Delhi Court August 1997 Judgments

S. Darshan Singh Kohli Vs. Kusum Anand

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 1997VAD(Delhi)105; 68(1997)DLT438; 1997(43)DRJ195

C.M. Nayar, J. (1) The present suit is filed by the plaintiffs for recovery of possession and mesne profits and for issuance of perpetual injunction. The following reliefs are prayed: (a) Possession of the suit premises be delivered to the plaintiffs; (b) Perpetual injunction be issued against the defendant not to use the premises for any purposes other than for residence of the defendant and/or for members of her family and not to run any school over there; (c) Mesne profit @ Rs. 3,000.00 per month w.e.f. January 1, 1978 be allowed until possession of the premises is restored back to the plaintiffs and interest @ 12% per annum be awarded thereon until recovery of the same. (2) The brief facts of the case are that the plaintiffs are owners of the property bearing No. 1/5, West Patel Nagar, New Delhi. This is a double storey house which the plaintiffs purchased from M/s Jawahar Mal & Sons some time in the year 1961. The land on which the said house was constructed was given on lease by ...

Pamela Kumar Vs. Arun Mohan Etc.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 1997VAD(Delhi)560; 68(1997)DLT359

Devinder Gupta, J.(1) We have heard the appellant, respondent No. 1 and respondent No. 3 in person, who -incidentally are practicing Advocates in this Court. (2) The appellant seeks to challenge the order passed on 9.9.1996 by learned Single Judge dismissing her eight miscellaneous applications ( I As 3342/96,6224/ 96, 6225/96, 6226/96, 6227/96, 7781/96. 8365/95 & 8366/96). The ground in rejecting the misc. applications being that prima facie the claim of the plaintiff is not tenable in law as she was already married before the death of her father, she cannot make any claim in the joint family of her father who had also executed a Will in respect of his interest in the property which had been duly proved in probate proceedings long ago. (3) Plaintiff in her suit for declaration, partition and rendition of accounts has prayed for: (i) declaration that daughters of a Joint Hindu Family have equal coparcenary rights as the sons of a Joint Hindu Family or in lieu of declaration, as a merci...

Oil India Limited Vs. Collector of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1998)(97)ELT488TriDel

1. Appellants imported Gas Lift equipments and claimed assessment under Heading 84.59(2) of the CTA, 1975. The lower authorities having classified the goods under Heading 84.59(1), the present appeal has been filed before us.2. Shri U.K. Chaudhary, Advocate appearing along with Shri Sayram Patnaik placed before us a copy of the Calcutta High Court judgment in the case of Aluminium Corporation of India Ltd. v. Coal Board - AIR 1959 Calcutta 222 in which the Court has discussed the coverage of the word "produced" in relation to mining of coal. He stated that recovery of oil from the well is similar to mining of coal and, therefore, imported machinery was correctly classifiable as that designed for production of a commodity. Shri D.S. Negi, SDR supporting the order of the Collector stated that activity of recovery of oil could not be termed to be production. " 'Goods' as defined in Article 366(12) of the Constitution, includes all materials, commodities and articles. Coal is certainly a ...

Collector of Customs Vs. Pragati Computers Pvt. Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1997)(96)ELT342TriDel

1. This Revenue Appeal is against the order of the Collector (Appeals), Madras extending the benefit of exemption under Notification No.281/84-Cus. in terms of Sl. No. l(b) of the table annexed thereto which covers Winchester Disk Drives. The Collector (Appeals) has extended the benefit of the notification to Winchester Disk Drive with controller as imported by the Respondents herein. According to the Revenue, as seen from the Encyclopedia of "Electronics - 2nd Edition" by Gibilisco/Scalter that Winchester Disk Drive is a circuit that permits the host computer to read data from the disks or platters of disk drives or write into them and it manages the exchange of data between the Central Processing Unit (CPU) and storage devices at high speed. It is the argument of ld. DR that the benefit is available only to disk drives and not to disk drives with controllers. According to him the controller performs definite and purely independent function from the disk drives. Disk drives act as st...

Arvind Detergents Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Collector of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1998)(104)ELT389TriDel

1. The appellants were manufacturing shoes in the factory at Ahmednagar and were availing of the benefit of the Notification No. 175/86-C.E., dated 1-3-1986 as amended. Later on the department found that another unit of the same manufacturer situated at Aurangabad was manufacturing soap. When the value of the clearances of two units was combined, it was found that the assessees had exceeded the limit specified in the notification. A show cause notice dated 3/4-7-1989 was issued seeking recovery of duty short levied for the period July, 1987 to May, 1989.In the show cause notice, proviso to Section 11A was specifically invoked alleging suppression of facts on the part of the assessees with intent to evade duty. After hearing the assessees, the Additional Collector issued the impugned order confirming the demand, imposed penalty on the manufacturer and also on the three persons concerned with the operation of the Units. Hence, the present appeal. In the present appeal, orders as to the ...

