Delhi Court September 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.
Constellate Consultants Pvt. Ltd. and anr. Vs. Shammi Jain
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-03-1998
Reported in: 77(1999)DLT65
Arun Kumar, J.1. This case provides a good example of abuse of the process of Court by a party to the suit. A simple suit for recovery of possession of a premises located in South Extension Part II, New Delhi after termination of tenancy of the tenant under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act has been successfully dragged on by the tenant for almost ten years and that too without paying a penny towards rent. The premises subject matter of the present appeal comprising three bed rooms with three attached bath rooms, a drawing-cum-dinning room, garrage, servants quarter and courtyard, was let out to the appellant by the respondent on 2nd April, 1985 at a rental of Rs. 3,500/- per month Another servant quarter was let out to the tenant in the year 1986 and the rent was enhanced to Rs. 4,000/- per month. The appellant/tenant continued to pay the rent @ Rs. 4,000/- per month till 31st August, 1988 where after in view of the introduction of Legislation in the Parliament for amendment...
Mohd. Khalil @ Khalil Ahmed Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-03-1998
Reported in: 1998(47)DRJ28
J.B. Goel, J.1. This is an application for bail. Petitioner is a co-accused and has been challaned for an offence under Section 395/397/34 IPC. 2. Briefly, the facts are that a dacoity was committed at house No. CP-13, Pitampura, Delhi at about 12.30 p.m. on 18.1.1992 when cash and jewellery were looted after putting in fear of death of two ladies who were present at the said house, namely, Smt. Shakuntla Mann and her daughter-in-law, Anita Dahiya by use of deadly weapons namely, revolver, country made pistol and knives. A FIR was lodged by Smt. Shakuntla Mann on 18.1.1992 when a case under Section 392/34 IPC was registered at Police Station Shalimar Bagh. On investigation, it was found that in all there were six persons involved in the robbery and they had escaped after jumping the back side wall of the house and they were seen by two public persons namely Ishwar Singh and Sub-hash Chand who had informed the police on PCR on which DD No. 15 was recorded at 12.58 p.m. Only four of the ...
Tata Engg. and Locomotive Co. Ltd. Vs. Collector of Cus.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Sep-02-1998
Reported in: (1999)(107)ELT200TriDel
1. Ld. Counsel stated that the appellants imported against Order JAT 20270, 10 sets of coniflex cutter blades for Bevel Gear Generation Machine and the same was cleared through Calcutta Port. These cutting blades are required for machining Gear blanks into finished Bevel Gears. As per their use, they are correctly classifiable under Heading 8208.10 R/W 8461.40 R/W Notification 154/86-Cus., R/W 57/86-Cus., 57/89-Cus., R/W 178/90-Cus. This classification was declared by them in view of the fact as per CTA, the rate of duty applicable to items covered under Heading 8208.10 is the same as of the main machine on which these blades are mounted/used. The dealing appraiser did not agree with their contention and unilaterally assessed the goods not giving them the benefit of Notification 154/86-Cus., R/W 57/89-Cus.2. The appellants filed a claim for Rs. 3,12,588/- vide our claim letter Cal/Clm/1005/33/90-91 /3864,23-11-1990 asking the Assistant Collector, ARS to refund the excess duty. The cla...
Sonia Engineering Works Vs. Cce
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Sep-02-1998
Reported in: (1998)(79)LC799Tri(Delhi)
1. Appeal E/1714 of 98-A and E/Stay/1287/98-A are filed by the manufacturer M/s. Sonia Engineering Works Pvt. Ltd. (for short the Manufacturer). The appeal E/1715 of 98-A and E/Stay/1287 of 98-A are filed by Sri Rajesh Malhotra, one of the Directors of the Manufacturer.2. In the course of the hearing of the applications filed under 35F of the Central Excise Act, 1944, we felt that interests of justice and expeditious determination of the controversies in this case required a remand and therefore we waived requirement of pre-deposit and heard the appeal.3. The dispute in this appeal relates to the period from 1.4.1994 to 30.8.1996. Appellant has been manufacturing Pressure Cookers and Pressure Pans and clearing the same for home consumption without following Central Excise procedures and without paying Central Excise Duty. On receipt of the information to the above effect, surveillance was mounted by Central Excise preventive staff. On 30.8.1996. Truck No.HR 38-8628 loaded with Pressur...
Commissioner of Income Tax, Delhi Vs. M/S. Popular Jewellers
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-02-1998
Reported in: 1998VAD(Delhi)696; 75(1998)DLT323; 1998(47)DRJ1; [1999]238ITR676(Delhi)
R.C. Lahoti, J.1. By this reference under Section 256(2) of Income-tax Act, 1961 the Revenue seeks mandamus to the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal for drawing up a statement of case and referring the following question of law (relevant to the assessment year 1979-80) for the opinion of the High Court :-'Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in cancelling the penalty imposed under section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act amounting to Rs. 135/-.'2. The relevant facts may briefly be noticed. During the course of assessment proceedings, the assessed had made a claim for deduction of Rs. 91,500/- as business loss in view of the confiscation of gold and other jewellery by customs authorities. The claim was disallowed and the sum of Rs. 91,500/- was added as income from undisclosed sources as the assessed could not explain the source of acquisition of gold and gold ornaments of that value. The assessed took up the matter up to the Income-tax Appellate ...
