Delhi Court May 1997 Judgments

Zenith Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1997)(95)ELT80TriDel

1. The dispute in this case relates to the classification of Carbide Throwaway Inserts, plugs and rods. The asses-sees had proposed classification under Tariff Item No. 68. After issuing a show cause notice proposing classification under the Tariff Item No. 51 A, the Assistant Collector classified them under Tariff Item No. 62. The Collector upheld this classification. The CEGAT directed the Collector to reconsider the classification of these goods. The Collector in his impugned order held that the correct classification was under Tariff Item 62. The present appeal is against this order. The appellants desired disposal on merits which we proceed to do after hearing Shri Negi, SDR.2. In the appeal memorandum no contest has been made of the fact that whereas the show cause notice proposed classification under one tariff item, the classification finally adopted was different. The grievance made is that since 1975, these very goods were accepted to be classifiable under Tariff Item No. 68...

S.A. Growth Fund (P) Ltd. Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi

1. These three appeals by the assessee, all for asst. yr. 1992-93 are directed against different orders of CIT(A) on identical lines refusing claim of exemption of premium received on maturity of Special Bearer Bonds under s. 10(15)(i) of IT Act.2. Both the parties before us admitted that facts in all the appeals were identical. Accordingly, arguments were heard in ITA No. 673 in the case of S.A. Growth Fund (P) Ltd. The facts in brief are that the assessee, a private limited company was incorporated on 11th February, 1991. It had acquired 885 Special Bearer Bonds issued by the Central Government under the Special Bearer Bonds (Immunities and Exemptions) Act, 1981 (for short the "Bearer Bonds Act"). During the relevant previous year which ended on 31st March, 1992, the assessee encashed the above bonds on maturity at a premium of Rs. 2,000 per bond. The total amount realised by the assessee on such redemption was : (i) Against the face value of Rs. 10,000 per bond (885 bonds) 88,50,00...

Indian Triathlon Federation Vs. Indian Olympic Association and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 1997IVAD(Delhi)422; 67(1997)DLT541

K. Ramamoorthy, J. (1) The plaintiff has filed this suit for the following reliefs: '(a) pass a decree of the declaration declaring the appointment of the ad hoc committee by the defendant invalid; (b) restrain the ad hoc Committee/defendants from taking any decisions in respect of the plaintiff and the forthcoming National Games and from functioning and interfering with the functions of the President and office Bearers of the plaintiff who have been declared as such by a City Civil Court, Madras'. It is claimed that there was a decree by the City Civil Court, Madras dated 5.3.96 wherein the claim of the persons representing the plaintiff has been recognised as President. The fact that the plaintiff-Association is affiliated to Indian Olympic Association is not disputed by the parties. There appears to be disputes between various Associations in the Federation and for the purpose of conducting the National Games to oversee the events, on 6.5.97 the President of the Indian Olympic Assoc...

Cofex Exports Ltd. Vs. Canara Bank

Court: Delhi

Reported in: AIR1997Delhi355; II(1997)BC438; [1998]92CompCas583(Delhi); 1997(43)DRJ754

R.C. Lahoti, J. (1) This order shall govern the disposal of FAO(OS) 266/95 and FAO(OS) 314 to 319 Of 1996. These appeals raise issues of frequent occurrence touching the entertainability of cross- suits, counter claims and claims of set-off before Debt Recovery Tribunal, and impact of their existence in written statement on the jurisdictional competence of the civil court qua the jurisdiction of Debt Recovery Tribunal over such cases which are associated with cross suits, cross claims and claims for set-off, filed or preferred reciprocally. Let us lay the factual matrix so as to seat the legal questions propping up for decision. Cofex Export vs. Canara Bank and Ors. arises out of civil suit No. 3193/92 filed by Canara Bank against the appellant and two others for recovery of Rs. 25,21,556.98. The Suit was filed on 24.8.92. The transactions entered into between the parties are banking and loan facilities, packaging credit facility and loan on pledge and hypothecation. In the written sta...

Sirmor Sudburg Auto Ltd. Vs. Kuldip Singh Lamba

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 1997IVAD(Delhi)364; II(1997)BC386; [1998]91CompCas727(Delhi); 67(1997)DLT870; 1997(42)DRJ421

R.C. Lahoti, J.(1) The petitioner is aggrieved by the impugned order dated 8.11.96 passed by the trial Court rejecting his application under Section 22(1) of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 (hereinafter Sica, for short) paying for stay of the suit.(2) The petitioner company took the premises belonging to the plaintiff-respondent for three years under a lease agreement dated 16-4-1992. On 2-8-1993, the petitioner company has been declared a sick company and proceedings under Sections 16 and 17 of Sica are going on against it. On 22-12-1995, the plaintiff-respondent has filed a suit seeking a decree for recovery of possession over the premises held by the petitioner company and a decree for arrears of rent to the tune of Rs. 1,77,840.00 on account of arrears of rent for the period November, 1994 to November, 1995 calculated at the rate of Rs. 13680.00 per month. the tenancy of the petitioner company as terminated with the end of November, 1995. Mesne profits ...

