Delhi Court September 1997 Judgments

Punjab and Sind Bank Vs. Guru Nanak Auto Supplies (India) and Others

Court: Delhi

Reported in: [1998]94CompCas435(Delhi)

K.S. Gupta, J.1. This order will govern the disposal of I.As. Nos. 496 of 1996 and 497 of 1996, filed by Yashoda Nandan, defendant No. 4. 2. It is alleged in I.A. No. 496 of 1996, that the plaintiff-bank filed suit No. 1199 of 1989, for recovery of Rs. 3,01,446.62 with interest at 18 per cent. per annum and costs which was decreed by the judgment dated October 7, 1991. The defendants were granted six months time to pay the decretal amount failing which the plaintiff was at liberty to move the court for passing a final decree. 3. Defendant No. 4 for the first time came to know about the filing of the suit on receipt of notice of the application filed under Order XXXIV, rule 5 read with section 151 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908. Immediately on receipt of notice, defendant No. 4 approached the counsel on March 10, 1994, and on inspection of the file on March 11, 1994, it was revealed that a decree for Rs. 3,01,446.62 along with interest was passed against the defendants. It was furthe...

Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Indo Java and Co.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: [1998]230ITR589(Delhi)

By The Court 1. Hearing concluded. We have heard learned counsel for the parties.2. Learned counsel for the respondent has placed reliance on a Division Bench decision of the Bombay High Court in CIT vs . Phalton Sugar Works Ltd. : [1986]162ITR622(Bom) . Having heard learned counsel, we are of the opinion that question No. 1 framed on behalf of the Revenue is merely academic and no reference is called for thereon. However, questions Nos. 2 to 5 are questions of law arising from the order of the Tribunal which need to be answered by the High Court. Accordingly, the petition is allowed. The Tribunal is directed to draw up a statement of case and refer the following questions (questions Nos. 2 to 5 proposed by the petitioner) for the opinion of the High Court :'1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was legally right in holding that the assessed suffered trading loss of goods worth Rs. 15,53,504 when there is no evidence on record of title in goods (PV...

Chhatar Pal Vs. Union of India

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 1997VIAD(Delhi)311; 1997(43)DRJ467

Usha Mehra, J. (1) RULE. (2) Since the point involved was very short, thereforee, petition was taken up for arguments. Heard and disposed. (3) Petitioner joined Rajputana Rifles Regiment on 23rd August, 1984. On account of his domestic problem he requested his discharge from service on 4th January, 1990. His request was acceded. He was discharged on 4th January, 1990. At the time of his discharge his over all assessment was recorded as 'Good'. Somewhere in January, 1993 he sought for re-enrolment because his domestic problem got solved. His request for re-enrolment was acceded to by the respondent. Respondent re-enrolled the petitioner in the Army (defense Security Corps) on 27th February, 1993. However, on 29th September, 1993 respondent served the petitioner with a show cause notice as to why he be not prematurely discharged from the service, inter alia, on the ground that his military character was originally assessed as 'Good' at the time of his discharge from service on 4th Januar...

Pushpa Wadhawan Vs. Exports India

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 1997VAD(Delhi)481; 70(1997)DLT82; 1997(43)DRJ246; 1997RLR598

(1) The present petition arises out of a decision of the Additional Rent Controller dated 15.5.1995, dismissing the eviction petition of the petitioner filed by her under Section 14(1)(e) read with Section 25B of the Delhi Rent Control Act. (2) Briefly, the facts of the case are that the petitioner is the owner of the premises in dispute, which is situated on a part of a freehold plot of land measuring 1000 sq. yards bearing No. M-9, New Delhi South Extension Scheme Part-II. The said plot was purchased by the petitioner sometimes in February , 1957. It is further stated that two separate portions were constructed, one bearing No. M-9A and the other M-9. The portion M-9A was given by the petitioner on perpetual lease to her son, Arun Wadhawan, who is gainfully employed in the United States of America. That portion was let out by the petitioner's son, Arun to the employers of the husband of the petitioner, who had in turn made the said premises available to the petitioner's husband and t...

Maneklal Harilal Mills Ltd. Vs. Collector of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1997)(95)ELT217TriDel

1. The facts of the case are that the appellants are engaged in the manufacture of cotton fabrics. They filed revised claim for Handloom cess on 16-9-1986 and on 15-10-1986 claiming that as per S.O. 115(E), dated 1-3-1975 no Handloom Cess is required to be paid when the basic duty is nil or exempted. The refund claim pertains to the period from 1-8-1984 to 31-12-1985. This refund claim amounted to Rs. 62,356.84.Another refund claim for Rs. 63,035.98 for the period from 3-1-1986 to 30-8-1986 was filed on 16-9-1986. The Assistant Collector sanctioned refund of Rs. 18,637.84 which was within six months. But rejected the refund claim amounting to Rs. 1,15,392.82. The appellants filed an appeal before the ld. Collector (Appeals). The ld. Collector (Appeals) upheld the impugned order passed by the ld. Assistant Collector and hence the appeal before us.2. None appeared for the appellants. However, they have filed some written submissions and have prayed that the issue may be decided on merit...

