Delhi Court August 1998 Judgments

Maya Devi Vs. Sh. Amar Singh

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 1998VAD(Delhi)363; 75(1998)DLT165; 1998(46)DRJ715; 1998RLR523

ORDERC.M. Nayar, J.1. The present petition is directed against the judgment dated 4th February, 1995 passed by the Additional Rent Controller, Delhi whereby the eviction petition of the petitioner under the provisions of Section 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') was dismissed. The eviction related to the premises known as House No. 5596, Gali No.1, Ward No.XII, New Chandrawal Subzi Mandi, Delhi wherein the respondent was tenant on the basis of oral tenancy prior to the purchase of the premises by the petitioner. The same comprised of one room, one verandah, common latrine on the ground floor which was let out at the monthly rent of Rs. 5/- for residential purposes exclusive of other charges. It was further alleged that the petitioner is a bed ridden woman and is suffering from arthrIT is for the last many years and her family consisted of herself, her husband, married son, his wife and two children and two married daughters who visit her alon...

Life Insurance Corporation of India Vs. Union of India and Others

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 1998VIIAD(Delhi)645; 75(1998)DLT231; 1998(47)DRJ659

Dr. M.K. Sharma, J.1. The present suit was instituted by the Life Insurance Corporation of India, plaintiff against the defendants for recovery of Rs. 2,34,555/-, detailed calculations and heads of which have been given in paragraph No. 22 of the plaint. The aforesaid claim of the plaintiff against the defendant as set out in the plaint is set out below : (a) Interest u/Sec. 34 of L.A. Act, 1894 @ 6% per annum on the awarded compensation amount of Rs.1,22,130/- from 14.3.68 (the date of dispossession from the acquired land) up to 26.4.1982 (the date on which the payment was made to the plaintiff/ Corporation) viz. for 14 years and 44 days: 1,03,472.55 Less such interest u/Sec. 34 of the L.A. Act already awarded by the L.A.C. for the period w.e.f. 14.3.68 to 12.1.1969: 6,123.62 97,348.93 (b) Interest u/Sec. 4(3) of the Land Acquisition (Amendment & Validation) Act, 1967 @ 6% per annum on the assessed market value of Rs.1,06,200/- from 13.11.1962 up to 26.4.1982 (the ...

Amarpal Singh and Others Vs. Narcotics Control Bureau

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 1998(46)DRJ676

ORDERJ.B. Goel, J.1. By this order the aforesaid two bail applications, one by Amarpal Singh and the other by Ved Prakash Manchanda who are being prosecuted for offence under Sections 21 read with Section 29 of the Narcotic Drugs & Psychotropic Substances Act. 1985 (for short the Act) are being disposed of. 2. Briefly, the facts are that the Narcotic Control Bureau (for short NCB) on 25.3.1997 had received a secret information at about 12.45 p.m. that one Ved (a bad character) will deliver a consignment of heroin to one sardar in Mianwali Nagar who will reach there in Car No. DL-8C-0657 and then the Sardar will Pass from Pira Garhi Chowk at New Rohtak Road with that consignment. Address of said Ved Prakash was ascertained. One team of NCB was deputed near his house No. B-7/1 Mianwali Nagar and another team was deputed at Pira Garhi chowk. 3. At 1.55 p.m. Maruti car No. DL-8C-0657 came and stopped near the said house with two sikh persons: it was driven by a sardar (later identified as ...

Sunil Kumar Gupta and anr. Vs. State

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 74(1998)DLT838; 1998(46)DRJ702

J.B. Goel, J.By this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short 'the Code') the petitioner seeks quashing of order dated 5.10.1996 passed by the learned Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (ACMM) dismissing his plea to discharge him in pursuance of the directions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Common Cause v. Union of India & Others, (1996) CCR 180 on account of delay caused in trial. 2. A complaint was filed by the respondent Jay Engineering Works Ltd. (for short 'the complainant') to the effect that they were the registered owners/proprietors of the Copyright of two artistic works of 'USHA' registered in their favor on 24.3.1970 and 13.9.1979 under the Copyright Act (for short 'the Act') and thus had the exclusive right to reproduce the said artistic works in any material form. They found that the petitioners were manufacturing/selling electric churners (madhani) illegally using the logo 'USHA' in the same artistic manner in which it was regi...

Bank of Rajasthan Ltd. Vs. Smt. Raj Rani and Another

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 1998VAD(Delhi)716; 75(1998)DLT121; 1998(46)DRJ669

C.M. Nayar, J.1. This appeal arises out of the judgments dated 12th September, 1989 and 15th January 1991 passed by the Rent Controller, Delhi and Rent Control Tribunal, Delhi respectively.2. The brief facts of the case are that the respondent Raj Rani filed an eviction petition against the appellant bank for recovery of possession of the premises comprising of entire ground floor, including two rooms, a hall, a kitchen, bath and W.C. with verandah in front and rear courtyard with exclusive use of open space in front of the property bearing No.21-B/2, New Rohtak Road, New Delhi on the ground of misuser. It was alleged that the appellant was using the premises in violation of the terms of the lease granted to the respondent-lessee. The petition was contested and vide Order dated November 10, 1986 it was held that a case under Section 14(1)(k) of the Delhi Rent Control Act (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') was made out. Accordingly, a notice under Section 14(11) was issued to the le...

