Delhi Court February 1997 Judgments

Janki Devi Mahavidyalaya Vs. Union of India and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 1997IIAD(Delhi)314; 66(1997)DLT367

C.M. Nayar, J.(1) The petitioner has moved this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the following reliefs : (1)writ of mandamus restraining the respondents from taking possession of the land chalked out by the members of the L & Do and the Ridge Management Board; (2)a declaration that the action of the respondents in acquiring the land of the petitioner without the authority of law and without paying adequate and just compensation to be a nullity in law; (3)pass an order directing the respondents to give the petitioner similar alternate land close by for its hostel premises; (4)pass an order directing the respondents to pay compensation at market value plus 30% of the market value in lieu of the compulsory nature of acquisition. (5)pass an order awarding costs of the petition.(2) The brief facts of the case as stated in the writ petition are that the premises of the petitioner were leased out to Banarsi Das Trust by President of India through the Land and Developme...

Ram Kishan Sharma Vs. Bhagwan Sharma

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 65(1997)DLT1035; 1997(41)DRJ145; (1997)116PLR79

Jaspal Singh, J.(1) The plaintiff claiming himself to be the owner in possession of the plot in question filed a suit for possession and permanent injunction besides damages. In paragraph I of the plaint he alleged that he had purchased the suit plot along with other land from one Chaudhary Tek Chand and that thereafter he had sold away certain portions of the land so purchased to different persons but had retained the suit plot for himself and that on a particular dale he found the present respondents trying to make some construction over there. The respondents-defendants filed their written statement contesting the suit. In reply to the assertion of the plaintiff that he had purchased land from the person noted above, the defendants took the plea that the plaintiffs should be put to strict proof of the same. It was further stated that the plaintiff should prove his assertion with regard to his having bifurcated the land in the shape of plots and having sold them off excepting the sui...

Dr. Mrs. Savita Agarwal Vs. Assessing Officer. (Assessing Officer V. D ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: (1997)58TTJ(Del)395

ORDERJ. P. BENGRA, J.M. :There is an appeal by the assessed and the cross appeal by the Department against a single order of the CIT(A)-IV, New Delhi pertaining to asst. yr. 1989-90. Since both these matters arise out of the single order, thereforee, for the sake of convenience these appeals are being disposed of by a consolidated order.2. The grievance of the assessed relates to estimation of business income and thereby sustaining an addition of Rs. 30,000 towards income of assessed on account of indoor and miscellaneous receipts and secondly addition of Rs. 35,000 on account of suppression of professional receipts whereas the Department is aggrieved whether the CIT(A) has restricted the addition on account of indoor and miscellaneous income from Rs. 60,000 to Rs. 30,000 and similarly for suppression of professional receipts, he has given relief of Rs. 74,148 instead of confirming the addition made by the AO ?3. The facts of the case are that the assessed is an individual and deriving...

Choji Pretam Chits Pvt. Ltd. Vs. N.S. Kain

Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi

A.P. Chowdhri, President: 1. The short question for consideration is, whether the order dated 31.5.96 staying the recovery or the amount directed by the District Forum-II on furnishing Bank guarantee by the appellant, should be modified in the facts and circumstances urged by the appellant. The District Forum, by order under appeal, directed the opposite party, appellant herein, to refund the actual amount paid by the complainant together with interest @18% p.a. and Rs. 2,000/- as costs. The opposite party's appeal was admitted. Recovery of the amount was stayed subject to appellant furnishing Bank guarantee of the amount. The present application u/Section 151, CPC has been made by the appellant to the effect that the Registrar, Chit Funds has already seized the Bank account of the appellant. The appellant has no other assets and is, therefore, unable to furnish Bank guarantee. The application has been opposed mainly on the ground that no such order passed by the Registrar, Chit Funds,...

Sajjan Kumar Kariwala Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2003)(159)ELT1131TriDel

1. By the captioned appeal, the appellant has assailed the order passed by the Commr. (Appeals) imposing a penalty of Rs. 9,000/-.2. The facts of the case are that the appellant is required to file Quarterly return ST-3 in terms of Section 70(1) of the Finance Act, 1994 for the Quarter ending September, 1994. As the appellant did not submit the requisite return in time, a show cause notice was issued to the appellant asking him to explain as to why penalty should not be imposed. The Asstt. Commr. imposed a penalty of Rs. 9,000/- at the rate of Rs. 100/- per day for 90 days u/s 77 of the Chapter V of the Finance Act, 1994.3. Shri R.K.S. Rastogi, Consultant, appeared for appellant and Shri A.K. Agarwal, ld. SDR, appeared for the respondent Commissioner. After hearing their submissions, pre-deposit of penalty was waived. With the consent of both the parties, it was decided to hear the case on merits.4. The appellant submitted that he was not operating his business for a long time and tha...