Gagan Kishore Srivastava Vs. State and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-02-1998
Reported in: 1998VIAD(Delhi)817; 1999(1)Crimes39; 75(1998)DLT717; 1998(47)DRJ438
Devinder Gupta, J.1. In this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the petitioner has sought quashing of FIR No. 212/98 registered with P.S. Chittranjan Park, South District, New Delhi dated 30.5.1998 for offence under Sections 420/34, IPC, on the complaint of respondent No. 5. 2. The main ground on which quashing is sought is that assuming all the allegation in the complaint to be true, the same does not disclose commission of any cognizable offence; the same at the most amounts to breach of contract. It could not give rise to a criminal prosecution and that too after a lapse of almost four years. Respondent No. 5 in connivance with the police has managed to get a civil wrong converted into a criminal one, which is nothing, but gross abuse of the process of law. As per the complainant's own showing, the goods were exported to the petitioner in March, 1995 against valid documents against part payment of th...
R. Dayal and ors. Vs. Lt. Governor and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-02-1998
Reported in: 75(1998)DLT345; 1998(47)DRJ455
Devinder Gupta, J. 1. On 23.5.1974 the petitioners approached this Court seeking redressal of their grievances and praying for issuance of the following directions :'(a) to issue a writ of mandamus, appropriate writ order or direction in nature thereof, directing the respondents No. 1 to 3 to fix one pay scale of the petitioners along with the other officers appointed to the Delhi Judicial Service on its initial constitution, as required by Rule 25 of the Delhi Judicial Service Rules, 1970; (b) to issue a writ of certiorari or direction in nature thereof, quashing the letter dated 19th February, 1971 being Annexure 'IV of the writ petition, as un-constitutional and illegal and contrary to the requirements of Rule 25 of the said Service Rules and without authority of law; (c) to issue a further writ of mandamus or an appropriate writ, order or direction in nature thereof directing the respondent No. 1 to fix pay of the petitioners along with the other officers appointed on its initial c...
Mahalakshmi Sugar Mills Co. Ltd. and anr. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-02-1998
Reported in: 75(1998)DLT760
Devinder Gupta, J.1. This writ petition was instituted on 11.6.1974. The petitioner prayed for; (a) quashing of the Sugar (Price Determination for 1973-74 Production) Order, 1973 (Annexure A) along with Amendment Order, 1973 (Annexure B) and the Release Orders, (Annexures C colly.) and all other orders directing petitioner No. 1 not to sell the sugar at Rs. 157.83 per quintal, which is less than the cost of sugar production amounting to Rs. 210.37 per quintal; and (b) commanding respondent No. 1 to forbear to give effect to the said Sugar (Price Determination for 1973-74 Production)Order, 1973, Amendment Order, 1973 and Release Orders (Annexures A to C) and to fix the price of sugar based on cost of production of Rs. 210/- per quintal.2. The petitioner admittedly owns and operates sugar factory, Mahalakshmi Sugar Mills in Iqbaipur, District Saharanpur, located in the State of Uttar Pradesh and is engaged in the business of manufacture of sugar. It is alleged that prior to 1955, price o...
Prof. (Dr.) Jagadish Dutta Baruah Vs. Indian Council of Medical Resear ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-02-1998
Reported in: 1999(48)DRJ363
Vijender Jain, J.1. The petitioner has challenged the selection and appointment of respondent No.4 to the post of Senior Deputy Director General (NCD) in the Indian Council of Medical Research ( in short 'ICMR' ). Petitioner is a Professor and Head, Department of Radio Therapy, Locknayak Jai Prakash Narain Hospital, New Delhi. Respondent issued an advertisement on 1.8.1995 inviting applications from eligible candidates to the post of Senior Deputy Director General (NCD). It was, inter alia, stated in the said advertisement that the candidates will be called for personal discussion and applications received after closing date will not be considered.2. It is the case of the petitioner that he applied through proper channel. Petitioner also made it known that he was nominated by the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, Government of India to the WHO Fellowship-1995 and he informed the respondent that personal discussion/interview may be held during the period when he was in India as he ...
Sanjay Kumar Vs. Central Pollution Control Board
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-02-1998
Reported in: 75(1998)DLT480; 1998(47)DRJ25
Devinder Gupta, J.1. The petitioner has sought quashing of annexure-P.1, the letter of termination dated 6.9.1993 as vocative of principles of natural justice with consequential directions against the respondent to confirm him in the post of Accounts Assistant retrospectively or on any other suitable post and also to direct the respondents to continue deploying him. 2. The petitioner's case is that on or around October, 1991, various posts of Accounts Assistants were available with respondent No.2 at its Head Office at New Delhi. The petitioner though termed as an Accounts Clerk was engaged against one of such posts of Accounts Assistant on daily wages and thereafter had been performing the work, of Accounts Assistant. Except for the experience of three years in accounting, he had the requisite qualifications for being appointed regularly against the post of Accounts Assistant. He was informed that appointment was being made against the post of Accounts Assistant but on daily wages des...
- ‹ Prev
- 14
- 15
- 16
- 17
- 18
- 19
- 20
- 21
- 23
- 24
- Next ›
- Last »