Court : Delhi
Reported in : 75(1998)DLT625; 1998(47)DRJ427
M.S.A. Siddiqui, J. 1. The plaintiffs filed the present suit seeking, inter alia, the following reliefs :- a) pass a decree of specific performance against the Defendant, thereby directing the Defendant to specifically perform his obligation to register the relevant Lease Deed for the period from 1st August, 1998 to 31st July, 2000 in respect of the suit premises. b) in case the Defendant fails to have the Lease Deed or Lease Deeds referred to in paragraph (a) above registered, this Hon'ble court may appoint an Officer of the court to have the Lease Deed registered; c) pass a decree of declaration that the Plaintiff No. 1 is entitled to continue as tenant of the said premises and is entitled to remain in possession thereof as such tenant on payment of the agreed monthly rental of the demised premises. d) pass a decree of permanent injunction restraining the Defendant his servants & agents from of dispossessing of the plaintiffs from the suit premises being the Ground and First Floor...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : 1998VIIAD(Delhi)327; 75(1998)DLT637; 1998(47)DRJ430; (1998)120PLR53
Arun Kumar, J.1. The respondent filed a suit for recovery of possession and damages on 27th August, 1991 against the appellant with respect to premises bearing No. 33, Transport Centre, Rohtak Road, Delhi. The suit premises comprises ground floor and first floor having a total area of 960 sq. ft. The premises was admittedly let out by the respondent plaintiff to the respondent for three years w.e.f. 1st October, 1984 to 30th September, 1987 at the monthly rent of Rs. 5,500 vide a registered lease deed. This lease was extended for a further period of three years w.e.f. 1st October, 1987. The extended period of lease was to expire on 30th September, 1990. The rent was enhanced from Rs. 5,500/- per month to Rs. 6,500/- per month. The second lease was however not registered. Admittedly the second lease was executed on same terms and conditions as were contained in the previous registered lease deed. The first registered lease deed contained a clause that the lease was for a period of three...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : 2001ACJ24; 1998VIAD(Delhi)536; 1998(47)DRJ618
Usha Mehra, J. 1. These two appeals arise from a common judgment delivered by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (in short the Tribunal) touching the same facts, cause of action and question of law. Hence taken up together and disposed of by this order. 2. In order to appreciate the challenge to the impugned judgment by the owner of the truck in FAO 24 of 1983 and by the legal heirs of the deceased in FAO 50 of 1983 we must have a look at the facts of this case. 3. The deceased, Ishwar Singh, aged about 32 years was a Sub-Inspector in Police. On 5th June, 1976 at about 8.45 p.m. he was going on a two wheeler scooter, hardly had he reached near Railway Bridge, Rani Bagh, Delhi, a truck bearing No.DLL-5885 driven rashly and negligently by respondent Gurdial Singh, came from behind and hit his scooter. As a result of this impact created by the said truck, Ishwar Singh fell down and sustained grievous injuries. He was removed to Irwin Hospital where he succumbed to his injuries. At the tim...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi
A.P. Chowdhri, President: 1. Brief facts giving rise to this appeal are that Smt. S. Dhawan, complainant purchased Blue Chip Invertor manufactured by M/s. Blue Chip Technology Ltd. (opposite party No. 1) through its dealer M/s. Technoguard Electronics (opposite party 2) on 19.5.1996 for Rs. 13,500/- including the price of the Invertor as Rs. 7,500/- and the balance as the price of the batteries. The Invertor started giving trouble from the very beginning and whenever it was working, it gave service for about one and half hour as against the rated capacity of four hours on full load of 400 watts. In the beginning, repeated calls failed to secure any response. Later on the mechanics of the manufacturer appeared from time to time and purported to carry out repairs. It was found that on numerous occasions, the circuit got burnt and it had to be replaced. The complainant served opposite party by registered letter dated 18.7.1996 and approached the District Forum. On a consideration of the m...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in : (1999)(65)ECC397
1. These two appeals were preferred by the Revenue against the order-in-appeal dated 25-12-1993 and 1-2-1994 involving the issue regarding availment of benefit of Notification No. 175/86 as amended by Notification Nos. 55/92 and No. 67/92.2. Shri H.K. Jain, learned DR submitted that both the respondents M/s.Ideal Graphic Industries and M/s Chaitra Mudranalaya were not having certificates of SSI from the Director of Industries and they availed of the benefit of SSI Notification No. 175/86 as amended by Notification No. 55/92. The Commissioner (Appeals) had allowed the benefit of both the respondents observing that second proviso substituted by Notification No. 52 of 1992 does not disentitle any of the respondents from availing the benefit that this would disentitle them from availing of the notification in terms of Clause (a) of the proviso but they would still be eligible to avail the exemption under Clause (b). The learned DR submitted that the value of clearances in the preceding fi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in : (1999)(108)ELT583TriDel
