Delhi Court July 1997 Judgments
Home Cases Delhi 1997 Page 7 of about 214 results (0.019 seconds)Amolak Raj Vs. Union of India
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 68(1997)DLT69; 1997(42)DRJ503
Devinder Gupta, J. (1) PETITIONER'S land situate in village Tihar was acquired for Planned Development of Delhi under the provisions of Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') for which award No.2177 was made on 11.11.1968. Petitioner's share in the land was 2 bighas 6 biswas. Under the policy for allotment of alternative residential plots to the persons whose land is acquired under the Scheme of Large Scale Acquisition (Development and Disposal) of Land in Delhi, an application was submitted by the petitioner. Through letter dated 23.12.1988 (annexure P-2) Land & Building Department, Delhi Administration made a recommendation for allotment of a plot of land measuring 250 sq. yards in the West Zone.(2) The grievance of the petitioner is that alternative plot measuring 800 sq. yards @ Rs.40.00 per sq. yard was also offered to one Gurbax Rai, an evacuee of the same village whose land was also acquired under the same notification for the same public purpose. Peti...
Tag this Judgment!Link Engineers Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Delhi Development Authority and ors.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1997VAD(Delhi)180; 68(1997)DLT324
K.S. Gupta, J. (1) Link Engineers Pvt. Ltd. has filed this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, inter alia, on the allegations that the petitioner entered into an agreement of sale of industrial shed bearing No. A-10, Okhla Industrial Area, Phase-11, New Delhi with Atam Prakash Mehta and Suresh Mehta by whom the said shed was purchased from Dda, respondent No. 1. in an open auction for a consideration of Rs. 2,68,000.00 on October 30, 1981. Liability to pay all charges for obtaining transfer of the shed as per the agreement was that of the petitioner. In March, 1986 the petitioner applied to respondent No. 1 for grant of permission for the purpose of sale. This was followed by a reminder dated 21.1.1987. Respondent No. 1 kept on asking the petitioner to carry out unnecessary formalities one after another. Ultimately respondent No. 1 asked the petitioner to produce the registered relinquishment deed from aforesaid Atam Prakash Mehta and Suresh Mehta. (2) It is allege...
Tag this Judgment!Kewal Krishan Vs. Khazan Singh
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1997VAD(Delhi)928; 69(1997)DLT721; 1997(43)DRJ707
Usha Mehra, J. (1) Khazan Singh, respondent herein sought eviction against appellant of a room situated on the ground floor of property bearing No. 4/6, Singh Sabha Road, Subzi Mandi, Delhi. According to respondent the premises was let out for residential purpose. The appellant had in fact been using for the same purpose till such time he acquired a vacant possession of his own premises at C-4/21, Model Town, Delhi. He shifted to his house about three years prior to the filing of eviction petition. Secondly, before shifting the respondent handed over the premises under his tenancy to one Mr. Bakshish Singh. Thus the eviction was sought primarily on two grounds namely, (i) sub-letting, assigning and parting with possession to his own premises at Model Town, Delhi. The learned Additional Rent Controller (in short the ARC) granted decree of eviction in favor of the respondent on the ground of acquiring a vacant possession under Section 14(1)(b) of the Delhi Rent Control Act (hereinafter c...
Tag this Judgment!K.K. Dhawan Vs. Promila Suri
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1997VIAD(Delhi)165; 69(1997)DLT643; 1997(43)DRJ427; 1997RLR608
Usha Mehra, J. (1) The respondent's predecessor in interest i.e. their mother Smt.Nirmal Kanta Suri filed a petition seeking eviction of M/s Morarji Gokuldass Spg. & Wvg. Co. Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as `The Company') under Section 14(1)(b) of the Delhi Rent Control Act (in short the Act) premises bearing No. 29 (Ist Floor), Babar Road, New Delhi on the ground that the company sub-let the same to the present appellant Shri K.K.Dhawan. This present appellant was subsequently imp leaded as respondent No. 2. Smt. Nirmal Kanta Suri died during the pendency of that petition. Present respondents were brought on record as her legal heirs. That the learned Additional Rent Controller (in short ARC) on the basis of oral and documentary evidence produced and after analysing the same the learned Arc concluded that the Company sub-let the premises to the present appellant. He accordingly passed a decree of eviction under Section 14(1)(b) of the Act against this appellant and the company. (2) T...
Tag this Judgment!New India Chemicals Vs. Godrej Soaps Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1997IVAD(Delhi)937; 68(1997)DLT42; 1997(43)DRJ1; (1997)117PLR29
Devinder Gupta, J. (1) ADMIT. (2) With consent of the parties' counsel appeal has been heard today. (3) The appeal is against an order passed on 10.3.1987 by learned Single Judge dismissing the two applications filed by the defendants-appellant, namely, under Order 9 Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short 'the Code') for setting aside the ex parte decree dated 4.9.1996 passed in Suit No.1608/85 and another application moved under Section 5 of the Limitation Act seeking condensation of delay in filing the application under Order 9 Rule 13 of the Code. (4) The suit was posted on 15.5.1995. Statement of Public Witness 1 Upender Kapur was recorded. Another witness V. Kavishwar was present. No time was left as such the suit was directed to be posted for trial from 11.4.1998 to 13.4.1998. For scrutiny the case was directed to be posted before the Jt. Registrar on 27.11.1995. Plaintiff appeared before the Jt. Registrar on 27.11.1995 but nobody appeared for the defendants. The Jt.Re...
