Delhi Court July 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.
inder SaIn Bedi Vs. M/S.Chopra Electricals
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-09-1998
Reported in: 1998IVAD(Delhi)269; 74(1998)DLT203; 1998(46)DRJ295
ORDERD.K. Jain, J.1. This application, under section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, for fixing an interim amount as damages/mesne profits payable to the plaintiff, with direction to the defendant to pay the same every month to him, has been filed by the plaintiff in his suit for recovery of possession, mesne profits/compensation and injunction etc. in the following circumstances: 2. The plaintiff is the owner of a commercial property, bearing no.B-59/1, Naraina Industrial Area, Phase-II, New Delhi. According to him the defendant had taken a portion of the said property, shown 'Green' in the plan attached with the plaint, on 26 May 1980 and later on 1 May 1981, each time for a period of 11 months, at a rental of Rs.4,500/- per month. His case is that the defendant, in or about the year 1983, encroached upon the other portion of the property, in area app. 3193 square feet, detailed in para 8 of the plaint and shown 'red' in the plan, where the defendant unauthorisedly made some cons...
Shikha Properties(P) Limited Vs. S.Bhagwant Singh and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-09-1998
Reported in: 1998VAD(Delhi)28; 74(1998)DLT113; 1998(46)DRJ286; (1998)120PLR32
D.K. Jain, J. 1. This is plaintiff company's application under order 39 Rule 1 & 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, filed in their suit for declaration and permanent prohibitory injunction, for ad interim orders : a) staying operation of the alleged cancellation of General Powers of Attorney dated 16 November 1983 and b) restraining them from interfering in or causing hindrance in the plaintiff's peaceful use and enjoyment of and their dealing with the suit properties being blocks no.A & C of the Regal Building, New Delhi. 2. The defendants owned the afore noted property. They entered into agreements to sell dated 2 November 1983 and 15 November 1983, registered respectively on 10 November 1983 and 17 November 1984, agreeing to sell and transfer all their rights, title and interest in blocks A & C of the said building to the plaintiff company for consideration as mentioned therein. As per the terms of the agreement to sell, all liabilities for damages/misuse of the property and other Go...
State Bank of India Vs. Gobbs Kay India and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-09-1998
Reported in: 1998IVAD(Delhi)499; 74(1998)DLT133; 1998(46)DRJ291; (1998)120PLR36
D.K. Jain, J.1. This order will dispose of is No.297, 2628 and 2629/96, all filed by the plaintiff. is No.297/96 is under Order XXII Rule 4, CPC for bringing on record the legal representatives of deceased defendant no.3; is No.2628/96 is under Order XXII Rule 9(2), CPC for setting aside abatement of suit, if any, and is No.2629/96 filed simultaneously with the latter application is under section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 for condensation of delay in filing the former two applications.2. The applications emerge under the following circumstances:-Having failed to realise the two amounts of Rs.2,02,429.15 and Rs.2,03,417.40, disbursed by the plaintiff bank to defendant no.1 against two documents for US$ 25,000 each, negotiated by the plaintiff under letters of credit presented on 8 February 1979 and 13 February 1979 by defendant no.1, a duly constituted firm, on account of stoppage of payment by the buyer for failure on the part of the defendants to supply the contracted goods as per...
Dalip Singh (Prof.) Vs. Sant Singh and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-09-1998
Reported in: 1998IVAD(Delhi)691; 74(1998)DLT208; 1998(46)DRJ298; (1998)120PLR39
ORDERD.K. Jain, J.1. By this application under order VI Rule 17, CPC defendant no.2, hereinafter referred to as the applicant, seeks leave to amend the written statement filed sometime in September 1985, by incorporating two new paragraphs mentioned in the application. In substance, the applicant wants to raise a plea that he has become absolute owner of the back portion of the property bearing no.7/32, Roop Nagar, Delhi by virtue of a Will dated 27 October 1983 executed by late Sh.Sant Singh, co-owner of the suit property and defendant no.1 herein.2. The application has emerged under the following circumstances :-The suit property originally belonged to one Sh.Man Singh, father of the plaintiff and defendant no.1. He had executed a Will on 1 September 1956, bequeathing the property to his wife, Smt.Jeevan Dei. Sh. Man Singh died on 22 June 1972 and his will was probated on 30 August 1973. Smt. Jeevan Dei, on her part, executed a will on 5 September 1974, bequeathing specific portions ...
Mrf Limited Vs. Nr Faridabad Rubbers and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-09-1998
Reported in: 74(1998)DLT234; 1998(46)DRJ302
1.In a suit for perpetual injunction, restraining the defendants from passing off their goods and business as and for the goods and business of the plaintiff by using the offending trade mark 'NRF' or any other trade mark deceptively similar thereto, in relation to tubes used in tyres or any other product and further restraining the defendants from infringing plaintiff's registered trade mark 'MRF' by using the impugned mark 'NRF' and also for rendition of accounts, the plaintiff, engaged in the manufacture and sale of automobile tyres/tubes has filed an application(IA No.11432/97) under Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 read with Section 151, CPC, seeking temporary injunction to the same effect till the disposal of the suit. 2. On being served with summons/notice along with copy of ex parte ad interim injunction, dated 17 December 1997, restraining defendant No.1 from manufacturing and selling scooter tubes and tyres or any other article bearing the trade mark 'NRF' or any other trade mark which i...
