Delhi Court February 1997 Judgments

Sham Lal Vs. Baroo Mal

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 1997IIAD(Delhi)717; 68(1997)DLT287; 1997(41)DRJ241

Usha Mehra, J. (1) Respondent Baroo Mal sought eviction against his tenant, the present appellant on various amongst the following grounds namely that the tenant has acquired possession of another residential premises. Hence eviction under Section 14(1)(h) of the Delhi Rent Control Act (in short the Act). (2) To attract the provisions of Section 14(1)(h) of the Act the landlord has to prove (i) that premises in question was let out for residential purpose; and (ii) that the tenant has acquired vacant possession of another premises. To satisfy these ingredients the landlord has to plead in the petition both these ingredients. Admittedly the room under the tenancy of the petitioner was given for residential purpose. To satisfy the second condition reply to para 18(a)(ii) of the written statement can be looked into wherein the present petitioner has admitted that additional accommodation has been acquired to settle large family. The said residential premises had been acquired from Shri Su...

Rajni Rani Gupta Vs. Sudhir Shekhar Gupta

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 1997IIAD(Delhi)527; 66(1997)DLT148; 1997(41)DRJ271

S.N. Kapoor, J. (1) This revision petition is a glaring example of family tension, leading to litigation between the plaintiff/mother and the defendant/son. (2) According to the petition, she purchased property No. 2707 Main Bazar Sabzi Mandi, Delhi on 29th January 1985 out of her own savings. In that shop husband and father is said to be the tenant and running a chemist shop bequeathed by father-in-law and grandfather of the parties, in favor of his son Inder Shankar Gupta. Tension led to dispute. (3) MOTHER/PETITIONER along with her husband filed a suit No. 201/91 on 6th May 1991 alleging that she was owner having purchased the same and her husband claimed that he was tenant in the property at monthly rent of Rs. 600.00 and prayed for injunction against their son from interfering in the peaceful possession. (4) SON/RESPONDENT also filed a suit No. 211/91 on 6th May 1991 itself claiming that he was running his Raghav Ayurvedic Store in half portion of shop No. 2707 and is living on th...

Rakesh Mahindroo and Another Vs. M/S. Pushpa Builders Ltd.

Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi

A.P. Chowdhri, President: 1. Mr. Rakesh Mahindroo and Smt. Neeta Mahindroo, hereinafter referred to as the complainants, filed the present complaint against M/s. Pushpa Builders Limited, hereinafter preferred to as the opposite party. The opposite party advertised a project called Pushpa Aakash Apartments at Vaishali Complex in District Ghaziabad. The project consisted of four blocks of 100 flats each called Kaveri, Saraswati, Ganga and Yamuna. Various facilities, which were to be provided in the said flats, were also advertised. It was expressly stipulated that the project would be completed by December, 91. The complainants booked Flat No. B-5 on 10th floor of Ganga Block at a total cost of Rs. 4,32,250/-with an area of 1,235 sq. ft. An agreement between the parties was executed on 4.10.89. Under the agreement, the complainant was required to make payment of the consideration by instalments. The complainants went on paying the instalments which became due from time to time and had pa...

Nippon Zeon Co. Ltd. Vs. Designated Authority

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1997)(96)ELT126TriDel

1. These appeals are filed under Section 9A of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 (for short, the Act) against the order of determination regarding the existence, degree and effect of dumping in relation to import of Acrylonitrile Butadiene Rubber (NBR) from Japan, passed under Section 9A of the Act. The particulars of the appeals and appellants are as follows :-Appeals No. C/74/96-A by M/s. Nippon Zeon Co. Ltd., Japan (for short, NZL) - Exporter.Appeal No. C/75/96-A by M/s. Japan Synthetic Rubber Co., Japan (for short, JSL) - Exporter.Appeal No. C/76/96-A by M/s. Bombay Chemicals and Rubber Products - Importers.Appeal No. C/77/96-A by M/s. Golden Rolls (Pvt.) Ltd. - Importers.Appeal No. C/78/96-A by M/s. Kasturi International - Importers.Appeal No. C/79/96-A by M/s. Sharp International - Importers.Appeal No. C/80/96-A by M/s. Sujan Group and Polyrub Extrusions - Importers.2. The impugned order has been passed by the Designated Authority appointed as such under Rule 3 of the Customs Tariff ...

Collector of C. Ex. Vs. Lallubhai Amichand Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1997)(92)ELT119TriDel

1. The short point for determination in this appeal is whether hospital stainless steel utensils are eligible for the benefit of concessional rate of duty under Notification No. 53/84-C.E., dated 1-3-1984.2. The facts of the case are that the respondents are engaged in the manufacture of stainless steel utensils. They filed C/List in respect of hospital utensils falling under T.I. 68 and claimed the benefit of concessional rate of duty under Notification No. 53/84. The Asstt.Collr. denied the benefit of concessional rate of duty on the ground that the said stainless steel utensils (hospital utensils) are not used in household or in kitchen. Against this order, the respondents filed an appeal before the ld. Collr. (Appeals) who after considering the various submissions and the case-law on the subject set aside the order of the Asstt. Collr. and allowed the appeal of the respondents. Against this order, the ld. Commr. has filed the present appeal.3. Shri G.D. Sharma, ld. DR submitted th...

