Delhi Court July 1999 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.
Ved Prakash Sharma Vs. Shri Lachmi Chand Sharma
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-21-1999
Reported in: 2000IVAD(Delhi)553
ORDERCyriac Joseph, J.1. The petitioner in this revision petition is the defendant in the suit and the respondent is the plaintiff therein. The plaintiff filed a suit for permanent injunction restraining the defendant from dispossessing the plaintiff from the suit property. The plaintiff claimed to be the owner in possession of the suit property. The defendant filed written statement claiming title and possession over the suit property. However, the trial court passed a decree of perpetual injunction restraining the defendant from dispossessing the plaintiff from the suit property. The defendant filed an appeal in the Court of the Senior Civil Judge, Delhi on 18-11-1985 against the judgment and decree dated 30-9-1985 passed by Shri Z.S. Solanki, Civil Judge, Delhi. The plaintiff filed reply to the appeal on 26-2-1986. The appeal was adjourned from time to time for arguments. In the meanwhile the appellant/defendant moved an application dated 21-1-1989 under order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of th...
Atma Ram Vs. Prem Chand and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-21-1999
Reported in: 80(1999)DLT650
Vijender Jain, J. 1. File of this case was missing. I have ordered that the photo-copy of the appeal be taken on record.2. Aggrieved by the order passed by the Addl. Rent Controller on 6.9.1991, the petitioner filed the present petition. The main ground of the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner was that there was no relationship of landlord and tenant and the Addl. Rent Controller erred in coming to the conclusion that the eviction petition was maintainable as all the co-owners of the premises were imp leaded. Mr. Duggal, learned Counsel for the petitioner has contended that the Addl. Rent Controller committed a grave error in observing that as power Will Ex. AW 2/1 read with admission made by the opposite party in the written statement that respondents 1 to 7 became co-owners of the property in question after the death of original owner Chhamu Mal. Mr. Duggal took great pain in assailing the order of the Addl. Rent Controller on the ground that the Addl. Rent Controller ough...
Narcotic Control Bureau Vs. N.C.T. Delhi
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-21-1999
Reported in: 2000IAD(Delhi)872; 2000(52)DRJ49
ORDERM.S. Siddiqui, J.1. By this petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C.,the petitioner seeks quash-ing of the order dated 4.12.1998 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge in criminal case No. VIII/2/D2U/88 rejecting the petitioner's application for disposal of the contraband ganja. 2. Briefly stated, facts giving rise to this petition are that the accused persons were charge-sheeted for trial under Section 20 of the NDPS Act. During pendency of the case, the accused persons absconded. On 23.10.1998, the petitioner filed an application seeking directions of the trial court for disposal of the seized ganja (weighing 421.300 kgs.) in accordance with the provisions of Section 52-A of the NDPS Act. By the impugned order dated 4.12.1998, the learned Additional Sessions Judge consigned the case to the record room under Section 299 Cr.P.C. and rejected the aforesaid application on the ground that if the seized contraband ganja is allowed to be destroyed then prosecution will not be able to prove ...
Amar Steel Container Corpn. Vs. Collr. of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jul-20-1999
Reported in: (2000)(117)ELT234TriDel
1. The issue involved in this appeal filed by M/s. Amar Steel Container Corporation is whether the benefit of Notification No. 171 /88-C.E., dated 30-5-1988 is available to the waste and scrap of steel.2. Shri Gopal Prasad, Ld. Counsel appearing on behalf of the Appellants, submitted that they are manufacturing Metal containers out of the Steel sheets. The waste and scrap of the Steel will be eligible for the benefit of Notification No. 171/88-C.H. (Sl. No. 3). the, further, submitted that the waste and scrap arising in the Appellants' factory is coveted by clause (iii of the conditions specified in the column of the table appended to the Notification against Sl.No. 3. Both the Assistant Collector and Collector (Appeals) held that the benefit of Notification No. 171/SS was not available as the Waste and scrap was covered by Clause (i) of the Notification. He relied upon the decision in Order-in-Appeal No. SKM-120/90, dated 10-4-1990 wherein similar issue was held in favour of the asse...
Sujanil Chemo Industries Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jul-20-1999
Reported in: (2000)(115)ELT546TriDel
1. The issue involved in this appeal filed by M/s. Sujanil Chemo Industries is whether the product "Licel" is classifiable as a medicament under sub-heading 3003.10 as decided in the impugned order or is classifiable as an insecticide under sub-heading 3808.10 of the schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act as claimed by the Appellants.2.1 Briefly stated the facts are that the Appellants manufacture, inter alia, a product by name "Licel" which is used for the purpose of killing head louse on the head of human beings. The Appellants filed the classification list claiming classification under Heading 3808.10 of CETA, as an insecticides. The Assistant Collector under order dated 17-2-1993, classified the impugned product under Heading 3003.10 and confirmed the demand of duty amounting to Rs. 1,70,609.74, holding that infestation of lice on one's head is a disease called pediculosis and as such the product has therapeutic value. On appeal, Collector (Appeals) upheld the order following t...