1. Question involved in the appeal of the Revenue is regarding classification of photocomposing machine described in the invoice as follows :--------------------------------------------------------------------------------S. No. Description Qty. Price in US dollars1. Photocomposing Machine 01 35,000.00 comprising of the following:-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Total amount in United States Dollars 35,000.00-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Dispute is whether it will be classified in Tariff Heading 84.2 (sic) as contended by the respondents herein or under Tariff Heading 84.71 as contended by the Revenue. The original authority classified the goods under Tariff Heading 84.71 taking it to be a computer i.e. automatic data processing machine, because it consists of keyboards, editing terminals etc. On the other hand, the lower appellate authority in appeal filed by the respondents has held tha...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in : (1999)(106)ELT384TriDel
1. The dispute in the instant case is with regard to eligibility of small scale exemption in respect of Guards plate for fans manufactured by the appellants. Arguing the appeal, Shri Devnath submitted that the item in question is name plate of the buyer. Sample of the product was also shown. It is a metal circle at the middle of which name "Cinni" "Sigra" is written. The exemption has been denied on the ground that the brand name/trade name of another person has been affixed on the product. It has been held that in view of the affixing of the brand name of another person, the exemption is not available to the appellants under para 7 of Notification No. 175/86. Sri Devnath submitted that the aforesaid order is contrary to clarification of the Board itself as it has been mentioned in C.B.E.C. letter No.345/35/87-TRU, dated 29-10-1987 that metal labels etc. manufactured by the SSI Units will be eligible for exemption under the said notification. Shri Devnath also referred to Circular No....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in : (1999)(105)ELT154TriDel
1. These 3 appeals involving common issues have been filed by M/s. Dass & Co. against confirmation of the demand of central excise duty in respect of the product known as quick lime and hydrated lime.2. Shri K.K. Anand, learned Advocate, submitted that the Department has approved their classification list No. 59/90 classifying the product under Chapter 25 of the Schedule to the CETA against which no appeal was filed by the assessees. He, however, submitted that non-filing of the appeal against the approval of the classification list will not debar the appellants from raising the issue while challenging the confirmation of the demand. He relied upon the decision in the case of Rajasthan Spinning and Weaving Mills Ltd. v. CCE reported in 1990 (45) E.L.T. 654 in which it was held by the Appellate Tribunal that "when the whole issue is open before us, the matter of classification also falls for determination, and this we are competent to do, irrespective of the fact that the appellant...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : 1998VIAD(Delhi)649; 75(1998)DLT238; 1998(47)DRJ837
ORDERC.M. NAYAR, J.1. This revision petition is directed against the order dated February 22, 1997 passed by Shri J.R.Aryan, Additional Rent Controller, Delhi.2. The respondent filed a petition under Section 14(1)(e) read with Section 25-B of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). The point of contest was that the respondent could not be considered holding any independent right and title in the suit property so as to establish one of the essential ingredients of Section 14(1)(e) of the Act. It was, thereforee, examined as to whether the respondent could be held entitled to relief of seeking petitioner's eviction from the tenanted premises when her bona fide was not in question. The other plea which was raised before the Rent Controller as well as before this Court related to the interpretation of the provisions of Section 14(6) of the Act which will be taken up for discussion at a later stage.3. The property bearing No.87, Jor Bagh, New Delhi is the su...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in : (1999)(110)ELT728TriDel
1. These are 15 appeals filed by the above appellants against Order-in-Appeal passed by the Commissioner of Customs and Central Excise, (Appeals), Ghaziabad upholding orders-in-original passed by the Assistant Collector rejecting refund claims filed by the appellants on the ground that plastic components for audio-cassettes were exempted from payment of duty and, therefore, no Modvat credit on these inputs was admissible and, therefore, the appellants, who are purchasers of these plastic components, will not be entitled to any refund. The Assistant Commissioner had further held that the question relating to unjust enrichment will not be applicable to the case of the appellants.2. Appellants M/s. Super Cassettes Industries Ltd. and others are engaged in the manufacture of audio-cassettes falling under sub-heading 8523.12 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. Audio-Cassettes falling under sub-heading 8523.12 were exempted from payment of duty vide Notification No. 117/90, dated 16-5-1...
Tag this Judgment!