Delhi Court April 1997 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
Raizada Brothers (P) Ltd. Vs. Lt. Governor
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-08-1997
Reported in: 1997IVAD(Delhi)259; 67(1997)DLT346; 1997(42)DRJ47
Vijender Jain, J.(1) Petitioners in a public auction held on 31.10.1973, conducted by respondent-Delhi Development Authority (in short 'DDA') purchased plot bearing No.18/3, Block 'D', Okhla Industrial Area, Phase-II, New Delhi. It is the case of the petitioners that after taking over the possession of the aforesaid plot of land, the petitioners wrote to the Dda to execute the lease deed in favor of the petitioner. One such letter is dated 25.2.1974, which is at page-39 of the paper book, interalia, requesting the respondent to execute lease deed. It seems correspondence was exchanged between the petitioners and the respondent. Some time vide its letter dated 13.5.1974 respondent informed the petitioners to collect the lease deed for stamping. Petitioner on 27.4.1976 submitted to the respondent three copies of the perpetual lease deed duly stamped by the office of Collector of Stamps vide its letter of even date, which is at page-45 of the paper book. Respondent vide its letter dated 1...
Narinder Singh and anr. Vs. Jagmohan Singh and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-08-1997
Reported in: 80(1999)DLT107
Anil Dev Singh, J. (1) This is an application under order 6, Rule 17 for amend ment of the written statement. Defendant No. 1 has moved this application for introducing the following pleas in the written statement: 1.The mother of the parties Smt. lqbal Kaur had created a tenancy in respect of the entire building, namely, J-3/194, Rajouri Garden, New Delhi, except the two front shops in favor of defendant No. 1 by executing a written rent agreement dated January 18, 1985. 2.The plaintiffs have not claimed relief of recovery of possession in the present suit, and 3.Defendant No. 1 is protected from dispossession/eviction under the provisions of Section 14(1) of the Delhi Rent Control Act. (2) The plaintiffs filed the instant suit for partition of the property in question. In the written statement filed by defendant No. 1 there is not even a whisper about the alleged tenancy created by Smt-Iqbal aur in favor of defendant No. 1. In the written statement it is inter alias pleaded that de...
H.B. Singh Vs. Gursharan Kaur
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-08-1997
Reported in: 1997IIIAD(Delhi)1056; 67(1997)DLT668; 1997(42)DRJ75
K.S. Gupta, J. (1) This appeal by the defendant/appellant is directed against the order dated January 30, 1996 of a learned Single Judge dismissing is No. 4333/95 filed under Order Xxii Rule 3(2) and allowing is No. 6190/96 filed under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC. (2) is No. 4333/95 dated May 17, 1995 was filed by the defendant/appellant on the allegations that the entire suit is based on the cause of action in favor of Kirpal Singh (plaintiff No. 2), who died on January 10, 1993. Neither the fact of his death was brought to the notice of the court nor any application was filed for bringing on record his legal heirs. It was prayed that the suit may be dismissed as having abated with costs. (3) is No. 6190/96 dated July 7, 1996 was filed by plaintiff/respondent No. 1 on the allegations that she purchased property No. R-264, Greater Kailash-I, under a registered sale-deed dated July 21, 1966. Kirpal Singh her husband, had been managing the property and the other affairs on her behalf. With a vie...
Veekay General Indus. Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Apr-07-1997
Reported in: (1997)(94)ELT191TriDel
1. The appellants M/s. Veekay General Indus, had filed classification list effective from 2-4-1986 with regard to their products Solid Hard Drawn Groved Copper contact wire and solid copper Dropper wire 7mm diameter and sought the classification of these products under sub-heading 7405.10 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as the Tariff). The classification, as declared by the assessee, was approved on 12-6-1986. The goods were said to have been supplied to the Indian Railways. On 5-1-1987, the Railways advised the assessee that the correct classification of the goods in question was under Heading 74.13, sub-heading 7413.90. A copy of the letter written by the Railways is at page 12 of the paper book.On 27-2-1987, the appellants addressed a communication to the Superintendent, Central Excise, Shahdara, submitting that they had inadvertently quoted Tariff Item No. 7405.10 instead of 7413.90. They submitted a revised classification list under...
Vijay Industries Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Apr-07-1997
Reported in: (1999)(112)ELT472TriDel
1. The appellants filed this appeal against the Order-in-Original passed by the Collector of Central Excise, Patna. Shri K.P. Choudhary, Advocate, appearing on behalf of the appellants, submitted that the appellants are engaged in the manufacture and fabrication of bodies on duty paid chassis supplied by the customers. He further submitted that the Collector of Central Excise in the impugned order wrongly classified the fabrication of body building under Headings 87.02, 87.03 and 87.04 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. He further submitted that the case of the appellants is covered by the judgment of the Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of Darshan Singh Pavitar Singh v. Union of India -1988 (34) E.L.T. 631 (P&H). The learned Counsel also argued that the fabrication of body building is classifiable under Heading 87.07 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 and are eligible for exemption under Notification No. 175/86-C.E., dated 1-3-1986. He also relied upon the dec...
