Delhi Court August 1999 Judgments

Kumari Priti Chopra Vs. Managing Director M.P. Hastshilp Vikas

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 1999VAD(Delhi)492; 81(1999)DLT212; 1999(51)DRJ7

ORDERA.K. Sikri, J.1.The petitioner had filed this writ petition dated 26.2.1998 after serving its advance copy to respondent No. 1 on 26.2.1998. In the petition, as originally filed, the petitioner stated that she was appointed to the post of sales girl by respondent No. 1 namely M.P. Hastshilp Vikas Nigam Ltd. on 2.8.1994 initially for a period of six months on monthly salary of Rs. 2000/- on the condition that if the work of the petitioner was found satisfactory the period of service will be extended on the basis of the recommendations. She continued in service beyond six months. However, she was paid consolidated salary of Rs. 2,000/- whereas the other workmen were paid the salary in the pay scale of Rs. 0-20-1150-25-1400. Accordingly on 12.2.1997 she made representation for increasing her salary which was followed by reminders dated 30th April, 1997, 30th July, 1997, 7th January, 1998 and 29th January, 1998. However, the respondent did not pay need to any of her request and accord...

Jaspal Kaur ors. Vs. Union of India

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 81(1999)DLT452; 1999(51)DRJ86

ORDERArun Kumar, J.1. This order will dispose of an application filed by respondent No. 2, the Appropriate Authority under the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short the Act) seeking certain directions. It is necessary to give a brief background before the application can be disposed of.2. An agreement to sell with respect to property being a plot of land bearing No. 115, Sector 36-A, Chandigarh, was entered into between the petitioners in the writ petition and respondent No.3 on 25th October, 1989. The consideration agreed upon was Rs.15 lacs out of which a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- was paid by the petitioners (purchasers) to respondent No. 3 (vender) at the time of the agreement. On 5th November, 1989 the vendor and the vendee filed a statement in Form No. 37(I) along with an agreement to sell with respondent No. 2, the Appropriate Authority for obtaining the 'No Objection Certificate' in respect of the said sale transaction in terms of Chapter XX C of the Act. On 8th June, 1990, respondent No. ...

Darshan Singh Kohli and anr. Vs. Rockland Securities Ltd.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 81(1999)DLT114; (1999)123PLR18

Vikramajit Sen, J. 1. This is a suit for recovery of possession, arrears of rent and for grant of mesne profits/damages for the use and occupation of property bearing flat No. SF-03, Apsara Arcade; Pusa Road, New Delhi. The plaintiffs are the owners of this property and had leased it to the defendant through a duly registered lease deed dated 30th October, 1995. It is averred in the plaint that rent has been paid only up to March, 1996. Since the defendant was not paying its dues towards rental as well as towards maintenance, the plaintiffs were constrained to file the suit. 2. On 8.12.1997 it was ordered that the defendant should continue to pay the rent at the rate of Rs. (54,000/- per month within four weeks. Against this order the defendant filed FAO (OS) 32/98 which was dismissed. On 19.5.1998 the defendant was given an opportunity to explain why its defense should not be struck off for non-compliance of the aforementioned order dated 8.12.1997. On 24.7.1998 the defense of the def...

Smt. Gun Malla Devi Rajgarhia Vs. Canara Bank and anr.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 81(1999)DLT545

ORDER1. This appeal is against an order dated 23rd October, 1998. By this order the plaintiff's/appellant's suit has been dismissed.2. Briefly stated the facts are as follows:The appellant/plaintiff had mortgaged her property bearing No. B-42, Maharani Bagh, New Delhi with the 1st respondent Bank as and by way of guarantee for the dues of one M/s. Venus Paper Mills Limited (respondent No. 2 herein). The said mortgage was for dues under a Term Loan Facility which had been granted to respondent No. 2. The appellant/plaintiff filed this suit for redemption of mortgage. However, in the suit it was claimed that the appellant was not liable for more than Rs. 24 lacs. In the suit it was claimed that on payment of a sum of Rs. 24 lacs the 1st respondent Bank should be directed to return all the documents of title to the appellant/plaintiff. The learned Single Judge did not accept the case that the liability was restricted to Rs. 24 lacs and dismissed the suit.3. We were also not inclined to ac...