Municipal Corporation of Delhi Vs. Ravish Chandra Rastogi

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 1997IVAD(Delhi)595; AIR1998Delhi23; 69(1997)DLT460

R.C. Lahoti, J. (1) This order shall govern the disposal of the following six civil writ petitions. (1)CW 2557/95 - M.C.D. VS. R.C. Rastogi & Ors (2)CW 2558/95 - M.C.D. VS. R.C.Rastogi & Ors (3)CW 2559/95 - M.C.D. VS. R.C.Rastogi & Ors (4)CW 2560/95 - M.C.D. VS. R.C.Rastogi & Ors. (5)CW 2561/95 - M.C.D. VS. R.C. Rastogi & Ors (6)CW 3076/95 - R.C.Rastogi VS. M.C.D.(2) A common question of law arises for decision in all the writ petitions. The property of the assessed being self-occupied has been assessed on cost of construction basis under Section 6(1) of the Delhi Rent Control Act 1958 by taking into consideration market value of land on the commencement of construction and reasonable cost of construction. The Assessing Authority has determined the date of commencement of construction and then found out the market value of the land on that date plus the reasonable cost of construction as determined by an approved valuer and then arrived at the assessment of `standard rent' in terms of ...

Raj Kumari Kapoor Vs. C.K. Dass

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 1997IVAD(Delhi)98; 68(1997)DLT774; 1997(42)DRJ1; 1997RLR487

R.C. Lahoti, J. (1) Whether the interlocutory order passed by the Rent Controller or Addl. Rent Controller appointed under Section 35 of Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 is amenable to revisional jurisdiction of High Court under Section 115 of the CPC(2) Proceedings for eviction of tenant initiated by the landlord under Chapter Iii of the Act are pending before the Addl. Rent Controller. The revisionist- petitioner moved an application under Order 1 Rule 10 of the Civil Procedure Code seeking her impleadment in the proceedings. The application has been rejected. The petitioner has come up in revision to this Court invoking its jurisdiction under Section 115 of the Cpc (3) The learned counsel for the respondent No.1 has raised a preliminary objection to the maintainability of the revision submitting that Addl. Rent Controller is not a `Court subordinate to High Court' within the meaning of the expression as used in Section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code and thereforee the revision does not...

Raj Kumar Bansal and ors. Vs. Dina Nath Sharma

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 1997IVAD(Delhi)540; 68(1997)DLT430

Usha Mehra, J. (1) Dina Nath Sharma, respondent herein (petitioner before Trial Court) sought eviction of his premises under the tenancy of the petitioner herein under Section 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act (in short the Act). Leave to defend was sought, inter alia, on the ground that the respondent herein was not the landlord/owner of the premises in question nor he let out the premises, that the premises was let out for residential-cum-commercial purpose, that the landlord had sufficient accommodation in his possession. By the impugned order dated 25th September, 1996 the learned Additional Rent Controller declined to grant the leave to defend, hence this petition. (2) The landlord in the eviction petition had pleaded that the property in question was in the name of his mother. His mother made a 'Will' and bequeathed this property in his name. That by virtue of the 'Will' dated 12th January, 1991 he succeeded to the estate of his mother Smt. Ram Wati. That the tenanted premis...

Kamla Devi and ors. Vs. Onkar Nath

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 70(1997)DLT355

Usha Mehra, J. (1) The appellant had sought eviction against the respondent on the ground of sub-letting, 17 sub-tenants were imp leaded beside the tenant Onkar Nath. In this appeal the challenge is primarily any against the observations of the Tribunal whereby he declined to hold that there was sub-letting of the premises in favor of four persons, namely, S/Shri Dewan Chand Gupta, Kirori Mal, Babu Prasad and Madan Singh. The grievance of the appellant is that no written consent was taken by the tenant to induct sub-tenants which is a pre-requirement under Section 14(1)(b) of Delhi Rent Control Act (in short the Act). That the Tribunal fell in error in presuming that there was an implied consent because of the rent note dated 12/03/1959. In the absence of any notice of creation of sub-tenancy by the sub-tenants petition of the appellant ought to have been allowed and eviction order passed.(2) In order to appreciate the challenge, the brief facts of the case are that Shri Onkar Nath was...

Ravish Chandra Rastogi and ors. Vs. Municipal Corporation of Delhi and ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 67(1997)DLT713

R.C. Lahoti, J. (1) This order shall govern the disposal of the following six civil writ petitions. (1) Cw 2557/95 - M.C.D. v. R.C. Rastogi & Ors. (2) Cw 2558/95 - M.C.D. v. R.C. Rastogi b Ors. (3) Cw 2559/95 - M.C.D. v. R.C. Rastogi & Ors. (4) Cw 2560/95 - M.C.D. v. R.C. Rastogi & Ors. (5) Cw 2561/95 -M.C.D. v. R.C. Rastogi & Ors. (6) Cw 3076/95 - R.C. Rastogi v. M.C.D. (2) A common question of law arises for decision in all the writ petitions. The property of the assessed being self-occupied has been assessed on cost of construction basis under Section 6(1) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 by taking into consideration market value of land on the commencement of construction and reasonable cost of construction. The Assessing Authority has determined the date of commencement of construction and then found out the market value of the land on that date plus the reasonable cost of construction as determined by an approved valuer and then arrived at the assessment of 'standard rent' in ...