Escotel Mobile Communications Ltd. Vs. Union of India
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-07-1997
Reported in: 1997(43)DRJ582
A.K. Srivastava, J.(1) This is an application under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 with the following reliefs: '(I)Restrain the respondent from in any manner interfering with or obstructing or causing or permitting to cause anybody else to interfere with or obstruct with the applicant in providing in the town of Punchkula the Cellular Mobile Telephone Service as part and parcel of the Haryana Territorial Telecom Circle, and pass ex parte orders in terms thereof. (ii) Direct the respondent not to permit the Licensees of Punjab Telecom Circle from providing Cellular Mobile Telephone Service in Punchkula. (iii) Pass such other order(s) deemed fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the present case.'(2) Notice was issued to the respondent Union of India. In response Mr.S.S. Sabharwal, Standing Counsel for Union of India, appeared and took a legal plea that this Court has no jurisdiction to deal with the matter in dispute in view of the provisions of the T...
Ghanshyam Dass Kedia and ors. Vs. N.P. Singh, Secretary, Government of ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-07-1997
Reported in: 67(1997)DLT248
K. Ramaswamy, J.(1) We have heard learned Counsel on both sides. This Court by order dated December 12, 1995 in Union of India & Ors. v. Ghanshyam Dass Kedia & Ors., : (1996)2SCC285 had given direction to the Dda and the Union of Indian that 19 persons, the appellants therein, be given 330 sq. yards each uniformly for construction of their houses, as per plans sanctioned by the authorities, with all other amenities. It would appear that there was some problem which was not brought to the notice of the Court at the time when the matter was disposed of. I As. were filed, one by the Union of India and one by DDA. As per the application filed by the Union of India,, they proposed four alternatives for allotment of the plots to them. After going through the record, we have put them to the learned Counsel for the parties. Mr. Harish Salve, learned Counsel appearing for some of them, has also discussed with the parties. After the discussion, it now emerges that alternative No. Iv proposed by ...
Prime Industries Vs. Rafeeq Ahmed
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-07-1997
Reported in: 1997IIIAD(Delhi)989; 67(1997)DLT121; 1997(41)DRJ612; 1997RLR432
Usha Mehra, J. (1) APPELLANTS' main grievance against the impugned order is that the learned Courts below ignored the fact that there never existed any relationship of landlord and tenant between the appellant No.1 and the respondent. In fact appellants No.2 and 3 partners of appellant No.1 were the tenant of the premises bearing No.249, Village Khureji Khas, New Delhi. Moreover, the respondent never served any valid notice of demand. In the absence of any valid notice of demand having been served on the tenant the petition was not maintainable. Even otherwise in the earlier petition which disposed of the application under Section 15(1) of Delhi Rent Control Act (in short the Act) no benefit under Section 14(2) of the Act was given. The learned Additional Rent Controller (in short the ARC) as well as the Rent Control Tribunal (in short the Tribunal) fell in error in drawing presumption that the respondent served the appellants with a notice of demand. Such a presumption in the facts of...
Synthetics and Chemicals Limited Vs. Commr. of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Apr-06-1997
Reported in: (1997)(93)ELT803TriDel
1. Shri S.L. Sethi, learned Advocate appearing for the applicants prays for dispensation of predeposit of duty of Rs. 4,76,653.26 and the penalty of Rs. 2.20 lakhs. The learned Counsel submits that the major issue for decision in this appeal is whether the delay of one or three days in taking Modvat credit before filing the declaration is condonable and whether the items on which Modvat credit has been taken are capital goods for the purpose of Rule 57T(2). He submits that in so far as condonation of delay is concerned the Central Board of Excise and Customs in their Circular No. 181/15/96-CX., dated 7-3-1996 clarified that the matter has been examined by the Board and it is clarified that the credit should not be denied merely on the ground that declaration has not been filed by the manufacturer before taking credit of duty. The learned Counsel submits that all the consignments of capital goods in dispute were received between 24-1-1995 and 13-3-1995 whereas the Modvat credit of duty...
Asa Ram Mukand Lal Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-06-1997
Reported in: (1999)64TTJ(Del)466
ORDERB.S. SALUM, J.M.:The assessed is aggrieved against the order of the CIT(A)-IV, New Delhi, dt. 1st June, 1993, pertaining to asst. yr. 1988-89 mainly on the ground of initiation of reassessment proceedings under s. 147(a) and making an addition of Rs. 2,50,000.2. In this case the original assessment was completed at total income of Rs. 2,57,821 as against total income of Rs. 2,40,420 declared by the assessee. The 147(a) and making an addition of Rs. return declaring the said income was filed along with the audit report under s. 44AB.In response to notice issued under s. 143(2) the learned counsel for the assessed had appeared from time to time and filed details and had discussed the case with the AO. The AO had observed that the receipts from that were better in this year and he completed the assessment, as aforesaid.2.1. The AO issued a letter dt. 21st Feb., 1991 along with the notice under s. 148 intimating the assessed that the loan of Rs. 2,50,000 taken from Shri Murlidhar was ...
- ‹ Prev
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 14
- 15
- 16
- 17
- Next ›
- Last »