Subodh Gupta Vs. State (Cbi)

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 75(1998)DLT445

J.B. Goel, J. 1. This is a bail application filed by Subodh Gupta.2. Briefly, the facts are that D.K. Nayyar was the Branch Manager of Punjab National Bank, Kamla Nagar, Agra Branch during the period June 1992 to May, 1998. Perhaps, some complaints about financial irregularities/suspected misappropriation of Bank funds were made against him and he was placed under suspension. Shri K.C. Bansal who had replaced him as Branch Manager made four complaints dated 25.6.1998 on the basis of which four cases RC-01(E)/98-SIU(IX) toRC-4(E)/98-SIU(IX) were registered by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) on 30.6.1998.3.The petitioner has been arrested in RC-02 and RC-03 on 3.7.1998. D.K. Nayyar who remained untraceable for some time was also arrested later on on 8.7,1998. In RC-02 and RC-03, allegations been made about financial irregularities/fraudulent withdrawals/misappropriation of Bank funds amounting to Rs. 2,14,84,692/- have been made against D.K. Nayyar who acted in collusion conspi...

Gurdev Singh Dhillon Vs. T.S. Mahal and anr.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 75(1998)DLT393; 1998(47)DRJ367

Dr. M.K. Sharma, J. 1. The plaintiff instituted a suit against the defendants through his attorney seeking for a decree of declaration that the plaintiff is the legal and rightful owner of the suit property and also for delivery of possession of the suit properly. 2. In the plaint it is stated that the plaintiff is at present staying in the United States of America in view of business pre-occupation and, thereforee, has instituted the present suit through his true and lawful attorney Shri G.R. Soni. It is also stated in the plaint that the plaintiff has executed a Power of Attorney in favor of Shri G.R. Soni, constituting and binding him as his lawful attorney with the powers to contest, sign, verify and file all legal proceedings for and on his behalf in this Court and even otherwise the power of attorney has been executed in favor of said Shri G.R. Soni to look after the interests of the plaintiff in the suit property. The plaint in the suit was also signed and verified by Shri G.R. ...

Sunder Lal JaIn Vs. National Insurance Co. Ltd.

Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi

A.P. Chowdhri, President: 1. Brief facts of the case are that Sunder Lal Jain, complainant for short, obtained personal accident insurance (individual) policy for Rs. 50,000/- from the respondent on payment of the necessary premium for the period 18.1.1986 to 17.1.1997. According to the complainant, he met with accident on 24.2.1986 at 9 a.m. One Dr. K.P. Misra, a private practitioner of Naiwala, Karol Bagh, New Delhi attended on him. He issued a certificate dated 24.3.1986 and advised the complainant to have the affected part x-rayed from the Hospital. Accordingly, the complainant got himself x-rayed in Hindu Rao Hospital and took further treatment from the said Hospital. He filed a claim on 24.3.1986 without specifying the amount claimed. Instead, in the appropriate column of the claim form, he stated that the amount be paid to him according to terms and conditions of the policy. This was followed by a legal notice in which also no specific amount was claimed. The Insurance Company, ...

Collector of C. Ex. Vs. Aries Marketing (P) Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1998)(104)ELT524TriDel

1. The Revenue has filed the above appeal against the order of the Additional Collector of Central Excise, Hyderabad holding that the product in dispute is "Chelamin" and "Agromin" manufactured by the Respondents herein are fertiliser classifiable under Central Excise Tariff sub-headrng 3105.00 and entitled to total exemption from duty in terms of Notification No. 181/86-CX, dated 1-3-1986.2. We have heard ld. D.R. for the Appellants and the ld. Counsel for the Respondents. The ld. Counsel submitted that it has been held by the Supreme Court in the case of Ranadey Micronutrients v. C.C.E. - 1996 (87) E.L.T. 19 (S.C.) that micronutrients meant for growth of plants are classifiable under C.E.T. sub-heading 3105.00 as "other fertilizers" as per CBEC Circular dated 21-11-1994 withdrawing the earlier circular dated 20-6-1990. The Apex Court has held that such circular is binding on the Department and the Department is thus not permitted to raise the plea contrary to the binding circular. T...

Umesh Chand Gupta Vs. Commissioner of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1998)(104)ELT543TriDel

1. This is an application for dispensing with predeposit of penalty amounting to Rs. 5.00 lakh.2. The facts of the case, in brief, are that Customs Officers on specific information recovered 21 foreign marked gold biscuits weighing 2449.944 gms. valued at Rs. 11,84,550/- from the business premises of Shri D.R. Jain on 23-4-1997. Shri D.R. Jain disclosed that these 21 foreign marked gold biscuits were brought from Delhi by two persons viz. Shri Ashutosh Dubey and Shri Uchab Pradhan who were sitting there.Personal search of these two persons resulted in recovery of Railway tickets from Delhi to Jodhpur from Shri Ashutosh Dubey and one packet of red chilli powder from the pocket of Shri Uchab Pradhan. Shri Ashutosh Dubey disclosed that he had brought 10 foreign marked gold biscuits whereas Shri Uchab Pradhan stated that he had brought 11 foreign marked gold biscuits. Shri Dubey and Shri Pradhan did not have any documents showing legal acquisition/possession of the 21 foreign marked gold ...