Delhi Court March 1997 Judgments

Satwir Kumar Vs. Subhash Kukreja

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 1997IIIAD(Delhi)532; 67(1997)DLT259; (1997)117PLR4; 1997RLR336

Usha Mehra, J. (1) The petitioner, a retired Government servant a classified landlord, filed a petition under Section 14(c) of the Delhi Rent Control Act (for short the Act). The respondent herein sought leave which was granted by the impugned order. Aggrieved by the same the present petition has been preferred, inter alia, on the ground that the Additional Rent Controller (for short the ARC) by misconstruing the License Deed held that in view of the license deed there exist dispute about relationship of landlord and tenant which is triable issue hence granted leave. According to the petitioner, the learned Arc went by the label of the document instead of its substance. The learned Arc also ignored the fact that the petitioner having already retired on 29th February, 1996 and having been served with notice from the Estate Officer to vacate the accommodation has been forced by pay the market rent. Hence needed bona fide the house for her residence. (2) In order to appreciate the challen...

Mohinder Singh Vs. Kartar Lal

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 1997IIIAD(Delhi)626; 1997(41)DRJ264

M.K. Sharma, J.1. The present suit was instituted by the plaintiffs against the defendants seeking for declaration and partition in respect of the property bearing No. 313, Faiz Road, Gali Nos. 10 and 11, Karol Bagh, New Delhi. The plaintiffs also prayed for a declaration that the Agreement to Sale dated 15.1.1973, 18.12.1974 and 6.12.1978 pertaining to the aforesaid suit property are not legal and valid and not binding upon the plaintiffs.2. On the admission of the plaintiffs and the defendants No. 1 and 5, this Court by order dated 8.3.1996 passed a preliminary decree in the suit declaring the share of the plaintiffs and the defendant No. 1 in the, suit property as half share and the share of the defendant No. 5 in the light of the judgment in the case of Sardar Singh v. Smt. Krishna Devi and Anr. reported in Vol. 54 (1994) DLT 500 as the remaining half in the suit property.3. By a further order, the Court appointed Mr. V.K. Seth, Advocate, as a Local Commissioner to report as to whe...

Madan Lal Jaggi Vs. Prabhat Tyagi and Others

Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi

A.P. Chowdhri President: 1. The complaint which has given rise to this appeal, was filed by Mr. Prabhat Tyagi, hereinafter referred to as the complainant, against the appellant, Mr M.L. Jaggi and another alleging that he had been selling and purchasing shares of various companies through the appellant, M.L. Jaggi, who was working as a sub-broker affiliated with M/s. M.P. Soni and Co., opposite party 2, who was a member of Delhi Stock Exchange Association Ltd. During the period from 31.1.92 to 2.4.92, the complainant purchased equity shares as per details mentioned in the complaint, the net rate including the commission chargeable by the opposite parties. The complainant made payment through account payee cheque' as per details mentioned in para 4 of the complaint in favour of opposite party 1. The payment included the commission. On 1.4.92, opposite party delivered the shares detailed in para 5 of the complaint. On further persuasion, he delivered some more shares detailed in para 6 of...

Fag Precision Bearings Ltd. Vs. Collector of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1998)(98)ELT536TriDel

1. This appeal is directed against Order-in-Appeal dated 4-11-1988 of Collector of Customs (Appeals).2. The appellants had imported a consignment of components of Rollers for Taper Roller bearings up to 85 mm. internal diameter. The goods were warehoused and subsequently cleared from the Warehouse on payment of Customs duty on 11-3-1987. Benefit of exemption under Notification No. 85/86-Cus., dated 17-2-1986 was claimed and allowed. Subsequently, however, it was found that it could have been given only under Notification No. 146/86, dated 26-2-1986 which had in the meantime replaced the Notification No. 85/86, dated 17-2-1986. Show cause notice for demanding differential duty was issued to the appellants. The Asstt. Collector held that the assessment can be made only under Sl.No. 6(i)(a) of the Table appended to the Notification No. 146/86, dated 26-2-1986. Collector (Appeals) upheld the order. Hence this Appeal.3. Arguing on behalf of the Appellants ld. Counsel submits that the Notif...

L.V.T. Products Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1997)(93)ELT134TriDel

1. Order-in-Original dated 31-7-1992 passed by the Collector of Central Excise, Belgaum is under challenge in this appeal.2. Appellant is engaged in the manufacture of biscuits since 1971. The dispute in this appeal relates to the period from April 1988 till the end of April 1989. During this period biscuits manufactured by the appellant fall in three categories. Appellant was manufacturing biscuits with brand name of HORLICKS and selling the same to M/s. HMM Ltd. Appellant was manufacturing biscuits with the brand name of Parle and selling the same to them. Appellant was also manufacturing biscuits and selling the same to wholesalers and dealers. The dispute in this appeal relates to the assessable value of the biscuits with the brand name HORLICKS and sold to HMM. Ltd. 3. The manufacture of biscuits with the brand name of HORLICKS was being done in accordance with the terms of the agreement dated 24-1-1986 entered into between the parties. Appellant was filing price lists in respect...

