Delhi Court August 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.
Umrao Singh Vs. Ram Dulari and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-07-1997
Reported in: 1997VAD(Delhi)99; 68(1997)DLT898; (1997)117PLR38
K.S. Gupta, J. (1) This revision petition by the plaintiff-petitioner is directed against an order dated November 16, 1993 of a Subordinate Judge disallowing amendment in Para 4 of the plaint. (2) Only a few facts are necessary to appreciate the controversy raised in the revision petition. (3) In the suit filed for permanent injunction against the defendants-. respondents, the petitioner filed an application under Order Vi, Rule 17 and Section 151 Civil Procedure Code dated March 26,1993,for amending Paras 1,2 & 4of the plaint.By the order dated November 16,1993 petitioner was, however, permitted to amend Paras 1 & 2 only. Existing Para 4 of the plaint runs as under : 'THATthe grandfather was also the owner of another property bearing No. 4065, Sadar Bazar, Gali Barna,BastiMansa, Delhi, measuring 200 sq.yds. The grandfather of the plaintiff was having three sons. During his life time Ram Chander divided his property. He divided the property No. 4065, Sadar Bazar, Gali Barna, Basti Mans...
Niranjan Singh Vs. Union of India
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-07-1997
Reported in: 68(1997)DLT850; 1997(43)DRJ211
Usha Mehra, J.(1) Petitioner while working as Naib Subedar took annual leave in July, 1983 in order to appear in metriculation Examination of U.P.Board of Secondary Education at Jhansi Centre. The said examination commenced from 12th July, 1983. According to the petitioner he secured second division in the metriculation examination held in July, 1983. He produced his certificate and the marksheet to the respondent. His unit published the order for the qualification attained by the petitioner. The order attaining the qualification was published on 16th March, 1985. However, on 27th April, 1987 the Record Office wrote to the petitioner's unit to cancel the Part-II order because according to him on verification from the U.P.Board of Secondary Education it was found that the certificate produced by the petitioner was bogus. Petitioner brought to the notice of the Record Officer that wrong roll number had been verified by him. The petitioner's roll number was 47321 whereas the Department ma...
Nandita Juneja Vs. Neelam Malik
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-07-1997
Reported in: 70(1997)DLT728
K.S. Gupta, J. (1) By this order propose to dispose of twol.As.8636/96&8637/ 96 filed by Ms. Neelam Malik defendant No. 1. (2) I.A. No. 8636/96 has been filed alleging that by an order dated August 9, 1995, Ms. Nandita Juneja, plaintiff, was allowed to deposit in Court the arrears of rent and future rent @ Rs. 8,000.00 per month which the deposited. Defendant No. I is entitled to withdraw the amount deposited by the plaintiff since the suit property had been purchased by her from Mount Packer under an agreement dated May 30, 1994 and the General Power of Attorney of even date in favor of Ashok Malik, defendant No. 2. It is prayed that defendant No. 1 may be allowed to withdraw the amount -deposited towards the rent. (3) Plaintiff has contested the application by filing reply. It is not denied that pursuant to an order dated August 9, 1995, plaintiff, deposited the arrears of rent and future rent(c) Rs. 8,000.00 per month. However, it is stated that: the suit property lasts in Mount Pac...
Indian Express Newspapers Ltd. Vs. Union of India (Uoi)
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-07-1997
Reported in: 2003(157)ELT138(Del)
ORDER1. This common order shall govern the disposal of four writ petitions filled by four different newspaper owners importing newsprint from USA, Canada and Russia.2. The petitions lay challenge to preliminary findings on anti-dumping investigation concerning imports of newsprints from USA, Canada and Russia, recorded by Shri Deepak Chatterjee, Designated Authority under the Customs Tarrif (Identification, Assessment and Calculation of Anti-dumping Duty on Dumped Articles and for Determination of Injury) Rules, 1995 (hereinafter the Rules, for short). The Rules have been framed in exercise of the powers conferred by Sub-section (6) of Section 9A and Sub-section (2) of/Section 9B of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975.3. The respondent No. 3 is the Indian Newsprint Manufacturers Association. On 14-10-1996, it filed a statutory complaint before the Designated Authority, i.e. respondent No. 2, complaining of newsprint dumping activities being pursued by certain Corporations in USA, Canada and R...
Shah Builders Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Thapar Agro Mills Ltd. and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-07-1997
Reported in: 72(1998)DLT262
S.N. Kapoor, J. (1) The plaintiff/applicant Company has filed suit for possession and damages against the defendants. According to the plaintiff, Arun Thapar impersonating himself as Satish Thapar of M/s. Thapar Agro Mills Ltd. approached the plaintiff for using rooms No. 101, 102 and 103 of Saraswati Lodge at the rate of Rs. 40.00 per day per room. Acting on that representation, the aforesaid three rooms given at the lodging fee of Rs. 40.00 per day per room for a period of 750 days commencing from 4th January 1986 for temporary residence of Arun Thapar. Arun Thapar paid a sum of Rs. l,2000.00 by means of a bank draft being lodging charges for a period of 100 days. Arun thapar even signed the lodge register and receipt book as Satish Thapar. The defendant had broken open a room No.104 and a kitchen and it was noticed on 21st September, 1986. On 18th September 1986, a suit was filed by M/s. Agro Mills Ltd. claiming to be the tenant in the lodging house. The area is residential and the ...