Tag this Judgment!Aarvee Waxpol Tools (i) Pvt. Ltd. Vs. C.C.E.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1997)(95)ELT426TriDel
1. This is a stay application filed against the order of Commissioner of Central Excise, Ghaziabad dated 21-4-1997.2. Ld. Counsel stated that the appellants are manufacturers of hand tools viz. Pliers, spanners, etc. They purchased various machines during the period March, 1994 to December, 1994.3. The appellants got registered with the Central Excise on 19-12-1994.On 25-12-1994 there was trial run of the unit; And on 16-1-1995 declaration under Rule 571(1) was filed. On 19-1-1995 credit was taken in RG 23C Part II Register; And on 31-1-1995 intimation was filed to the Superintendent under Rule 57T(2). On 3-2-1995 application for condonation of delay was filed; In spite of it a show cause notice was issued alleging that the appellants are not eligible to Modvat credit as in respect of Sl. No. 6 to 11 it was alleged that the goods have been received and installed prior to the registration of the unit and the declaration under Rule 57F (sic) has not been filed within time.And in respect...
Tag this Judgment!Jct Limited Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1998)(99)ELT393TriDel
1. These are three appeals filed by the appellants against a common inpugned order involving a common issue and, therefore, they are being clubbed together and are being disposed of by this common order.2. The main issue to be considered in these appeals is whether the appellants entitled to Modvat credit in terms Rule 57C in respect of such inputs which have been used by them in the manufacture of final products, fully exempted from whole of duty of excise on such final products.3. We find that the issue is no more res Integra in view of the decision of Larger Bench of this Tribunal in the case of Kirloskar Engines Oil v. CCE 4. Arguing for the appellants, Shri Vinod Agarwal, learned Advocate submitted that the Tribunal has taken the view on the issue that the appellants are entitled to take credit in respect of such inputs which have been used by them in the manufacture of final products in the case of M/s. Premier Tyres [1992 (62) E.L.T. 104] and the other Bench subsequent to that ...
Tag this Judgment!Eagle Fashions Vs. Secretary (Labour) and Others
Court: Delhi
Reported in: (1999)ILLJ232Del
ORDER1. This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a writ of certiorari quashing the. order of reference dated August 11, 1995, Annexure P-1, whereby the following dispute has been referred to the Labour Court by Respondent No. 1 in exercise of the powers conferred by Sections 10(1)(c) and 12(5) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. 'Whether the services of S/Shri Ch. Brijveer Singh, Pradeep Kumar, K. R. Sagar, Sudhir Kumar, Subhash Dubey, Mohd. Akbar and Vyas Gupta have been terminated illegally and/or unjustifiably by the Management and if so, to what relief are they entitled and what directions are necessary in this respect ?' According to the Petitioner, the services of Respondents 2 to 8, claiming to be workers of the Petitioner industry were never terminated. The Petitioner alleges Respondents 2 to 8 having committed some misconduct which has been subject matter of domestic enquiry wherein the Enquiry Officer has submitted the report and further act...
Tag this Judgment!Raj R. Paper Merchant Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Delhi
Reported in: [1998]229ITR650(Delhi)
R.C. Lahoti, J.1. This is a reference under section 256 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, at the instance of the assessed arising out of the assessment year 1975-76 seeking opinion of the High Court on the following questions : '(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner had jurisdiction to raise the gross profit rate to be applied on the estimated sales from 40 per cent. as proposed in the draft assessment order to 50 per cent. in a reference under section 144B ? (2) Whether the order of the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner can be treated as a consolidated order under sections 144B and 144A ?'3. It is submitted by the senior standing counsel for the Revenue that even during the pendency of the reference under section 144B power to give a direction under section 144A could be exercised and thereforee the direction of the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner to the Income-tax Officer to apply the rate of 50 per cent. gross profit on th...
Tag this Judgment!Puri and Company Vs. Delhi Development Authority
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1997VAD(Delhi)186; 71(1998)DLT512; 1997(43)DRJ57
Vijender Jain, J.(1) The award was made on reference of disputes which arose between the claimant and the respondent on 19.11.1992. Aggrieved by the award, the respondent has filed objection under Sections 30 and 33 of the Arbitration Act 1940. Mr.V.K.Sharma, counsel for the respondent has contended that the award of the arbitrator in relation to Claim No.2(A)(i) is wholly unjustified on the ground that no reasons for awarding a sum of Rs. 5,030.00 to the claimant has been given under the award. In support of his contention he has cited College of Vocational Studies v. S.S. Jaitely AIR 1987 Delhi 134). (2) Another serious challenge of learned counsel for the objector is with regard to the award of amount of Rs. 75,806.00 to the claimant for penal rate recovery. Mr.Sharma has contended that the learned arbitrator has not taken into consideration Clause 42 of the Agreement. Under Clause 42 of the agreement, if consumption was found to be more than the theoretical consumption plus permiss...
Tag this Judgment!