed before him in regard to the question of admissibility of Modvat credit on Hessian Cloth and Mobil Oil. In doing so, he confirmed the finding to that effect, reached by the Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise, Division II, Ghaziabad.2. Shri R.S. Pandey, learned consultant who appeared for the appellants stated that since Hessian Cloth is used by them as packaging material and as packaging materials are specifically included in the defition of "inputs" given in the Explanation under Rule 57A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, Modvat credit would be admissible to them in respect of such material notwithstanding the fact that the particular Chapter in the Tariff Schedule under which the same falls is excluded in Notification No. 5/94, dated 1-3-1994. As regards t...

Phool Wati Vs. Harsh Gogia

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 1996IIIAD(Delhi)473; 62(1996)DLT485; 1996(37)DRJ687; 1996RLR340

C.M. Nayar, J.(1) The present appeal is directed against the judgment dated November 23, 1987 passed by Shri M.A.Khan, Rent Control Tribunal, Delhi affirming the judgment dated 20th August, 1985 of Additional Rent Controller. (2) The brief facts of the case are that Shri K.L.Malik and eight others (of whom Shri K.L.Malik has died and his legal representatives were brought on record during the pendency of the case) jointly filed a petition for eviction against appellant Smt.Phool Wati and nine others from two shops bearing No.5593-5594. G.B.Road. Delhi under clauses (a), (b), (f), (g) and (j) of Section 14(1) of the Delhi Rent Control Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') alleging that the premises were let out to Sunder Lal who was the husband of appellant No. 1 and father of appellants Nos 2 to 8 in the year 1939. After his death appellants 2 to 8 became the tenants in the premises in dispute. The rent was RS.IIO.00 per month which was the standard rent fixed under the Delhi and ...

Prakash Wati Bali Vs. Manish Dewan

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 1996IIIAD(Delhi)457; 62(1996)DLT475; 1996(37)DRJ556a; 1996RLR369

C.M. Nayar, J.(1) The present Second Appeal is directed against the judgments dated September 3, 1991 and October 19, 1992 respectively passed by the Additional Rent Controller and Rent Control Tribunal, Delhi. (2) The respondent filed a petition for eviction of appellant No.2, Subhash Chander Bali from premises, B-72 (A-Type) Double Storey Quarters, Ramesh Nagar, New Delhi on the allegations that the premises were let out for residential purposes; the appellant No.2 has, on or about July, 1981, acquired a Dda flat bearing No. 201, Pocket- 4- A/C Janakpuri, New Delhi. An alternative plea was also taken that the said appellant also acquired flat No. 85-A, Pocket A-6, Janta Flats, Paschim Vihar, New Delhi from DDA. thereforee, he was liable to eviction under the provisions of Section 14(1) (h) of the Delhi Rent Control Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act').(3) The petition was contested on the ground that no relationship of landlord and tenant existed between the parties as the resp...

Sapna Enterprises Vs. Collector of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1996)(86)ELT85TriDel

1. The common appellant in these appeals imported various items of dry fruits from Afghanistan at a time when the duty was specific and not ad valorem. The Custom House suggested enhancement of the value. It is said that at that stage the appellant or his agent was prepared to accept the value. Subsequently the jurisdictional Officer passed separate orders debiting the value assessed against the value of the licence and finding that the licence was inadequate for the raised values passing orders of confiscation and fixing redemption fine. In three cases, he also imposed penalties. In appeal, Collector (Appeals) set aside the imposition of penalties in the two cases and reduced the redemption fine to 50% in all cases except in three cases where the redemption fines fixed were Rs. 18000/-, Rs. 18000/- and Rs. 8000/-.Hence these appeals.2. Since duty was specific, the question of evasion of duty does not arise in these cases. Ordinarily the CIF value is not adopted for debiting against t...

Collr. of Customs Vs. Travancore CochIn Chemicals Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1996)(86)ELT82TriDel

1. This is an, appeal against the order of the Collector (Appeals), Madras dated 29-8-1986 filed by the Department.2. "Learned DR stated that the respondents had imported spare parts for short circuit elimination system. After clearance of the goods, a demand notice was issued on the ground that the imported printed circuit boards were popti-lated; and hence the benefit of Notification 74/85 was not available, as a result they were leviable to CVD.3. The importers appealed against the order to the Collector (Appeals), who accepted their petition holding that Notification 74/85 does not give any precise definition or scope of the terms printed circuits and unpopulated printed circuit boards. However, in common parlance, the moment active/passive components are mounted on a base printed circuit board it is normally termed as a printed circuit. Hence the Notification should be deemed printed circuit boards ... also these passive components. The goods are, therefore, covered by the Notifi...