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.
C. Lal Gupta Vs. Delhi Development Authority and Another
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-26-1999
Reported in: 1999VAD(Delhi)657; 81(1999)DLT315
ORDERManmohan Sarin, J.S. NO. 2751A/95 & is No. 11520/961. Petitioner filed this petition under Section 14, 17 and 29 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 Notices were issued to the Arbitrator, who filed the original award together with the arbitral record. Upon receipt of notice of filing of the award, the respondent/DDA preferred its objections vide is No. 11520/96. Reply to the objections has been filed. 2. Counsel for the parties agreed that the arbitral record and the objections and reply filed thereto be read in evidence and they did not wish to file separate affidavits by way of evidence. With the consent of the parties, the objections are taken up for consideration today. 3. petitioner had been allotted the work titled construction of 1008 SFS House at Sarita Vihar, New Delhi, providing Conventional bored cast-in-situ under reamed pile foundation including pile caps and grade beam in pocket 'A'. The contract entered into between the parties, had an arbitration agreement in Clause-25, w...
Uptron Powertronics Ltd. Vs. Shri G.L. Rawal
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-26-1999
Reported in: 1999IVAD(Delhi)861; AIR1999Delhi377; 80(1999)DLT706; 1999(50)DRJ719
ORDERMadan B. Lokur. J.1. Admit. 2. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the case is taken up for final disposal. 3. Arguments in the appeal were heard on 18th March, 1999 and judgment reserved. On conclusion of arguments, it was suggested to learned counsel for the parties to explore the possibility of an out of Court settlement. It appears that such a settlement has not been arrived at. Consequently, we proceed to deliver judgment. 4. The Appellant came into possession of the suit premises, namely, Flat No.703, 7th Floor, Archana Cinema Commercial Complex, Greater Kailash PartI, New Delhi by virtue of a lease deed dated 1st May, 1981 which expired on 30th April, 1984. Thereafter, the parties entered into a registered lease deed dated 17th July, 1984 effective from 1st May, 1984. Clause 3 and Clause 4 of the lease deed have a material bearing on this appeal and these clauses read as follows: '3. That the lease shall be of a continuous nature and shall continue till rev...
B. Jumrani Vs. National Buildings Construction Corporation Ltd. and Ot ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-26-1999
Reported in: 1999IVAD(Delhi)937; 81(1999)DLT31; 1999(50)DRJ861; ILR1999Delhi87
ORDERMadan B. Lokur, J.1. In her writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution, the Petitioner has challenged the validity of Office Order No. 1255/94 dated 1st June, 1994 purported to have been issued by Respondent No. 2 as the competent authority and Chairman-cum-Managing Director (for short CMD) of Respondent No. 1, the National Buildings Construction Corporation Ltd. (for short NBCC). She has also challenged Office Order No. 2686/94 dated 17th October, 1994 whereby Respondent Nos. 5 to 10 have been promoted to the post of Administrative Officer (for short AO) pursuant to the recommendations of a Departmental Promotions Committee (DPC) held on 12th October, 1994. Finally, the Petitioner has challenged the review of her Annual Confidential Reports (ACRs) by the CMD of NBCC. She has also prayed for consequential reliefs. The Union of India through the Secretary, Ministry of Urban Development has been imp leaded as Respondent No. 3 since it is under his overall control that...
Ajit NaraIn Vs. Shri Arti Singh and Others
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-26-1999
Reported in: 1999VAD(Delhi)932; 81(1999)DLT355; 1999(51)DRJ40
Mukul Mudgal, J.1. is No. 5496/98 is an application under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure for ad interim injunction filed by the plaintiff and is No. 417/99 under Order XXXIX Rule 4 of the Code on behalf of the defendants for vacation of the interim order dated 13th July, 1998. 2. The plaintiff seeks by his suit a declaration that the documents i.e. general power of attorney and other documents in respect of property bearing No. 110, Jor Bagh New Delhi (first and second floor) would not come into operation till 31st December, 1999 and only in the event the plaintiff does not return the due amount. A decree for permanent injunction was also sought restraining the defendants from acting upon or using the General Power of Attorney and any other related documents in respect of the property in question. The plaintiff has further prayed for permanent injunction against the defendants from alienating, disposing off or creating any third party right, title or interest ...
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Vaishali Family Trust
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-26-1999
Reported in: (1999)156CTR(Del)45
ORDERBY THE COURT:By this application under section 256(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, in respect of the asst. yrs. 1986-87 and 1989-90, the Revenue seeks a direction to the Tribunal to refer the following question, stated to be a question of law, for the opinion of this Court :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was correct in setting aside the case and directing the assessing officer to verify the genuineness of the trust despite the fact that assessing officer established beyond doubt the in genuineness of the trust 2. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, we are of the view that reference on the proposed question is not required to be called for. While setting aside the protective assessment made against the assessed and remanding the case back to the assessing officer with a direction to decide the issue afresh after confronting the assessed with the entire material sought to be used against it, the Tribunal has recorded a finding tha...