Ghisa Ram Tara Chand Vs. Income-tax Officer

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi

1. This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of the CIT(A) confirming the penalty of Rs. 8,150 levied under s. 271(1)(c) for asst. yr. 1988-89.3. The learned Departmental Representative relied upon the reasons mentioned in the penalty order as well as in the order of the CIT(A).4. We have considered the submissions made by the learned representatives of the parties and have perused the orders of the learned Departmental authorities.5. The AO has levied penalty under s. 271(1)(c) in respect of the following additions : in this account was of Rs. 7,000) 3,000B. Cash credit in the name of Shri Mahender Kumar. 9,000C. Addition on account of "Inaam It was submitted on behalf of assessee before the Departmental authorities that the affidavits of both the creditors were duly furnished. The Department has failed to establish that the amount of cash credit added by the AO, in fact, represents the real income or concealed income of the assessee. The assessee had also submitted t...

Surinder Singh Vs. the State (Delhi Admn.)

Court: Delhi

Reported in: AIR1998Delhi140

Anil Dev Singh, J.1. The appellant has been convicted under section 15 of the N.D.P.S. Act (for short 'the Act') by Shri Kuldip Singh, Additional Sessions Judge, vide his order dated January 19,1993. By a subsequent order dated January 20, 1993 the petitioner has been sentenced to undergo ten years rigorous imprisonment and has been directed to pay a fine of Rs.1,00,000/-.2. On December 9, 1989 at about 4.35 P.M. the appellant was intercepted at the I.S.B.T. by the Investigating Officer SI Ram Sewak (PW-5), ASI Om Prakash and Constables Raj Pal and Rameshwar. On the search of the petitioner he was found in possession of 30 kgs. of poppy powder.3. This appeal raises a short point. The question to be determined is whether the petitioner was given notice under section 50 of the Act before his search was effected by the Investigating Officer. The learned Additional Sessions Judge has held that the prosecution was able to prove that a notice under section 50 of the Act was given to the appe...

Muni Lal Vs. Municipal Corporation of Delhi

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 1997VAD(Delhi)909; AIR1998Delhi79; 69(1997)DLT386

M.S.A. Siddiqqi, J.(1) After hearing learned Counsel for the parties, I propose to dispose of the writ petition at the stage of admission itself. BY this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution the petitioner seeks an injunction against the respondents restraining it from constructing public latrines in front of the petitioner's house. The petitioner's grievance is that there is a proposal to rebuilt public latrines at points A & B, shown in the map annexed with the writ petition, which were demolished long ago on complaints made by the residents of the locality. His further grievance is that these public latrines, if allowed to be constructed will cause inconvenience and hardship to the petitioner.(2) Respondent denied the petitioner's case and alleged that the 'existing latrines block is being renovated/reconstructed.to provide better hygienic facilities to the residents of the locality. (3) It is significant that Section 359 of the D.M.C. Act (for short 'the Act') mandat...

Vijaya Home Loans Ltd. Vs. Crown Traders Ltd.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 1997VAD(Delhi)546; AIR1998Delhi183; 68(1997)DLT798

K.S. Gupta, J.(1) This suit under Order xxxvii, Civil Procedure Code has been filed alleging that M/s. Fairgrowth Home Finance Limited was incorporated on July 9, 1990, under the Indian Companies Act, 1956. After passing resolution under Section 21 of the Indian Companies Act and obtaining necessary approval from the Central Government, name of M/s. Fairgrowth Home Finance Limited was changed to Vijaya Home Loans Ltd.-Plaintiff. Registrar of Companies, Karnataka, Bangalore, also issued fresh certificate dated February 24, 1995, consequent upon the change of the name of the company. Plaintiff-Company is engaged in the business of development of properties and constructions. Defendant No. 2 is one of the directors of defendant No. 1. It is alleged that defendant No. 1 entered into an agreement dated May 7, 1991 with M/s. Fairgrowth Home Finance Ltd. to develop property No. B-64, Greater Kailash, Part-1, by demolishing the then existing structure and making construction of multistoreyed a...

Gajinder Pal Singh Vs. Mehtab Singh

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 1997VAD(Delhi)201; 68(1997)DLT624; 1997(42)DRJ761

K.S. Gupta, J. (1) Defendants have filed I.A. 6885/96 under Order Vii Rule 11 Civil Procedure Code for rejection of the plaint which is being contested by the plaintiff by filing reply.(2) Contention advanced by Sh.U.K. Chaudhary appearing for defendants 1 & 3 was that first page of the Compensation Card in the name of Parman Singh filed by the plaintiff indicates that the same was issued on 7.5.1955 and payment of interim compensation was made to Parman Singh thereafter. Documents at Seriall Nos. 1A, 2 & 3 filed Along with the plaint go to show that property No. B-13, Nizamuddin East, New Delhi was purchased by aforesaid Parman Singh on 25.5.1990. According to Sh. Chaudhary, if the compensation in lieu of the alleged ancestral properties left behind in Pakistan was received by Parman Singh after 7.5.1955, how could he purchase said property B-13, Nizamuddin East, with the compensation amount. Plaint, thereforee, does not disclose cause of action as regards said property No. B-13 and t...