Delhi Court March 1997 Judgments

Bank of India Vs. Satbir Singh

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 1997IIIAD(Delhi)723; II(1997)BC459; 66(1997)DLT735; 1997(41)DRJ499

M.K. Sharma, J.(1) This is an application filed by Shri Jagdhir Singh under Section 47, 145 read with Order 21 Rule 54 and 67 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The contention of the petitioner in this application is that the sale proclamation dated 6.3.1997 is bad in view of serious illegalities in it and under such circumstances it be recalled. (2) It is submitted by the counsel appearing for the applicant that the sale proclamation is liable to be recalled as it does not correctly reflect the liability of the judgment debtors and of the surety in respect of the decretal amount. The counsel drew my attention to Annexure 'X' annexed with the application which is stated to be a statement of account supplied to him by the bank. The said account shows a debit balance of Rs. 63,401.18 as on 29.11.1996 and accordingly, as submitted by the counsel, sale proclamation showing a sum of Rs. 3,87,167.45 is illegal on the face of it. (3) I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the decree hold...

Hans Raj Shiv Vs. Nirmaljit Arora

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 1997IIIAD(Delhi)495; 67(1997)DLT379

Usha Mehra, J. (1) Smt. Nirmaljit Arora respondent No. 1 let out her premises bearing No. Dd 31 Kalkaji Extn. New Delhi, to M/s. Bharat Steel Tubes Ltd., respondent No. 2 for the residence of its employee Shri Hans Raj Shiv, the petitioner. Lease was for a period of three years executed on 17th July, 1980. The premises was let out for residential purposes. On or about 18th February, 1995 the said Smt. Nirmaijit Arora filed a petition for ejectment of the respondent M/s. Bharat Steel Tubes Ltd. on the ground of bonafide requirements. The said petition was dismissed. On 31st October, 1987, this petitioner resigned his job with M/s. Bharat Steels Ltd. He, however, did not vacate the premises let out to respondent No. 2 for the residence of this petitioner so long he remains in service of respondent No. (2) That when the premises was not vacated, the respondent No. 1, Smt. Nirmaljit Arora sought eviction against respondent No. 2 to whom she had let out the premises. Petition was filed on t...

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Ester Industries Ltd.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: (1997)58TTJ(Del)192

ORDERB. S. SALUJA, J. M. :The Department is in appeal against the order of CIT(A), dt. 11th Feb., 1992, mainly on the ground of deletion of the disallowance amounting to Rs. 33,82,334 made by the AO under s. 43B representing unpaid interest to the financial institution.2. The brief facts in this case are that the assessed filed the return on 27th Dec., 1990, wherein he claimed deduction at Rs. 33,82,334 under s. 43B. The said return was accepted vide intimation dt. 22nd April, 1991. However, the AO issued a notice for rectification dt. 10th Oct., 1991, wherein it was proposed to rectify the intimation on the ground that Rs. 33,82,334 had been claimed as deduction without attaching any evidence relating thereto. The assessed explained that interest on money borrowed from IFCI was paid in Sept., 1990, before filing the return. The assessed also relied on the decisions of the Honble Delhi High Court in the case of Modi Cement Ltd. vs. Union of India (1991) 100 CTR (Del) 48 and SRF Charita...

Asstt. Engineer, Sub-division Iv, Cpwd Vs. C.D. Jha

Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi

A.P. Chowdhri, President: 1. Mr. C.D. Jha, who was complainant before the District Forum-II, was a Government employee. He was living in Quarter No. 551, Sector IX, R.K. Puram, New Delhi, allotted to him by the Government on payment of licence fee. On 8.12.1991 at about 4.30 p.m. a portion of the ceiling approximately one metre in diameter and 2 inches thick fell down in the kitchen, resulting in damage of some utensils, etc. lying there. He lodged a report with the CPWD Enquiry, Sector IX, who were responsible for maintenance and upkeep of the Quarter. Repairs were carried out after one year on 19.12.1992. He filed a complaint for compensation on account of damage suffered by him. The case was contested. On a consideration of the material before it. District Forum-II held that the complainant was 'consumer' as defined in the Consumer Protection Act, that the incident took place on account of poor maintenance. In the facts and circumstances, the District Forum determined the compensati...

National Research Development Corporation. Vs. VipIn Kumar Gupta

Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi

A.P. Chowdhri, President: 1. The appellant. National Research Development Corporation (NRDC) is a Government of India Undertaking engaged in the business of licencing and transferring various technical know-how to entrepreneurs on lump sum premium and recurring royalty basis. The respondent approached the appellant for getting technical know-how for the production of menthol from mint oil for commercial purposes. The complainant applied on the prescribed format for licencing of a project for the manufacture of menthol crystals alongwith offer of premium of Rs. 10,000/-by his letter dated 7.2.92. In reply he received an undated letter from Dr. T.K. Chakravarthy, Development Engineer (Exports) to the effect that the lump sum premium was Rs. 20,000/-and recurring royalty 1.5% on ex-factory sale. The period of licence was seven years and it was non-exclusive, the complainant was further advised to send the application form duly filled in to enable the opposite party to sign the agreement a...

