Delhi Court May 1998 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.
Assistant Commissioner of Vs. Soni Photo Films (P) Ltd.
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Decided on: May-26-1998
Reported in: (1998)67ITD81(Delhi)
1. The Delhi Bench 'B' had referred the following question for the decision of the Special Bench : "Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, assessee-company which is engaged in the business of developing and printing of photographs, is entitled to investment allowances ?" Both the learned members constituting the Division Bench considered that it is a worthy question to be decided by a Special Bench in view of the fact that there are decisions of different Benches of the Tribunal in favour of the assessee on the point with which decision the learned Members constituting the Division Bench do not want to agree or concur. Before embarking upon giving our considered decision on the question framed and referred to the Special Bench, let us set out the facts of the case.2. The name of the assessee is Soni Photo Films (P) Ltd. carrying on its activity at A-16, Krishna Nagar, Delhi. It is a private limited company which is incorporated under Certificate of Incorporation N...
National Co-op Consumer Federation of India Ltd. Vs. Jwala Pershad Ash ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-26-1998
Reported in: 1998VAD(Delhi)137; AIR1998Delhi308; 74(1998)DLT842; ILR1998Delhi367
ORDERArun Kumar, J.1. The basic facts which are necessary to appreciate the controversy in this appeal are that the respondent herein filed a suit for recovery of possession of a portion of premises bearing bungalow No. 2, Ring Road, Lajpat Nagar IV, New Delhi let out to the defendant/appellant in the present appeal vide a duly registered lease deed dated 16th September, 1975, This lease deed was for a period of one year and was extended by another year in September 1976. It is not necessary to give details of the tenancy premises because there is no controversy between the parties on this aspect. With effect from 21st October, 1978, the rent of the devised premises was enhanced from Rs. 2500/- per month to Rs. 3500/- per month. There is no dispute that the month of tenancy is now the English calendar month i.e. from the first day of the month to the last day of the month as per the English calendar.2. By way of amendment of the Delhi Rent Control Act, Section 6A was introduced which g...
Abdul Hamid and ors. Vs. Charanjit Lal Mehra and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-26-1998
Reported in: 1998VIAD(Delhi)45; 74(1998)DLT476
Vijender Jain, J.1. The suit was filed by the plaintiffs against the defendants for possession, arrears of rent and mesne profits in respect of the ground floor of property bearing No. G-6, N.D.S.E., Part-I, New Delhi. Issues had been framed in this matter and the matter was listed in the category of 'Finals'. Applicants/plaintiffs filed an application under the provisions of Order 12, Rule 6 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure (in short 'CPC') stating, inter alia, that the defendants have relied upon the documents purporting to be a lease deed dated 2.12.1986, though, the plaintiffs have denied the execution or legal validity of said lease deed. In para-2 of the 'Reply on Merit' in the written statement, the defendants have also admitted that the rate of rent was Rs.6,000/- per month. In the aforesaid lease deed dated 2.12.1986, Clause-2 thereof reads as under : '2. That the period of this lease has been fixed at 119 months beginning from 2.12.1986 and ending on 1.11....
Chand Bal Vs. Kamal Kumar
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-26-1998
Reported in: 1998IVAD(Delhi)429; 73(1998)DLT631
J.B. Goel, J.1. I have heard learned Counsel for the plaintiff on the question whether the suit has been properly valued for purposes of Court fee and jurisdiction at the admission stage.2. The case is that late Shri Des Raj was a tenant in respect of shop No. 2372, Chuna Mandi, Paharganj at a monthly rent of Rs. 22/- under deceased Shri Makhan Lal and defendants 1 and 2 as his sons. Shri Des Raj died as a contractual tenant and the tenancy was inherited by the plaintiffs as tenants. It is alleged that Shri Makhan Lal filed petition for eviction. That petition was dismissed on 21.4.1998.3. Defendants No. 1 and 2 are alleged to have sold the said property to defendant No.3 who is threatening to illegally dispossess the plaintiffs from the suit premises and accordingly the plaintiffs have filed this suit for perpetual injunction restraining the defendants from so dispossessing the plaintiffs.4. The suit for purposes of Court fee and jurisdiction has been valued at Rs. 5,05,000/-. I have ...
Global Company Vs. National Fertilizers Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-26-1998
Reported in: AIR1998Delhi397; 76(1998)DLT908; 1998(47)DRJ144; 1998RLR404
ORDER1. In this petition filed on January 16, 1998 under Section 9(ii) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short the 'Act'), it is inter-alia alleged that the petitioner moved A.A. No. 42/96 under Sections 8 and 11 of the Act. By the order dated October 17, 1996 said petition was disposed of and the arbitrators by both the parties were duly appointed. Arbitrators, namely, Justice R.P. Bhat (Retd.) nominee of the petitioner and Sh. V. Kumar, nominee of the respondent in turn appointed Justice Avadh Behari Rohtagi (Retd.) as the presiding arbitrator. The arbitrators have made the award dated December 31, 1997 and have awarded to the petitioner US$ 88,250 together with interest @9% p.a from December 27, 1995. Financial interest of the petitioner for that amount need to be protected. It is prayed that respondent be directed to furnish security for US$ 88,250/- plus interest $9 p.a. in terms of the arbitral award dated December 31, 1997. 2. In the reply it is, inter-alia alle...