Khursheed Begum and Another Vs. State (Delhi Admn.)
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-20-1999
Reported in: 1999VAD(Delhi)140; 81(1999)DLT248; 1999(51)DRJ61
ORDERK.S. Gupta, J.1. This appeal under Section 449 Cr. P.C. by Mrs. Khursheed Begum and Mahender Kumar, sureties of Khyal Asghar, accused in Sessions Case No. 205/85 is directed against the order dated 26th July 1995 of a learned Additional Session Judge by which warrants of attachment against the movable and immovable Properties of both sureties were ordered to be issued for recovery of the balance amount of Rs.44.467/- from each of them.2. In the memo of appeal it is alleged that the appellants stood surety for Rs. 2 lakhs each for Khyal Asghar in March 1991 and deposited a sum of Rs. 1 lakh each by way of F.D. in the bank which F.D.R'S were kept by the court at the time of acceptance of the surety bonds. Said accused after appearing on certain dates failed to appear in the trial court. Appellants were, thereforee, asked to appear in person and they informed the court that they had information that the accused had died in Pakistan. However, the Additional Session Judge before whom t...
K.S. Chauhan (Col.) Vs. Union of India
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-20-1999
Reported in: 2000IVAD(Delhi)126; 84(2000)DLT866; 2000(56)DRJ755
ORDERK. Ramamoorthy, J.1. The petitioner has challenged the order dated 26.12.1995 passed by the fourth respondent imposing severe displeasure and the order passed by the Government of India dated 20.6.96 confirming the same. The petitioner was working as Colonel in the Indian Army. The petitioner was also selected for promotion to the acting rank of Brigadier. But by his acting of indiscretion in violating the terms of the Army Officers Housing Organisation, he had deprived himself of his promotion. 2. The short facts culminating in the filing of the writ petition could be stated in the following terms: The petitioner was allotted a flat on the 2nd of March, 1989 in NOIDA by the Army Welfare Housing Organisation. On the 6th of June, 1989, the petitioner entered into an agreement to sell with power of attorney and a 'Will' with ex-Wing Commander K.P. Dwivedi. This was in violation of the terms and conditions of the Rules and Regulations of the Army Welfare Housing Organisation. 3. In t...
H.K. Chaturvedi Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-20-1999
Reported in: 1999VAD(Delhi)287; 81(1999)DLT1
ORDERC.W. No. 4819/98. 1.This Petition seeks to challenge two Notifications both dated 8th August, 1997. By these Notifications, certain posts in Labour Courts and in Industrial Tribunals have been declared to be 'cadre posts' of the Delhi Higher Judicial Service. The challenge is on the ground that these Notifications violate the rights of persons who could otherwise have been appointed as Presiding Officers of the Labour Court and Industrial Courts. It is submitted that now only persons who are Member of the Delhi Higher Judicial Service would become eligible to be appointed to these posts. 2. Ms. Ahlawat, on behalf of the Delhi Administration, makes a statement that persons who would otherwise have been eligible to be appointed under Section 7 and 7(A) will still continue to be eligible for appointment to these posts. In view of this statement, this challenge no longer survives. Even otherwise, it is clear that the Notification does not amend Sections 7 and 7(A). Thus even though th...
Hello Mineral Water Pvt. Ltd. Vs. thermoking California Pure
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-20-1999
Reported in: 2000(56)DRJ700
S.N. Kapoor, J.1. In this case, plaintiff claims that he has a registered design under Certificate of Registration of Design No. 171327 dated 13th May, 1996 and the photocopies thereof are already on record at pages 4 to 8. The grievance of the plaintiff is that the defendants are infringing his copyright by using the same design in respect of Water coolers. The plaintiff claims that he has sold goods up to May, 1997 worth Rs. 2,20,71,976 and has built up the goodwill in respect of water coolers. The defendant introduced his product through publicity by sending pamphlets of water coolers in the month of May, 1997 which is an obvious imitation. Earlier also, the same defendant used the bottles of the plaintiff company and on filing of the suit, this Court restrained the defendant by order dated 9th January, 1997. The learned counsel for the plaintiff in respect of his submissions relies upon the report of the Local Commissioner wherein it is staled that defendant has not manufactured th...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Nihal Chand Rekyan
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-20-1999
Reported in: (1999)156CTR(Del)59; [2000]242ITR45(Delhi)
Arun Kumar, J.1. At the instance of the Revenue, under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short 'the Act'), the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal has referred the following question of law for the opinion of this court, in respect of the assessment year 1970-71 :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in law in quashing the direction given by the Commissioner of Income-tax under Section 265 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, to the Income-tax Officer to initiate penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(a) of the Act, against the assessed for the assessment year 1970-71 ?'In so far as this court is concerned the issue raised is no longer rest Integra. The scope of powers of the Commissioner under Section 263 of the Act came up for consideration before this court in Addl. CIT v. J. K. D' Costa : [1982]133ITR7(Delhi) , and it was held that even if, while examining the records of an assessment order in exercise of his powers of revis...
- ‹ Prev
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 15
- Next ›
- Last »