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. National Sports Club of India (No. 1)
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-07-1997
Reported in: (1998)148CTR(Del)89
R.C. LahotiThese two references under section 256(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, arising out of the assessment year 1972-73 made at the instance of the revenue and the assessed both seek the opinion of the High Court on the following questions of law :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was legally correct in holding that rent receipts from the members to whom the rooms were let out by the assessee- club along with other facilities were not assessable to income-tax on the doctrine of mutuality Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, there should be deduction of a portion of the normal overhead expenditure incurred by the assessed against the royalty of Rs. 1,16,000 Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the income from swimming pool and stadium at Bombay should be taxed under the head `Business' and not under the head `Income from house property' ?'2. So far as ...
Sushil Kumar Rastogi Vs. G.N. Sharma
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-07-1997
Reported in: 1997VIAD(Delhi)98; 68(1997)DLT627; 1997(43)DRJ640
Usha Mehra, J.(1) Petitioner is a tenant in respect of back portion of ground floor portion of House No. Y-46, Hauz Khas, New Delhi. He was inducted as tenant in July, 1984 in the said portion of the house consisting of one drawing-cum-dining room, one living room, one kitchen, pantry Wc and verandah. Respondent herein is the landlord/owner of the premises in question. Respondent filed a petition for eviction against the petitioner on the ground of bona fide requirement under Section 14(I)(e) of the Delhi Control Act (in short the Act). The respondent had sought eviction on the ground that he required the premises for himself and his family. That the first floor of the house in question was in occupation of his son and his family. Part of ground floor in occupation of the petitioner, the front portion of ground floor in his possession was not sufficient for his needs. Respondent landlord, an aged person, his wife about 65 years old. Beside his widow daughter and her family was dependen...
Rohan Coach Builders Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Aug-06-1997
Reported in: (2000)LC40Tri(Delhi)
1. This appeal arises from Order-in-Appeal dated 12-1-1997, confirming the denial of Modvat credit amounting to Rs. 19,000/- and also confirming the penalty of Rs. 2,500/-. The allegation against the appellants are that they had utilised the inputs for manufacturing Motor Vehicle falling under Chapter Heading 8703.00 in respect of which they had not filed declaration required under Rule 57G of Central Excise Rules. It is contended by the appellants that they had filed classification list under Rule 173B and had also declared in the registration certification and in all the final invoices had also been shown the Tariff heading. It is also a manufactured Public Passenger Motor Vehicle (Body Building). They had filed declaration and in the declaration in Column 2 pertaining to classification sub-heading, they had shown 8702 and given all the details of the inputs in the column '"Description of input". It is their contention that the same inputs were utilised for manufacture of Public Pas...
Parjan Bros. Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Aug-06-1997
Reported in: (1998)(99)ELT129TriDel
1. In this appeal filed by M/s. Parjan Bros., the goods - tag-guns were imported and were cleared under Bill of Entry dated 23-7-1986.Subsequently, a short levy notice was issued in which it was proposed that the goods imported were correctly classifiable under Chapter Heading No. 85 of the Customs Tariff in force from 1-3-1986. The appellants replied to the short levy notice and contended that their goods were correctly classifiable under Heading No. 84.49 under which the assessments have been made at the time of the clearance out of the Customs' charge. The matter was adjudicated by the Asstt. Collector of Customs, who had held that the goods were classifiable under Heading No. 82.01/04 of the Tariff. This classification was confirmed by the Collector of Customs (Appeals).2. We have heard Shri T.P.S. Kang, Advocate for the appellants and Shri S.N. Ojha, JDR for the respondents/Revenue.3. Shri T.P.S. Kang, ld. Advocate submitted that while in the notice, it was proposed that their go...
Eternit Everest Limited Vs. State Bank of India
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-06-1997
Reported in: 1997VAD(Delhi)133; [1999]95CompCas312(Delhi); 68(1997)DLT498; 1997(42)DRJ757
Vijender Jain, J. (1) This is a suit filed by the plaintiff against the defendants for permanent injunction. Defendant No. 1 is State Bank of India and defendant No. 2 is Mr. Vijay Jaiswal, sole proprietor of M/s Three Circle. The plaintiff in this suit prayed that the defendant No. 1 be restrained from encashing the bank guarantee No. 87/86 and/or from making any payment to the defendant No. 2 and/or withdrawing any money in this behalf from the account of the plaintiff. From the pleadings of the parties, the following issue were framed on 18.07.1996. :-(2) Whether the Bank Guarantee No. 87/86 dated 14.11.1987 given on behalf of the plaintiff in favor of the defendant No. 2 has already expired? Relief.(3) It has also been recorded in the order dated 18.07.1996 that no other Issue was pressed by the parties and it was on the consent of the parties that no oral evidence was led in this case, they argued the matter on the basis of the documents filed on record and exhibited.(4) MR.ABHINA...
- ‹ Prev
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 17
- 18
- 19
- 20
- Next ›
- Last »