Commissioner of C. Ex. Vs. Shri Ram Vinyl and Chemical
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: May-25-1998
Reported in: (1999)(112)ELT871TriDel
1. This case was posted for admission today, but was taken up for final disposal with the consent of both sides.2. The department's appeal is against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) holding that the review appeal was barred by limitation. The appeal was signed by the Assistant Commissioner on 10-10-1996, but was received in the Commissioner's office on 21-2-1997. Revenue is relying upon a certificate from the Post Office to the effect that the registered letter purportedly containing the appeal was received by them on 10-10-1996.3. Shri Sharma, appearing for the respondents, submits that this was letter addressed to the Superintendent and not to the Commissioner (Appeals). He, therefore, doubts whether the letter relevant to the case or not. As regards citations made by the department in the case of C.C.E., Madras v. Union Carbide India Ltd., Calcutta reported in 1988 (38) E.L.T. 263 (A.P.), he submits that the delay condoned in that case are of some days only whereas in the p...
Apsara Metallica Industries Vs. Collector of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: May-25-1998
Reported in: (1998)(102)ELT79TriDel
1. Shri M.P. Devnath, Advocate submits that as informed by the appellants under communication dated 21-5-1998 they have been issued bank guarantee for Rs. 10 lakhs and had also deposited Rs. 10 lakh in cash.2. Under Order No. 76-77/93-WRB, dated 12-3-1998 (sic), the appellants were directed to deposit a sum of Rs. 20 lakh in cash and furnish a bank guarantee for another sum of Rs. 20 lakhs within a period of 12 weeks from the date of communication of that order dated 12-3-1993.3. Shri A.K. Madan, SDR pleaded that as the terms of the Stay Order which was issued way back in the year 1993 had not been complied with by the appellants should be dismissed straight-away without any further opportunity being given to the appellants.4. We find that there is nothing on record that the terms of the stay order had been complied with. In the communication from the appellants to their Counsel also no details had been given about the bank guarantee of Rs. 10 lakhs and the deposit of Rs. 10 lakhs as ...
Shiv Singh Vs. N.P.C.C. Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-25-1998
Reported in: 73(1998)DLT582; 1998(46)DRJ189
J.B. Goel, J.1. By this Order, a composite application, is No.7002/93 filed by the petitioner, seeking modification of the Award dated 28.8.1992 passed by Shri Farooq Saulat as Arbitrator, under Section 15 of the Arbitration Act,1940 (for short 'the Act') and also for condensation of delay in filing this application is being disposed of. 2. Briefly, the facts are that the execution of certain works at Manari Bhati Unit, P.O. Dharasu, Distt. Uttarkashi (UP) was awarded to the petitioner by the respondent under four contracts/orders No.599/5203 dated 16.2.1983, No.2172 dated 1.4.1984, No. 11345/150 dated 12.4.1984 and No. 3691/2375 dated 23.7.1986. 3. Disputes arose between the parties. The contracts contained arbitration agreement and as provided in the contract the Chairman & Managing Director of the respondent appointed Shri Farooq Saulat as an Arbitrator on 5.10.1987. The Arbitrator entered upon the reference. Claims and counter claims were filed by the parties and after hearing the ...
Dau Dayal Aggarwal Vs. Shri Akhil Rohtagi
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-25-1998
Reported in: 1998IVAD(Delhi)678; 76(1998)DLT714
ORDERManmohan Sarin, J.1. Petitioner is a tenant in respect of premises bearing No.26, KailashKunj, Greater Kailash-I, New Delhi. Petitioner tenant has suffered an evictionorder dated 4.10.1997, passed by Ms.Asha Menon, Additional Rent Controller,under Section 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act (hereinafter referred toas the 'Act').2. Facts leading to the filing of the present revision petition may benoticed in brief:(i) Respondent is the owner ofFlat No.26, Kailash Kunj, Greater Kailash, New Delhi, which was let out to THE petitioner. The premises comprise three bed rooms, one drawing-cum-dining room,one kitchen and two toilets.(ii) Respondent filed aneviction petition on 31.5.1991, against the petitioner on the ground ofbonafide requirement, claiming that he required the premises for himself andhis family, comprising his wife, two daughters, then aged 14 years and 12years and a son aged 4-1/2 years. Respondent claimed that he was residing at19, Spencers Lane, Alipore Road, Delhi,...
Gautam Enterprises Vs. Indian Tourism Development Corporation Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-25-1998
Reported in: 74(1998)DLT1; 1998(46)DRJ280
S.N. Kapoor, J.1. The present petition has been filed under Sections 14 and 17 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 for filing and making the award rule of the Court.2. Objections (IA No.11041/96) under Sections 30 and 33 of the Arbitration Act have been filed by the respondent.3. In this case, the claimant, M/s. Gautam Enterprises, entered with an agreement with the respondent Indian Tourism Development Corporation Limited (hereinafter called the 'ITDC Ltd.' for short) for carrying out water proofing job at the terrace of Hotel Laxmi Villas Palace, Udaipur on 17th August, 1993. Some dispute arose and the matter was referred to the Sole Arbitrator Shri T.C. Garg to adjudicate upon the dispute vide letter No. LA/ARB/PROJ/LVPH/95/179 dated 21.4.1995.4. The Arbitrator gave the award on 25th March, 1996. The claimant was awarded a sum of Rs. 6,50,886.43p. as against Rs. 6,91,329.13p. claimed. The counter claim was rejected. The claimant was also held entitled to interest at the rate of 12% per ann...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »