Delhi Court August 1999 Judgments
Home Cases Delhi 1999 Page 19 of about 321 results (0.020 seconds)Collector of Central Excise Vs. Lumel Shades P. Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1999)(114)ELT734TriDel
1. When the case was called none appeared on behalf of the respondents.The notice of hearing issued to the respondents received back unserved.2. The Revenue filed this appeal against the order-in-appeal dated 14-7-1992 passed by the Collector (Appeals), Bombay. In the impugned order the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals) after relying upon the earlier order passed by the Collector (Appeals) held that knitted polyester/nylon ladderstring web is classifiable under Heading 60.01 of the Central Excise Tariff.3. Heard Shri Ashok Kumar, learned JDR, and perused the appeal papers.The Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals) in the impugned order relied upon the earlier order passed by the Collector in respect of classification of the same product. The Revenue has not produced any evidence to show that the earlier order passed by the Collector (Appeals) is set aside. Further from the grounds of appeal we find that in this appeal the Revenue wants the classification of the product under sub...
Tag this Judgment!Deputy Commissioner of Vs. O. N. G. C.
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Reported in: (2000)74ITD180(Delhi)
1. All these appeals rotate round the identical issue. For the sake of convenience, these are consolidated and disposed of, by a common order.2. The respondents are non-resident foreign companies. The assessments were made on ONGC as agent of the respondents. The solitary ground raised in these appeals relates to the validity of multi stage grossing up of the income on account of the provisions of section 195A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter called the Act).3. We have heard the rival submissions in the light of material placed before us and precedents relied upon. Assessments in all these cases were completed by making recourse to the deeming provision as contained in section 44BB of the Act. The learned Departmental Representative vehemently argued that the tax paid by the employer is a perquisite, given to the employee. This is to be added in the salary of the employee like any other perquisite.4. Our attention was invited on the provision of section 28(iv) of the Act, whic...
Tag this Judgment!Ram Lal Kathuria Vs. Shiv Kumar Sharma
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1999VIAD(Delhi)217; 82(1999)DLT464
ORDERDR. M.K. Sharma, J.1. This revision petition is directed against the order dated 6.6.1997 passed by the civil Judge, Delhi, in suit No. 171/1994 dismissing the application filed by the petitioner/defendant under Order 9 Rule 7 CPC. 2. The respondent purchased the aforesaid suit property in public auction and, thereafter sought for mutation in respect of the said property in his name. As the Delhi Development Authority failed to mutate the said property in the name of the respondent he filed awrit petition in this court which was registered as C.W.P. No. 1336/1991.In the said writ petition, notice was issued to the petitioner. However, in spite of service of notice, the petitioner did not enter appearance in the said writ petition. By order dated 19.7.1994, the High Court directed the Delhi Development Authority to execute necessary documents in favor of the respondent with a further direction to mutate the property in his name. 3. The petitioner herein filed a review application a...
Tag this Judgment!Shanti Devi Vs. Sr. Ganga Pershad
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 2000IAD(Delhi)258; 82(1999)DLT707
ORDERK. Sharma, J.1. By this judgment and order I propose to dispose of the revision peti corporation filed by the petitioner plaintiff against the order dated 20.3.1997 passed by the Civil Judge, Delhi allowing the application filed by the defendant under Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure seeking amendments in the written statement. The subject matter of the suit property is Shop No. 5414 opening on the Arya Samaj Road, Karol Bagh, New Delhi. The said shop, it is stated, belongs to Smt. Bhoori Devi, Dropdi and Ram Dulari. They preferred an eviction petition under the Delhi Rent Control Act against the respondent herein in the Court of the Rent Controller, Delhi which was registered as Case No. 624/69 and was decreed against the respondent under judgment and order dated 24.1.70 passed by the Additional Rent Controller, Delhi. It is stated in the present revision petition that subsequent to the aforesaid judgment and decree the three landladies filed an Execution Petition p...
Tag this Judgment!Mohan Prasad Jha Vs. Shri Shambhu Prasad Singh
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1999VIAD(Delhi)480; 82(1999)DLT281; 1999(49)DRJ93
ORDERDR. M.K. Sharma, J.1.The present revision petition is filed by the petitoner plaintiff against the order dated 12.11.98 passed by the Additional District Judge, Delhi in Suit No. 306/97 dismissing his application filed under Order 12, Rule 6 read with Order 15, Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure for passing a decree of possession on the basis of admission against the defendant. It is said that the petitioner who is the plaintiff in the suit handed over possession of Flat No.119 , Tower-11, Supreme Enclave, Mayur Vihar, Phase-I, Delhi to the defendant by an oral agreement on license fee/charges for use and occupation @ Rs. 4,500/- per month exclusive of water and electricity charges. It is alleged in the plaint that the plaintiff failed to pay the aforesaid charges since March, 1996 whereupon the plaintiff served a legal notice dated 21.3.97 followed by another notice dated 7.5.97 being notice of demand and notice to quit under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act. As the...
Tag this Judgment!Y.R. Chopra Vs. Shri Kishan Singh and ors.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1999VAD(Delhi)533; 81(1999)DLT389
ORDERMukul Mudgal, J.1.This is a suit filed by the plaintiff for the following reliefs: a) a decree of declaration holding that the plaintiffs No. 1 and 2 are the owners of the 1/4th share each of the undivided share of land in the property No. 3-C/6, New Rohtak Road, New Delhi and thereforee have the absolute right to use and enjoy the same right as owners and possessors thereof. b) a decree of declaration holding that the plaintiffs No.1 and 2 being the owners and possessors of their 1/4th share of the land in property No. 3-C/6, New Rohtak Road, New Delhi, have absolute right to use and enjoy the suit premises marked ABCD in red in the site plan, including their absolute exclusive right to park their cars/vehicles therein. c) a decree of perpetual injunction restraining the defendants No. 1 and 2 and the members of their family from interfering in the use and enjoyment of entry and exist of the plaintiffs No. 1 and 2 and the members of their family to their first and second floor pr...
Tag this Judgment!K.C. Sharma Vs. Ndmc and anr.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1999VAD(Delhi)543; 81(1999)DLT552; 1999(51)DRJ99
ORDERMukul Mudgal, J.1. This is an arbitration petition, on behalf of the petitioner, under Section 20 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') seeking the directions to the respondents to file the arbitration agreement and also an order of reference of the disputes detailed in Para 12 of the petition for arbitration.2. The petitioner is a contractor who entered into contract on 26.2.1993 for providing Grit Wash on outer site of old building of Charak Hospital at Moti Bagh, New Delhi.3. Clause 25 of the contract Agreement provided for the arbitration and reads as follows:'Settlement of disputes by arbitration: Except where otherwise provided in the contract all questions and disputes relating to the meaning of the specifications, designs, drawings and instructions herein before mentioned and as to the quality of workmanship or materials used on the work or as to any other question, claim, right, matter of thing whatsoever, in any way arising out of or relatin...
Tag this Judgment!Harish Chander and ors. Vs. Shri Navneet Kumar Garg
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 81(1999)DLT281
ORDERManmohan Sarin, J. 1.This petition has been preferred under section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1940 by the petitioner seeking a direction to the respondents for removal of the goods kept in the showrooms belonging to the petitioners. The parties had entered into an Agreement dated 10th February, 1995. The respondent under the agreement began operating his showroom of Bombay Dyeing in the premises bearing No. 5134/4, Main Bazar, Pahar Ganj, New Delhi. As per the petitioner, the Agreement terms come to an end on 10.2.1998 and the petitioner is entitled to its possession and the respondent is liable to remove the goods. The present grievance of the petitioner was that the respondent was not removing its goods from the premises. The dispute had been referred to the arbitration of Justice Mrs. Santosh Duggal a retired judge of this court pursuant to an order dated 31.3.1998. Councel for the petitioner states that the learned Judge has terminated the proceedings under se...
Tag this Judgment!Suraj Bhan Anil Kumar and anr. Vs. Molu Ram Kapoor Chand
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1999VIAD(Delhi)640; 82(1999)DLT277; 2000(52)DRJ30
ORDERDr. M.K. Sharma. J.1. The present revision petition is directed against the order dated 16.1.98 passed by the Additional District Judge in Suit No. 691/93 allowing the application filed by the plaintiff under Order 6, Rule 17 and dismissing the application of the defendant under Order 7, Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The respondent herein as plaintiff filed a suit for recovery of Rs. 1,52,850/-. The said suit was registered as Suit No.691/93. The aforesaid suit was filed by the respondent-plaintiff claiming the respondent firm to be a registered partnership firm and the plaint was signed, verified and instituted by Shri Purshottam Garg claiming himself to be a registered partner of the respondent-plaintiff firm. The Summons were issued in the aforesaid suit on service of which the petitioners-defendants entered appearance and filed a written statement taking preliminary objection and contending, inter alia, that the suit is not legally competent as the plaintiff is an un...
Tag this Judgment!Resham Lal Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1999VAD(Delhi)723; 81(1999)DLT165
Madan B. Lokur, J.1. The appellant preferred an appeal under Section 374 of the Code of Criminal procedure. 1973 (hereinafter referred to as Cr. P. C.) against an order of conviction and sentence dated 29th November 1977 Passed by the Special Judge, Delhi, in Corruption Case No. 22/1977. 2. The appellant was convicted of an offence under Section 161 of the IPC and under Section 5(2) read with Section 5(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947. He was sentenced to rigorous imprisonment of one year under Section 5(2) read with Section 5(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) and a fine of Rs. 100/- and in default of payment of the fine, further rigorous imprisonment of three months. For the offence under Section 161 of the IPC, he was sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for one year. Both the sentences were to run concurrently. 3. The allegations against the appellant were that on the night of Diwali in 1976, the complainant Sundri Devi...
Tag this Judgment!