Central Mill Stores Vs. Collector of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1997)(93)ELT58TriDel

1. This is an appeal against the order of Collector (Appeals), Chandigarh dated 27-2-1992.2. Ld. Counsel stated that the appellants had availed Modvat credit on alloy steel rounds showing them as classifiable under 7228.20/7228.30.The A.C. had however disallowed the modvat credit on the ground that these inputs had not been declared as inputs in the declaration filed under rule 57G and confirmed the demand.3. It was their contention that since they had admittedly declared iron and steel in their declaration as the inputs for their final output namely ball bearings the credit had been correctly taken and should have been allowed.4. In response to queries from the bench the Ld. Counsel could not show the declaration which had been filed before the A.C. but drew attention to the reference to the same in the AC's order. In response to further queries he also drew attention to the show cause notice and the AC's order indicating that the case had been made out on the basis of RT12 and the g...

Gee Gee International Vs. Collector of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1999)(107)ELT568TriDel

1. The above appeals arise out of the order passed by the Commissioner of Customs, New Delhi confiscating goods covered by Shipping Bill Nos.9654 and 9655 under the provisions of Section 113(i) of the Customs Act, 1962 with an option to redeem the same for home consumption on payment of a fine of Rs. 8 lakhs and Rs. 4 lakhs respectively and imposing a penalty of Rs. 5 lakhs on appellant No. 1 and a penalty of Rs. 2.5 lakhs on appellant No. 2 under Section 114(iii) of the Customs Act, 1962.2. We have heard Shri A.S. Sunder Rajan, learned Counsel who mainly contends that even though the claim for drawback may not be admissible to the appellants, still the goods should be permitted to be re-exported as they were found to be in accordance with the contract entered into between the appellants herein and their buyers in Moscow and the penalties should be set aside. Subsequently, the learned Counsel clarifies under instructions, that the goods are not fit for export as they have deteriorated...

Ganesh Rajah Organisation Vs. Collector of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1997)(93)ELT53TriDel

1. This appeal is directed against the order dated 29-12-1989 of Collector of Customs (Appeals).2. The appellants imported two consignments of industrial stapling machines. These were assessed to duty under CTH 84.40. They claimed the benefit of Notifications 125/86 and 16/85. The claim was rejected.Collector (Appeals) upheld the order on the ground that the appellants have not substantiated their claim as no catalogue, invoices or sample of stapling machine was produced.3. Arguing for the appellants, the ld. Advocate submits that catalogue was duly produced before original authority and they could not appear before the Collector (Appeals) since they had shifted their office and notice had gone to the old address. He submits that Asstt. Collector has duly noted CEGAT's Order in case of Continental Exporters but refused to follow it on the ground that the department had gone in appeal to the Supreme Court. He cites the case of Collector of Customs, Madras v. Continental Exporters Order...

Smt. Kamla Devi and Another Vs. Prabhat Chand and Another

Court: Delhi

Reported in: (1997)116PLR27

ORDERM. Jagannadha Rao, C. J.1. This isan appeal against the judgment of the learned single Judge dated 8-10-1995 in I.A. No. 338/ 95 in Suit No. 635-A/84. The suit was one filed under Section 20 of the Arbitration Act. It was filed by the 1st respondent. Mr. Prabhat Chand.2. Prabhat Chand (plaintiff-1st respondent),Smt. Kamla Devi (1st defendant) and Miss ManjuAggarwal (3rd defendant) were partners ofM/s. S.C.S. Publishers Distributors, under adeeddated 1-3-1977, having equal shares. It appearsthat the plaintiff, after serving notices dated 24-5-1983 and 11-9-1983, offered to retire from thefirm and also sent reply notice dated 23-9-1983on the defendants calling upon them to finalisethe accounts and render the Same to the plaintiffand pay his dues from the assets, goodwill an'dprofits. On failure by the defendant, the plaintiffmoved an application under Section 20 of theArbitration Act. According to the plaintiff, hisshare in the assets and goodwill was Rs. 2,50lakhs plus interest.3. ...

Patel Nagar General Stores Vs. Hindustan Petroleum

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 1997IIAD(Delhi)401; 1997(1)ARBLR456(Delhi); 66(1997)DLT87; 1997(41)DRJ36

Anil Dev Singh, J.(1) This is a petition under section 30 and 33 of the Arbitration Act, 1940, for setting aside the award rendered by the sole arbitrator Shri Ravinder Dhir dated July 21, 1993. The petitioner was carrying on the business of supplying liquified petroleum gas (for short 'L.P.G.')to consumers. This business was being conducted by the petitioner pursuant to an agreement dated August 1, 1986 between the respondent Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited and the erstwhile proprietor of the petitioner. On April 30, 1991 a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner by the respondent wherein it was pointed out that the officers of the respondent discovered on inspection a number of malpractices being indulged in by the petitioner in a regular and systematic manner including issue of extra cylinders over and above the double bottle connections to 119 consumers and misuse of 27 vouchers of the Transfer Voucher Book. The notice called upon the petitioner to show cause within ...