Vibgyor Chemicals Vs. Collector of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1997)(92)ELT513TriDel

1. The issue relates to trade discount. The trade discount has been disallowed by the Assistant Collector on the ground that partners of the assessees and the partners of M/s. United Sales Agencies were relatives.2. When the matter was called none appeared on behalf of the appellants. However, in response to the notice of hearing it was submitted by them that they being a small Unit, it is not possible to afford the expenses of hearing at Delhi. It was requested by them to decide the case on merits. Accordingly, we proceed to pass this order after hearing Shri T.R. Malik, learned SDR.3. Shri Malik reiterated the findings given by the Adjudicating Authority and submitted that sales with M/s. United Sales Agencies were not at arm's length since the partners of both the units are related.Further, he said that since discount at 10% was allowed to other buyers and United Sales Agencies being the same class of buyers, trade discount should be restricted to 10% only as against 15%.4. We have...

Cci Prestress Ties Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1997)(94)ELT98TriDel

1. Appellant filed this appeal against the order-in-appeal No.187-C.E./KNP/92, dated 14-8-1992 passed by Collector (Appeals) Central Excise whereby the Collector (Appeals) confirmed the order passed by the Assistant Collector, Central Excise. The Assistant Collector ordered the appellant to reverse the amount of Rs. 1,38,834.36 taken as modvat credit on the ground that their availment of modvat facility as a declarant unit without paying duty on their clearances is irregular.2. Brief facts of the case are that appellant are engaged in manufacture of PSC sleepers falling under Tariff Heading 6807.00 of the Central Excise Tariff and were availing SSI exemption under Notification No. 175/86-C.E., dated 1-3-1986. They filed declaration under Rule 57G of Central Excise Rules, 1944 on 14-5-1990 and took credit in respect of inputs without getting L4 Licence. The show cause notice was issued and after adjudication demand was confirmed.Appellant filed appeal and the same was dismissed.3. Ld. ...

Ashi Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Collector of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1997)(93)ELT542TriDel

1. This appeal arises from the order dated 11-10-1990, passed by the Collector (Appeals), New Delhi, who has held that the imported item "Foley's Catheter" are not equipment, apparatus and appliances including spare parts and accessories, and hence they are not entitled to the benefit of the Notification No. 63/88, which exempts all equipment, apparatus and appliances including spare parts and accessories thereof from the exemption of customs duty and additional duty. However, the Notification refers to all these items as 'hospital equipment'. However, the conditions stated in the Notification for grant of benefit are as under : (i) the importer produces a certificate from the Directorate General of Health Services to the Govt. of India or the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare in the Govt. of India to the effect that the said hospital falls in either of the categories specified in the said Table; and (ii) the head of the hospital certifies in each case that the hospital equipments...

Hindalco Industries Ltd. Vs. Collector of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1998)(103)ELT297TriDel

1. The Ld. Collector (Appeals) denied Modvat credit on sodium sulphite, cathode block, glass filter cloth and activated carbon against which the appellants had filed Appeal No. E/3194/93-NB. The Ld. Collector (Appeals) again denied Modvat credit on the refractory cement which is the subject matter of Appeal No. 3191/93-NB. Against the denial of Modvat credit the appellants have filed the present appeals.2. The facts of the case in brief are that the appellants are engaged in the manufacture of aluminium and products thereof. The appellants used certain inputs such as sodium sulphite, cathode block, glass filtrate cloth, activated carbon and refractory cement as some of the inputs. Both the inputs and the final products are specified for taking Modvat credit under Rule 57A. The appellants availed the benefit of input duty credit under the Modvat scheme after filing the declaration under Rule 57G. The Department alleged that the above referred items are not inputs, therefore, denied Mod...

R.N. Sachdeva Vs. Ram Lal Mahajan Charitable Trust

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 1997IIIAD(Delhi)997; 1997(41)DRJ698; 1997RLR357

J.B. Goel, J. (1) By this order I will dispose of I.A.12174/96 under Order 12 Rule 6 read with Section 151 Civil Procedure Code filed by the plaintiffs to grant a decree of possession of the suit premises on admission. (2) This application has been filed in a suit for possession, and for arrears of rent, damages and mesne profits filed by the plaintiff against the defendants. (3) It appears that plaintiffs 3 to 6 are the owners of property No. C-6/8, Safdarjung Development Area, New Delhi. Plaintiffs I and 2 are their parents and the property was purchased when one of the plaintiff was minor, her mother acting as her guardian and plaintiff No. 1 has been looking after/managing the properly. (4) The property was given by plaintiff No. 1 on behalf of the owners to defendant No. 1, Trust for running a Nursing Home by means of an 'Agreement of Collaboration' dated 5.1.1984 executed between the partics. It provided that this agreement will be for a period of 39 months commencing from 1.1.19...