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Sidharth Family Trust
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-26-1999
Reported in: (1999)156CTR(Del)47
ORDERBY THE COURT:By this application under section 256(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, in respect of the assessment year 1989-90, the Revenue seeks a direction to the Tribunal to refer the following question, stated to be a question of law, for the opinion of this Court :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was correct in setting aside the case and directing the assessing officer to verify the genuineness of the trust despite the fact that assessing officer established beyond doubt the in genuineness of the trust T'2. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, we are of the view that reference on the proposed question is not required to be called for. While setting aside the assessment for the relevant assessment year, the Tribunal has relied on its decision in the case of Vaishali Family Trust. In the case of the said trust (ITC No. 3/98), vide a separate order pronounced today (reported as CIT v. Vaishali Family Trust (1999) 156 CTR (Delhi) 4...
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Pradeep Welfare Trust
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-26-1999
Reported in: (1999)156CTR(Del)46
ORDERBY THE COURT:By this application under section 256(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, in respect of the asst. yrs. 1986-87 to 1989-90, the Revenue seeks a direction to the Tribunal to refer the following question, stated to be a question of law, for the opinion of this Court :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was correct in setting aside the case and directing the assessing officer to verify the genuineness of the trust despite the fact that assessing officer, shall be (sic-established) beyond doubt the in genuineness of the trust 2. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, we are of the view that reference on the proposed question is not required to be called for. While setting aside the assessment for the relevant assessment years, the Tribunal has relied on its decision in the case of Vaishali Family Trust. In the case of the said trust (ITC No. 3/98), vide a separate order pronounced today (reported as CIT v. Vaishali Family Trust (19...
Heena Chem Vs. Commissioner of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jul-23-1999
Reported in: (2000)LC316Tri(Delhi)
1. These are three Appeals arising out of a common order dated 30-7-1998 passed by Commissioner of Customs and as such are being disposed of by a common order.2. Briefly stated the facts are that the Officers of the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence, Varanasi checked the Truck No. HR-07-8592 at Naubatpur Check post on 15-2-1997 which was found to be loaded with 30 bags of Gam-bier weighing 1420 kgs. valued at Rs. 1,56,200/- 50 cartons of rubber chemical weighing 1100 kgs. valued at Rs. 8,400/- and 52 cartons of Chinese Toys valued at Rs. 1,79,800/- alongwith miscelleneous Indian goods valued at Rs. 2,61,943/-. As the gambier, rubber chemicals and toys were of foreign origin and papers relating to legal import thereof were not available with Driver, Shri Gurunam Singh, all the goods were seized alongwith Indian goods used for concealing the smuggled goods under Customs Act, 1962. The truck was also seized under the provisions of Customs Act. The documents revealed that gambier was co...
Commissioner of C. Ex. Vs. Morepen Laboratories Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jul-23-1999
Reported in: (1999)(113)ELT608TriDel
1. Short question involved in this appeal is whether the inscription 'duplicate for transporter' on the invoice issued by the dealers is required to be printed as required in the Rules or a rubber stamp to that effect can also be made. It has been held by the Tribunal in a number of judgments, as pointed out by the ld. Representative, Shri S.K. Malpani, Senior Manager of the Company that this is only a directory requirement and not a mandatory one. The aforesaid inscription by rubber stamp is also a valid inscription and the invoice does not get vitiated by a rubber stamp inscription. In this connection, he relies on one judgment of the Tribunal vide its Final Order Nos. A/1040-41/98-NB, dated 9-10-1998 in the case of C.C.E., Chandigarh v. Modesto Polymers Pvt. Ltd. and Anr. In view of the above, we do not find any substances in Revenue's appeal.2. At this stage, ld. JDR, Shri T.A. Arunachalam points out that the lower appellate authority has accepted the appeal of the respondents her...
Rajdoot Road Carrier Vs. Commissioner of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jul-23-1999
Reported in: (2000)(118)ELT146TriDel
1. As these three appeals have arisen out of a common order dated 30-6-1998 passed by the Commissioner of Customs, these are being disposed of by a common order.2. Briefly stated the facts are that the officers of the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence recovered 360 kgs. of raw silk yarn valued at Rs. 5,76,000/- in 9 packages from a Truck No. WB-03/9011 on 26-9-1996, which was detained at the Naubatpur Trade Tax Check post by the Trade Tax Authorities. The goods were booked, as per consignment notes, as Rebooking Readymade goods by one M/s. Gopal Bhai from Calcutta to self at Seroli (Surat). The officers seized the said goods under customs Act alongwith Miscellaneous Indian Goods valued at Rs. 2,79,561 /- and the Truck under the reasonable belief that silk yarn was smuggled into the country; Indian goods were used for concealing the same and truck was used as means of transportation. The Commissioner of Customs, under the impugned order confiscated absolutely the raw silk yarn of Chi...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- Next ›
- Last »