Delhi Court March 1997 Judgments

Court on Its Own Motion Vs. the Pioneer

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 1997IIAD(Delhi)552; 68(1997)DLT259; 1997(41)DRJ564

Manmohan Surin, J. (1) On 7.9,96 a newspaper report appeared in the daily newspaper 'The Pioneer' under the caption 'Court hampering drive against construction mafia'. It also carried a photograph of the then Lt.Governor with the notation under it as 'Drive will continue: P.K. Dave'. The said report was authored by correspondent Rahul Pandey. As the report in question is not a very lengthy one, it would be worthwhile to reproduce the relevant portions of the same: 'DELHICIVIC bodies arc not able to lake action against unauthorized constructions in the Capital as the building mafia is 'abusing' the judicial system to their advantage, a top official of Delhi Government said. The Courts in Delhi give stay and status-quo orders, despite the fact that the Municipal Corporation of Delhi has a Tribunal and that Lt. Governor is the appellate authority,' the official said.'(2) This notwithstanding, there have been instances where cases have been taken up not only at lower courts in Delhi but co...

Hindustan Construction Co. Vs. National Highway Authority of India

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 1997IIIAD(Delhi)440; II(1997)BC102; 67(1997)DLT1; 1997(41)DRJ515

M. Jagannadha Rao, J. (1) This appeal is preferred by the appellant company (writ petitioner) against the Judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 20.12.1996 in C.W.P. 2421/96, dismissing the writ petition. (2) The dispute is in regard to the acceptance of lenders for laying a 4 lane road in West Bengal for the National Highway Authority of lndia (hereinafter called the NHAI) with the money given as soft loan by the Asian Development Bank (hereinafter called the ADB) to the Union of India. (3) The respondents 1 to 4 in this appeal are (1) the National Highways Authority of India, (2) the Chairman of the said Authority, Mr. Yogendra Narain, (3) Union of India and (4) M/s B. Seenaiah & Co. The petitioner company has sought the issue of a Writ of Certiorari quashing the letter of acceptance, if any, issued by the Nhai in favor of the 4th respondent for laying of part of NH-2 Highway in West Bengal as per option A (bitumen road); for a Writ of Mandamus directing respondents 1 and 2 to gi...

Vineeta Mahajan Vs. Delhi Development Authority

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 1997IIIAD(Delhi)966; 66(1997)DLT893

Vijender Jain, J. (1) Nobody has been appearing on behalf of the respondent-DDA in this matter inspire of the matter being on 'Regular Board' for the last so manyhearings.(2) Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner, Mr. U.L. Watwani, has argued that the petitioner was allotted a flat initially on 15.1.84 in Category-11 on Ground Floor in Pocket-TV, Sector-B, Vasant Kunj, New Delhi under the Self-FinancingScheme. Subsequently, the respondent vide its letter dated 26.12.84 informed the petitioner to deposit the second Installment by 31.12.84, third Installment by 30.6.85and fourth Installment was asked to be deposited by 31.12.85. All these installments were deposited by the petitioner in time after taking due extensions from theAuthority.(3) It seems that as the flats were not constructed in the above-said area, the respondent wrote to the petitioner vide its letter dated 24.12.87, which is at page 48of the paper book, that the allotment of Category-11 Flat in the aforesaid Pocket ...

Anant Kaushal Vs. Krishana Sharma and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 1997IIAD(Delhi)782; 66(1997)DLT286

M.K. Sharma, J.(1) In the present suit instituted by the plaintiff against the defendants praying for a decree of specific performance of the agreement with physical possession of the suit property in favor of the plaintiff or in the alternative for payment of Rs. 17,50,000.00 with interest @ 24% per annum to the plaintiff, the plaintiff filed an application under Order 39 Rules I and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure which is registered as I.A.I 0107/1994. By this order, I propose to dispose of the said application filed by the plaintiff after hearing the Counsel appearing for the parties. (2) The plaintiff instituted the suit contending, inter alia, that in respect of the suit property being a flat on No. E-14/7,Vasant Vihar, New Delhi, late K. M. Sharma was the owner and that Satish Seth, the predecessor in interest of defendant No. 4 entered into an agreement with late K. M. Sharma on 5.9.1988. Late K. M. Sharma and late Satish Seth also entered into an agreement of collaboration wi...

Narayan Glass Works Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax. (Also As ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: (1997)58TTJ(Del)634

ORDERCHOPRA, A.M. :Both the assessed and the Revenue are in cross-appeal against order, dt. 31st July, 1992, of the learned CIT(A). The appeals having been heard together are disposed of by this common order for the sake of convenience, as also some of the grounds being common.2. The assessee-firm is engaged in the business of manufacture and sale of glassware, chimneys, lampware, glass bangles, etc. The account period for the relevant assessment year consists of 17 months, the books having been closed on 31st March, 1989. The assessed declared its income at Rs. 2,32,910 and the return of its income was accompanied by audit report under s. 44AB. The assessment was completed by the AO on 26th March, 1992, under s. 143(3) of the Act at an income of Rs. 51,21,690 by making various additions/disallowances. On appeal, the learned CIT(A) gave relief of Rs. 18,30,966 and restored back addition of Rs. 22,734 on account of ESI disallowed under s. 43B and the issue relating to inflation in stock...