Jay Chemical Industries Vs. Collr. of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1997)LC187Tri(Delhi)

1. Common appellant in these appeals is absent in spite of notice of hearing.2. On the assessments made by the Superintendent of Central Excise on six RT 12 Returns filed by the appellant, six appeals were filed before the Collector (Appeals) who dismissed the same by a common order.Appellant initially filed three appeals though appellant was required to file three more supplementary appeals. Accordingly appellant filed E/3315-3317/88-A with application seeking condonation of delay. It was a mere omission on the part of the appellant not to have filed six appeals. We therefore condone the delay, in filing three later appeals.3. The contention raised by the appellant in the appeals before the Collector (Appeals) was that the price approved by the proper officer included interest on receivables and since such interest cannot be added to the assessable value in finalising the assessment on RT 12 Returns the Superintendent should have excluded the same from the assessable value and ordere...

Goel Enterprise Vs. Union of India

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 1997IIAD(Delhi)378; 66(1997)DLT577; 1997(40)DRJ751; 2003(151)ELT283(Del)

Y.K. Sabharwal, J. (1) Rule D.B.(2) The facts of the case lie in a very narrow compass and the point involved is very short.(3) Petitioner is stated to have purchased from Vishakhapatnam Steel Plant duty free import licence. That license has been endorsed in favor of the petitioner. According to petitioner it could not fully use and exhaust the license during its validity period for the reason that there were certain disputes between the licencing authority on the one hand and Vishakhapatnam Steel Plant on the other. The petitioner, accordingly, made representation to the licencing authority to extend the period of validity of the licence. By impugned communication dated 16th August 1996 petitioner was informed that his request for grant of extension of period cannot be accepted as there is no provision in the Exim Policy for revalidation or extension in respect of transferable licence. On these facts the question is whether the licencing authority has power to extend the validity of t...

Central Academy Senior Secondary School Vs. Lt. Governor

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 1997IIAD(Delhi)325; AIR1997Delhi307; 66(1997)DLT25; 1997(41)DRJ65

M. Jagannadha Rao, J. (1) The Central Academy Senior Secondary School, R.K. Puram, represented by its Manager, Mr. S.N. Chaturvodi, has Filed this writ petition for quashing the order dated 3.7.96 passed by the Lt. Governor, N.C.T., Delhi under Section 20(1) of the Delhi Education Act taking over the management of the School for two years and directing Mr. B.D. Bahuguna (Reld. Deputy Director of Education) as the authorised officer who should manager the school on behalf of the Director of Education. The order contains a preamble briefly staling the circumstances' leading to the take over. The reasons for taking over are contained in an annexure appended to the order. (2) Before we set out the facts, we may refer to a few subsequent events. On 24.7.96, this court passed an order, as an interim arrangement, by consent of parties, appointing a Managing Committee consisting of Dr. T.P.S. Chauhan (Dy. Director of Education),. Mr. B.D. Bahuguna, Reld. Dy Director of Education, Mr. S.N. Chat...

Hardutt Vs. State

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 1997IIIAD(Delhi)202; 69(1997)DLT773; 1997(41)DRJ683

N.G. Nandi, J. (1) The appellants/convicts, who have been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 Indian Penal Code and sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 10.000.00 and in default S.I. for three months, and also as regards offence u/s. 307/34 Indian Penal Code all the appellants stand sentenced to undergo 10 years R.I. and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000.00 each and in default S.I. for one month, and both the substantive sentences have been ordered to run concurrently in F.I.R. No. 252/85, P.S. Narela, Delhi in Sessions Case No. 100/96 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Delhi vide his judgment and order dated 31.1,1994 assail the said conviction, and sentence in this appeal under Section 374(ii) Criminal Procedure Code. (2) The facts leading to the filing of the present appeal by the appellants/convicts, shortly stated, are that on 17.11.1985, S.I. Satya Prakash of police post Bawana, Delhi, was on patrol duty in the ...

Jagson Pal Pharmaceuticals Vs. Jagson Pal Parenterals (P) Ltd.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 1997IIAD(Delhi)550; 1997(1)ARBLR434(Delhi); 67(1997)DLT500

Anil Dev Singh, J. (1) The case of the plaintiff as it unfolds from the plaint is that it is joint business under the trading style 'Jagson' and 'Jagson Pal'. In the year 1964 a partnership was constituted under the name and style of M/s. Jagson Pal & Co. On January 1, 1979 plaintiff M/s. Jagson Pal Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Ltd. was inducted as partner in the firm and the business was carried on in the name of Jagson Pal and Co. On July 31,1979 partnership-firm was dissolved and the plaintiff was allotted the goodwill, trade mark and trade name of the firm. It is alleged that the plaintiff is using the trade mark 'Jagson pal' encompassed by a rectangle on its pharmaceutical preparations. It is stated that the trade mark 'Jagson' was registered in favor of the plaintiff in respect of Pharmaceuticals etc. falling in class 10 on 6th February, 1978 under the Trade & Merchandise Marks Act, 1958 and subsequently renewed from 6th February, 1992 for a further period of 7 years. (2) It is further a...