Ridhi Sidhi Commercial Co. Ltd. Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income T ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-08-1998
Reported in: (1998)62TTJ(Del)710
ORDERB. M. Kothari, A.M.This appeal by the assessed is directed against the order, dated 17-12-1990, of the Commissioner (Appeals) for assessment year 1986-87. The assessed has raised as many as 11 grounds in this appeal. However, at the time of hearing, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the assessed submitted that he would like to press only ground Nos. 2(a), (b) and (c), ground Nos. 7 and 9 which are reproduced hereunder: :'2. (a) That the learned Commissioner (Appeals) has grossly erred on the facts of the case under the law in upholding the additions by the assessing officer of an amount of Rs. 38,65,000 out of the share subscription moneys of Rs. 50,00,000 received by the appellant company from several subscribers to its rights issue during the relevant previous year, merely on the ground that confirmations from the concerned shareholders were not available in the assessment record, in spite of the fact that the assessing officer had admittedly stated in his remand report...
Collector of Central Excise Vs. P.H. Industries
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jul-07-1998
Reported in: (1998)(62)ECC235
1. A common issue involving the interpretation of paragraph 4 of Exemption Notification 175/86, dated 1-3-1986 is involved in these four appeals filed by the Collector of Central Excise, Bombay-I which are directed against a common order-in-appeal dated 3-6-1993 passed by Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), Bombay. That order actually covered 15 appeals filed by as many appellants before him. Arising from the said order these four appeals have been filed by the Collector.These were taken up for hearing and are disposed of by this common order.2. In response to the notices of hearing, similarly worded replies have been received from three of the four respondents (1) Shanti Electricals, (2) Sandeep Industries and (3) P.H. Industries stating that being Small Scale Industries they are unable to arrange for representation in Delhi for arguing the matter and requesting for transfer of the appeals to the Mumbai Bench of the Tribunal. In view of the decision we are taking in the matter, we...
Collector of Central Excise Vs. Hindustan Platinum (P) Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jul-07-1998
Reported in: (1998)LC790Tri(Delhi)
Respondents herein, manufacturers of Platinum/rhodium stainle gauzes, were paying duty in terms of Notification No. 131/81-C.E., whi gives exemption to the extent of value of old and used platinum/ rhodiu used in the manufacture of such articles. The respondents filed 3 refund clair stating that they have paid excess duty against 3 gate passes dated 4-6-198 28-7-1986, 25-9-1986. These refund claims were rejected by the concerned A sistant Collector holding that the terms of the contract entered into between respondents and their customer (Steel Authority of India) are such that the sa gauzes can be manufactured only out of "pure virgin" metal. Therefore t contention of the respondents to the effect that the manufacture the said gauz was made only from used platinum/rhodium is not correct. It was further he by the Asstt. Collector that the metal account maintained by the responder did not made a distinction between pure and virgin metal and they did n show that they had utilised old an...
The Eveready Flashlight Co. Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jul-07-1998
Reported in: (1998)(62)ECC231
1. Appellant, engaged in the manufacture of torches was including the cost of secondary packing in the assessable value of torches and paying duty, allegedly under protest. The dispute in these appeals relates to the period from 1.1.93 to 30.11.93. It was found that during this period, appellant had collected from buyers as cost of packing an amount less than the actual cost of packing and added to the assessable value only the lesser amount collected from the buyers and not the higher amount incurred as cost of packing. Three show cause notices dated 6.4.93, 17.6.93 and 9.12.93 were issued in respect of different periods alleging the above facts and stating that the entire cost of packing should have been included in the assessable value and proposing demand of differential duty on the difference between the actual cost of packing and the amount of charges collected from the buyers. The notice also proposed imposition of penalty. Though appellant resisted the notices, the Assistant C...
Karnataka Gears (P) Ltd. Vs. Collector of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jul-07-1998
Reported in: (1999)(110)ELT529TriDel
1. These two appeals are directed against the order of the Collector holding that M/s. Concord Steel Works Ltd. and M/s. Karnataka Gears have interest in each other and therefore, for the purpose of allowing small scale exemption available under various exemption Notifications issued by the Govt. of India, from time to time, only one exemption is allowable by clubbing the value of goods cleared by both the units. The impugned order demands the duty of over Rs. 10 lakhs and imposes penalty of Rs. 2 lakhs on Concord Steel Works Ltd. 2. Arguing the case Shri G. Shiv Das, ld. Advocate submits that both the units were private limited companies and they have been held to be related to one and another as the Directors of the Companies were family members. Ld. Advocate submits that there is no legal basis to hold that two companies are one and the same if Directors are from the same family. There is also no reason for holding that the units are "interested in the business of each others" and ...
- ‹ Prev
- 16
- 17
- 18
- 19
- 20
- 21
- 22
- 24
- 25
- 26
- Next ›
- Last »