Delhi Court February 1997 Judgments

Jathedar Rachpal Singh Vs. Kirpalchand and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 1997IIAD(Delhi)664; 66(1997)DLT78

Devinder Gupta, J.(1) His appeal by defendant No. 3- appellant is against an order passed on 11.10.1996 by learned Single Judge of this Court directing the Commissioner, Municipal Corporation of Delhi that in case defendants, including third defendant, on or before 1.11.1996 are able to produce occupancy certificate, their possession be not disturbed, failing which to seal the premises. The Commissioner, Municipal Corporation of Delhi was called upon to file his report of compliance by 5.11.1996. (2) The facts in brief are that plaintiffs-respondents 1 to 4 on 12.1.1996 filed a suit impleading respondents 5 & 6 as defendants 1 & 2 in the suit and the appellant as defendant No. 3 praying the following reliefs : '(I)A decree of possession in favor of the plaintiffs and against defendant No. 3 directing the defendant No. 3 to hand over forthwith vacant, peaceful possession to the plaintiffs of all portions of the suit property namely 10, Jamuna Road, Civil Lines, Delhi, occupied by him an...

Prabhu Vs. K.M. Sharma

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 66(1997)DLT476; 1997(41)DRJ191; 1997RLR242

Usha Mehra, J. (1) Eviction petition on the ground of bona fide requirement was filed by the present respondent (Mr.K.M.Sharma). He is stated to be the owner/landlord of the premises bearing No. B-3/16, Model Town, Delhi. This premises was let out to late Shri Sukhbir Singh. After his death his legal heirs are in occupation of the premises in question. The tenanted premises consisted of one room, kitchen, bath and W.C. on the first floor with common stair case. This was let out for residential purpose on a monthly rent of Rs. 75.00 exclusive of electricity and water charges. It had been the case of the respondent/landlord that he purchased the property on 7th December, 1980. The whole of this property was in occupation of various tenants. On the ground floor there are three rooms, besides a godown, a store, bath, two kitchens (unauthorisedly constructed) toilet/W .C. Along with open courtyard. Besides on the back side there are three shops on the ground floor. These were in occupation ...

Lachchmi Devi Vs. Rukmani Devi

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 1997IIAD(Delhi)421; 66(1997)DLT244; 1997(41)DRJ124; 1997RLR268

S.N. Kapoor, J. (1) This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution has been filed against the order dated 27th October, 1975 granting permission under Section 19(1) of the Slum Areas (Improvement and Clearance Act) 1956 (hereinafter called 'Act' for short).(2) In this petition two short questions arise which are as under:- (1)Whether interlocutory orders passed in connection with inquiry under Section 19(1) of the Act arc appealable under Section 30? (2)Whether the Competent Authority (slum) could order appointment of Local Commissioner for the purpose of inquiry under Section 19(1) of the Act? (3) Before proceeding further it would be desirable to appreciate factual matrix. The landlady Rukmani Devi has sought permission to institute eviction proceedings against widows of Bansi Lal tenant the petitioner Lachchmi Devi and Gomati Devi from the premises House No. 2166, Gali Sudama Wali, Bazar Sita Ram comprising of one room portion of the top floor having covered area of 875 Sq. ft....

Amarjeet Singh Vs. Savitri Devi Bhalla

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 70(1997)DLT655

M.K. Sharma, J. (1) This order shall dispose of I.A. No. 8174/1995 filed by the plaintiff under Order xxxvii, Rule 3(5) of the Code of Civil Procedure seeking leave to defend the suit filed by the plaintiff against the defendants under Order xxxvii, CPC. (2) The plaintiff instituted a suit against the defendants for recovery of Rs. 9,15,000 .00 under Order xxxvii of the Code of Civil Procedure. It is stated that by written agreement dated 9.11.1992 duly signed by both the defendants and the plaintiff the defendant contracted to sell to the plaintiff half portion of their property bearing House No. C-117, New Rajinder Nagar, New Delhi measuring 125/28 sq. yds. for a total sum of Rs. 9,00,000.00 . It is stated that as per the terms and conditions of the said agreement dated 9.11.1992 the defendants were to hand over the actual physical possession of half portion of the property to the plaintiff and that at the time of execution of the agreement to sell the defendant No.2, who is the son ...