Kirpal Singh Khurana Vs. Union of India

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 70(1997)DLT58

K.S. Gupta, J.(1) M/S. Kirpal Singh Khurana & Sons filed petition under Section 14 of the Arbitration Act alleging that it entered into a contract with the Union of India-respondent No. 1 through the Executive Engineer, Public Witness Pwd Division No. 26 (DA), New Delhi, for execution of the work of 'Construction of Home for Mentally Retarded Children and Adults', Dormitory and kitchen with connecting corridor i/c internal water supply and sanitary installations at Avantika (Rohini) Sh : Phase Iii and an agreement bearing No. 22/EE/84-85 was executed between the parties. Disputes having arises between the parties in respect of the contract were referred in terms of arbitration clause to respondent No. 2 on or about August 17, 1989. Respondent No. 2 entered upon the reference on October 11, 1989 and made the award on December 6,1990. Notice of the award having been made was received by the petitioner on or about December 13, 1990. It was prayed that respondent No. 2 may be directed to f...

Bahadur Singh Vs. Union of India and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 70(1997)DLT412

Anil Dev Singh, J. (1) This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution which calls in question the order of detention dated 17th October, 1996 passed by the Joint Secretary, Government of India, under Section 3(1) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974. The petitioner has challenged his detention, inter alia, on the ground of delay in disposal on his representation by the Central Government. (2) Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner points out that the petitioner had filed a representation before the Central Government on 12th November, 1996, after a period of twenty eight days. Learned Counsel submits that the delay in disposal of the representation of the petitioner has not been explained by the respondents. On the other hand, learned Counsel for the respondents submits that there is no delay in disposing of the representation of the petitioner. She has invited my attention to para 8 of the counter-affidavit. She point...

Sumitra Sahai Vs. Arya Orphanage

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 1997VAD(Delhi)593; 68(1997)DLT793; 1997(43)DRJ227

D.K. Jain, J. (1) This is Defendant No. 1's application for striking out some portion of averments in plaintiff's replication, (filed by way of reply) to Defendant No. 1's amended written statement. The defendant claims that the said portion has been unauthorisedly added even after dismissal of plaintiffs application, being is No. 10438/96 (under Order 6 Rule 17 of the CPC), seeking permission to incorporate the same averments in her plaint, which was not permitted as the plea ran counter to the plaintiff's stand, being the basis of the suit. It is also alleged that the amended replication is contradictory to the earlier replication. The portion sought to be struck off, set out in para 15 of the application, reads as follows :- 'IT is submitted that on Lala Narain Dutt's death the said property passed to his son and his widow in equal shares where the widow received a limited estate since Lala Narain Dutt expired prior to 1956. This limited estate in the widow's hands was converted to ...

Delhi Development Authority Vs. Rajinder Singh

Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi

A.P. Chowdhri, President: 1. Brief facts necessary for the disposal of this appeal are that flat No. 258-A, Pocket MandN, Phase 1, Sarita Vihar, New Delhi was allotted to one Sri Ram as a result of draw held on 29.3.86 under the Janta Category. He was required to deposit a sum of Rs. 9,756.62 by a specified date and also fulfil certain formalities. He defaulted in making the payment and the allotment in his favour was cancelled. The said flat was, however, allotted to Rajinder Singh, respondent herein, in April '87. Sri Ram aforesaid filed a Civil Suit sometimes in 1986 challenging the cancellation of allotment in his favour and the Civil Suit ordered the parties including the DDA to maintain status quo with regard to possession. Ultimately, the said Civil Suit was dismissed. After the dismissal of the suit, the case for delivery of possession of the flat to the said Rajinder Singh was taken up and possession was delivered on 3.12.90. Rajinder Singh filed a complaint before District Fo...

Somaiya Organics (i) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1999)(107)ELT805TriDel

1. In this appeal filed by M/s. Somaiya Organics (I) Ltd., the matter relates to the eligibility of the denatured Ethyl Alcohol to the benefit of money credit scheme under Notification No. 231/87-C.E., dated 1-10-1987, as amended, issued under Rule 57K of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. The appellants were bringing denatured ethyl alcohol and were taking credit on such denatured ethyl alcohol. The show cause notice was issued by the Superintendent of Central Excise on 29-4-1994 for the period April 1989 to February 1994, proposing to disallow the credit on 0.2% of the quantity of the denatured ethyl alcohol on the ground that this quantity of 0.2% represented the denaturant which were not eligible for the benefit of Notification No.231 /87-C.E.2. I have heard Shri M.P. Dev Nath, Advocate, for the appellants and Shri D.K. Nayyar, JDR, for the Respondents/Revenue.3. I have carefully considered the submissions made by both sides and have gone through the facts on record. Under Notificati...