Ranadip Shipping and Transport Vs. Collr. of Cus. Overruled

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1999)(112)ELT791TriDel

1. Order dated 3-5-1988 passed by the Collector of Customs, Bombay is challenged in these appeals. Appeal No. C/654/88 has been filed by M/s.Ranadip Shipping and Transport Company Private Limited (for short RSTC). Appeal No. C/655/88 has been filed by M/s. Sea Land Service Incorporated, USA (for short, SLS).2. The proceeding relates to import of a large number of Chassis (Trailers) by RSTC who had been appointed as contractors by SLS to provide various services as per agreement dated 1-1-1987. SLS operate in the field of Ocean transportation and commenced operations at Bombay and Cochin Ports with their container shipping service and accepted cargo in marine containers from USA, Europe and Middle-East. SLS opened a liaison office and posted their representative in India with the permission of Reserve Bank of India and also started containerised service at the two Ports in January, 1979. They required top chassis (trailers) of 35' x 40' size to operate on wheels for their shore based o...

Vijay Pal Singh Vs. Income-tax Officer

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi

Reported in: (1997)62ITD23(Delhi)

1. This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order passed by the learned DCIT (Appeals) for the assessment year 1989-90.2. The first grievance of the assessee is that the DC (Appeals) has erred in upholding the action of the Assessing Officer assessing the annual letting value of the house at Rs. 87,960 including the disputed rent of Rs. 38,295 regarding which the matter was sub judice before the Court. Alternatively, the assessee has also challenged the finding given by the DC (Appeals) stating that he has erred in not accepting the claim of the appellant for exclusion/deduction of Rs. 38,295 for the purpose of determining the property income.3. The facts relating to the aforesaid case are that the assessee let out the house property at Vasant Vihar Moradabad to the Food Corporation of India on monthly rent of Rs. 3,275. Subsequently, this rent was enhanced to Rs. 4,930.75 per month which remained in force till 31st July, 1984 on which date the lease expired. The assessee o...

imran-ur-rehman Kidwai Vs. Income-tax Officer

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi

Reported in: (1997)62ITD33(Delhi)

1. This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order passed by the learned CIT (Appeals) confirming the levy of penalty of Rs. 1 lakh under section 271B of Income-tax Act, 1961.2. The Assessing Officer observed that the assessee was required to get his accounts audited before 31st October, 1990 as per provisions of section 44AB. The assessee submitted his return of income on 31st August, 1990 unaccompanied by the audit report in the prescribed form as required under section 44AB. A show-cause notice dated 8-1-1991 was issued. After change of jurisdiction, the successor ITO also issued another show-cause notice on 17-7-1991. The assessee after taking some adjournments finally submitted a reply dated 30th July, 1991. In this reply it was stated that the assessee had filed balance-sheet, trading and profit and loss account and audit report in Form Nos. 3CA and 3CD dated 11th April, 1990 duly signed by the Chartered Accountant. The said report might have been misplaced and hence t...

Devinder Kumar Vs. Delhi Electric Supply Undertaking

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 1997IIIAD(Delhi)126; AIR1997Delhi337; 66(1997)DLT853; 1997(41)DRJ655

S.N. Kapoor, J. (1) In this petition, the revision petitioner challenges an order refusing to stay disconnection of electricity by the learned Sub Judge Delhi in suit No. 308/90 and dismissal of appeal in Mc 419/90 dated 14th December 1990. (2) According to the petitioner, he was running a factory of manufacturing of welding cables and welding rods in the name of M/s D.K. Traders at A-32 Mansarover Park. He was having an electricity connection since September 1988. The officials of the Desu threatened to disconnect his electric connection. He Filed the suit and an application for stay was also filed. (3) The defendant/respondents have contested the suit and application both. One of the grounds taken was that the connection had been taken by Mr. Devinder Kumar but the supply was being used by D.K. Traders. On inspection on 8th March 1990 and 9th March 1990 the plaintiff was found connecting excess load to the extent of 33 HP. Full seal of the meter was found missing. The half seal of th...

Yog Raj Chadha Vs. Sumitar Lal and anr.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 1997IIIAD(Delhi)424; 66(1997)DLT561

S.N. Kapoor, J.(1) This petition under Article 227 has been filed against an order of the learned Rent Control Tribunal dated 28th August, 1980, condoning the delay in payment of Rs. 314.00 in terms of order dated 16th October, 1978 under Section 14(l)(k) of the Delhi Rent Control Act passed by learned Rent Control Tribunal. (2) Brief facts giving rise to the present petition are as under : 2.2.An order of eviction was passed under Section 14(l)(k) and the petitioner was directed to stop the misuse of the premises within six months and in case of failure to do so, to suffer eviction order on 19th September, 1975 by learned Additional Rent Controller.2.3.ANappeal was filed against the aforesaid order. In appeal, the following operative order was passed : '.....Hence, I direct the appellant tenantu/Section 14(11) to pay to the landlord or deposit in the Court of the Additional Controller the amount of Rs. 314.00 within one month as the amount of penalty as aforesaid and in case he fails ...