Collector of Central Excise Vs. Peenya Engg. Industries

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1997)(93)ELT62TriDel

1. This is an appeal filed by the Revenue being aggrieved with the Order-in-Appeal dated 31-8-1988 of the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), Madras. The respondents are M/s. Peenya Engg. Industries, Bangalore.2. The matter relates to the classification of the storage tanks and vessels prior to 1-3-1988. The respondents had sought to classify the storage tanks and vessels manufactured by them under Heading No.7308.90 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as the Tariff) as other articles of Iron and Steel - other. The Asstt. Collector of Central Excise, Bangalore observed that the goods in question were containers made of base metal and were correctly classifiable under Heading No. 3312.90 of the Tariff which covered containers of base metal other than those covered under subheading Nos. 8312.11, 8312.12 and 8312.19 of the Tariff. The Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), Madras allowing the appeal of the respondents (appellants before him)...

Electronics Industries of India Vs. Collector of Cus.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1997)(92)ELT104TriDel

1. In all these appeals common question of law and facts are involved, hence they are all taken up together for disposal as per law.2. The appellants imported the goods which is described in the Bill of Entry as "D.C. Micro Motors for use in Tape Deck Mechanism Type MMI-6S2RE" and claimed the benefit of the Notification No. 62/88-Cus.The department did not raise any objection with regard to the claim under Heading 8501.31 of CTA. However, the benefit of notification has been denied by both the authorities. The invoice in respect of the imported goods described the same as "D.C. Micromotors for use in tape deck mechanism type MMI-6S2RE". To prove the utility of the imported items in the manufacture of tape deck mechanism, the appellants had produced the end use certificate issued by the Superintendent of Central Excise. However, the authorities were dissatisfied with the same and held that they ought to have produced the literature/catalogue to show that the impugned goods are "exclusi...

Perfect Circle Victor Ltd. Vs. Collector of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1997)(93)ELT286TriDel

1. In this appeal filed by M/s. Perfect Circle Victor Ltd., the matter relates to the duty liability on the waste and scrap of Copper and Aluminium cleared by the appellants. The waste and scrap in question had arisen during the course of the manufacture of Gaskets -a motor vehicle part. The appellants had received duty paid Copper and Aluminium Metal, had availed of Modvat credit and sought to clear the Copper waste without payment of central excise duty under Notification No. 172/84-C.E., dated 1-8-1984 as amended by Notification No.78/86-C.E., dated 10-2-1986. With regard to waste of Aluminium they sought exemption under Notification No. 182/84-C.E., dated 1-8-1984 as amended by Notification No. 79/86-C.E., dated 10-2-1986. The Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), Bombay denied them the exemption on the ground that under Rule 57F(4)(b) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, they were required to pay appropriate duty on copper and aluminium waste.3. On behalf of the respondent/Revenue...

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

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi

1. There is an appeal by the assessee 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, therefore, for the sake of convenience these appeals are being disposed of by a consolidated order.2. The grievance of the assessee relates to estimation of business income and thereby sustaining an addition of Rs. 30,000 towards income of assessee 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 assessee is an individual and deriving income from medical pr...

Sharda Devi Gill Vs. Rakesh Jain

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 1998(46)DRJ341

Cyriac Joseph, J.(1) This revision petition is filed against an order of the learned Single Judge, Delhi dismissing an application under Order xviii Rule 17-A Civil Procedure Code filed by the petitioners. (2) The petitioners are the defendants in suit no.604/91 and the respondent is the plaintiff. According to the petitioners, petitioner no.1 is the owner of premises no. K1 Lajpat Nagar Ii, New Delhi and the respondent is a trespasser in the said premises. The respondent filed the suit for permanent injunction against the petitioners. On 23.2.1995 the suit was adjourned to 22.3.1995 for the evidence of defendants and the defendants were directed to file list of witnesses. In the order dated 23.2.1995 no time was fixed for filing the list of witnesses. The defendants filed their list of witnesses on 21.3.1995. The application for examining defendant no.1 on commission was allowed by the trial court. When the case was posted on 27.7.1995 the defense witnesses namely Shri Ram Lal, Shri S...

Satya Parkash Dubey Vs. State

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 1997IIAD(Delhi)293; 65(1997)DLT1053; 1997(41)DRJ90

Arun Kumar, J. (1) The appellant has been convicted under section 302 Indian Penal Code for the murder of his wife Promila and sentenced to life imprisonment vide impugned-judgment dated 28th January, 1992 passed by a learned Additional Sessions Judge, Delhi. (2) Briefly the facts are that the appellant was married to Promila on 10th June, 1987. He was at that time residing in a village in district Gorakhpur. The appellant continued to live in the village for about one and half months after the marriage. Thereafter the couple shifted to Delhi and started residing in the house of the younger brother of the appellant where the father of the appellant was also residing. The house is at first floor of quarter No. 74, Mangol Puri, Delhi. The appellant got a job in which his duty hours were during the night. On the night between 10th and 11th April, 1989, an Fir No. 153/89 was registered at 1.40 A.M. under section 354 Indian Penal Code at police station Mangol Puri in which Promila, wife of ...