Pritam Singh Najoga and ors. Vs. Registrar of Co-operative Societies a ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 1997IIIAD(Delhi)1067; 67(1997)DLT230

Devinder Gupta, J. (1) In this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India instituted on 3.8.94, the following prayers were made : (i) issue a writ of prohibition or any other writ or order restraining the Society from allotting the flats in the housing complex constructed by the Society without valid sanction from the Registrar of Society and the D.D.A. (ii) issue a writ of mandamus directing the Society to treat the petitioners as members of the Railway Employees Co-operative Group Housing Society Ltd. forthwith and allow them to take part in the activities of the Society; (iii) declare the elections held on 26.9.93 as null and void and direct the Society to hold elections to the Managing Committee after issuing agenda notices to all the members on the rolls of the Society as per Membership List filed in writ petition No. Cw 2230/1992. (2) In the counter affidavit filed on 27th September, 1995 by respondent No. I, it is stated that the resolutions of the Society for expul...

Jagatjit Industries Ltd. Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: (1998)60TTJ(Del)544

ORDERB. S. SALUJA. J.M. :The assessed is in appeal against the order of CIT (A)-VIII, New Delhi, dt. 25th March, 1988, on various grounds.2. Ground No. 1 urged by the assessed relates to disallowance of investment allowance to the extent of Rs. 2,99,040 in relation to plant and machinery added during the year in the administrative division.2.1 The assessed claimed investment allowance at Rs. 4,55,884 on the new machinery installed during the previous year on total cost of Rs. 18,23,537. The AO disallowed the claim of investment allowance on the following items :Rs.(a) Malt thermax boiler 6,02,836 (b) Transformer 2,697 (c) Tubewells 5,90,625The AO disallowed the claim on the ground that the aforesaid machinery was used primarily for the liquor division and item No. 1 of the 11th Schedule to the IT Act specifically excluded investment allowance on such machinery.2.2 On first appeal, the learned counsel for the (sic) contended that the boiler as well as tube-wells were used for the genera...

Mrs. Suyasha Vohra and Others Vs. Kanwaljit Bhatti

Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi

A.P. Chowdhri, President: 1. Kanwaljit Bhatti arrayed as opposite party 1 is a property dealer and Estate agent. Complainant No. 1 is alleged to have entered into an agreement with Mr. Ajit Singh Oberoi, opposite party 2 on 3.2.94. Under the agreement opposite party 2 was to take over Institute of Human Resources Development and a nursery school impleaded as complainant Nos. 2 and 3 for a consideration of Rs. 7,50,000/-. For this deal the said property dealer was paid a commission of Rs. 50,000/-by an account payee cheque dated 4.2.94. Further case of the complainant is that the deal made with the opposite party 2 fell through. The property dealer having failed to have the deal completed was deficient in providing service as property dealer and complainant has claimed refund of the said amount with @ 24% interest and Rs. 7,50,000/-on account of compensation. Kanwaljit Bhatti, opposite party 1, failed to appear but a detailed written statement was filed by opposite party 2. A rejoinder ...

N.D.M.C. Vs. Lodha and Co.

Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi

A.P. Chowdhri, President: 1. Brief facts giving rise to this appeal are that property No. 12, Bhagat Singh Marg, New Delhi belonged to AISS Jain Conference. In Flat No. 6 of the said building M/s. Lodha and Co. was a tenant. The electricity meter No. K-73848 was installed in the said flat for domestic purposes with a sanctioned load of 0.48 KW. During a surprise inspection, it was found that connected load exceeded the sanctioned load and it was 0.83 KW. It was also found that the connection which was sanctioned for domestic use had been diverted for commercial purposes. The supply was, therefore, disconnected on 7.11.1991. The complainant applied for restoration of the supply on 20.11.1991. A second inspection was carried out on 28.11.1991 when both the aforementioned contraventions were found to persist. In view of the second inspection, the application for restoration was declined. M/s. Lodha and Co. filed the present complaint before District Forum- II. The case was contested. On a...

Consumer Rights Society (Regd.) and Another Vs. Chief General Manager, ...

Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi

A.P. Chowdhri, President: 1. The complaint giving rise to this appeal was filed by Consumer Rights Society (Regd.) and Smt. Darshana Devi. The case of the complainants was that telephone No. 7291554 was installed at the residence of complainant No. 2 on 23.4.1992. The telephone became dead on 8.8.1992 and inspite of several complaints in writing as well as by personal visits, the telephone was not set right. The complainant sent complaints in writing dated 8.8.1992, 14.8.1992, 5.9.1992, 10.9.1992 and 22.9.1992. Ultimately the complainant also failed to receive any bill and when she contacted the official concerned she was informed that the first bill of a new connection was generally issued in about one year. The complainant, therefore, kept waiting for receiving the telephone bill. Ultimately she collected a 'duplicate bill sometimes prior to 1.10.1993. The bill contained rental for the period 8.8.1992 till the date of the bill, even though the telephone had been lying dead since 8.8....