Bank of Baroda Vs. State

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 82(1999)DLT326

Anil Dev Singh, J. 1. Notice. Mr. Mittal accepts notice on behalf of respondent. 2. Petition can be disposed of at this stage itself. We have perused the complaint. It discloses the commission of a cognizable offence. Accordingly, the concerned SHO is directed to register FIR on basis of the complaint. In the circumstances, we also consider it appropriate to direct that investigation should be conducted by an officer of the rank of Asstt. Commissioner of Police, Economic Offences Cell. We order accordingly. With above observations, writ petition is disposed of. Dasti. ...

Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Gauri Shanker Sushil Kumar and Co.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: [1999]239ITR899(Delhi)

1 .This is a petition under Section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short 'the Act'), seeking a direction to the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi, to draw up a statement of the case and refer the following question for the opinion of this court :'Whether, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in law in upholding the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), cancelling the penalty under Section 271(1)(c) at (of) Rs. 4,29,520 ?'2. The business premises of the assessed were searched on April 30, 1987, by the officers of the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence, which resulted in the recovery of cash amounting to Rs. 6,36,000, which was seized. On requisition the amount was remitted to the Income-tax Department. During the course of assessment proceedings for the assessment year 1988-89, when the assessed was required to explain the source of the said cash, it was stated that the said cash was the sale proceeds of cloth sold by the assessed between the period ...

Smt. Jaspal Kaur and ors. Vs. Union of India

Court: Delhi

Reported in: (1999)157CTR(Del)146

ARUN KMAR, J.:This order will dispose of an application filed by respondent No. 2 the Appropriate Authority under the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short 'the Act), seeking certain directions. It is necessary to give a brief background before the application can be disposed of.2. An agreement to sell with respect to property being a plot of land bearing No. 115, Sector 36-A, Chandigarh, was entered into between the petitioners in the writ petition and respondent No. 3 on 25-10-1989. The consideration agreed upon was Rs. 15 lacs out of which a sum of Rs. 1,50,000 was paid by the petitioners (purchasers) to respondent No. 3 (vendor) at the time of the agreement. On 5-11-1989, the vendor and the vendee filed a statement in Form No. 37-1 along with an agreement to sell with respondent No. 2, the Appropriate Authority, for obtaining the 'No Objection Certificate' in respect of the said sale transaction in terms of Chapter XX-C of the Act. On 8-6-1990, respondent No. 2 passed an order for preemp...

M.T.N.L. Vs. Shri Sat Bhushan Jain

Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi

Rumnita Mittal, Member: 1. The appellant/MTNL has filed the present appeal challenging the order of the District Forum dated 8th April, 1997 in Case No. 357/96 entitled Shri Sat Bhushan Jain v. M.T.N.L. The case of the respondent is that he as well as his two sons are practising Advocates and their telephone No. 2203030 remained out of order during the period 20.5.1994 to 21.7.1994, but he could lodge a complaint only on 11.6.1994. It is also his case that 2 linemen, Bhanwar Singh and Shanker came to repair the fault and asked for an illegal gratification of Rs. 100/- per month. On refusal to grant the same, they left threatening to keep the telephone out of order. The respondent/complainant thereafter lodged a number of complaints with the appellant/MTNL, as well as, personally met the concerned officials, but to no avail. Eventually the complainant/respondent filed a complaint before the District Forum praying for a compensation of Rs. 50,000/- and also that the guilty officials be p...

Filaments India Ltd. and anr. Vs. C.C.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2000)(67)ECC125

1. These are two appeals, one filed by M/s. Filament India Ltd. the importing Company and the other filed by Shri K.G. Bajoria, Managing Director of the Company against Order-in-Original passed by the Commissioner of Customs, New Delhi dt. 10.10.97. A duty demand of Rs. 81,034 was confirmed against the appellant company and Poly Propylene filament yarn and partially oriented yarn imported under two Bills-of-Entry dt. 5.2.97 valued at Rs. 48,01,363 from Dubai was ordered to be confiscated under Section 111(m) of the Customs Act, 1962 and redemption fine of Rs. 5 lakhs imposed. Penalty of Rs. 50,000 on M/s. Filament India Limited and Rs. 10,000 on Managing Director, Shri K.G. Bajoria were also imposed under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act.Duty of Rs. 81,043 was also confirmed.2. The Department's case is that the goods imported by the appellant company were not of Taiwar Origin as claimed by the importers but were actually goods of Indian origin, the goods having been exported from Ind...

Supermix India P. Ltd. and ors. Vs. Cce

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2000)(89)LC126Tri(Delhi)

1. As these six Appeals have arisen out of following two common orders, issued by the Collector (Appeals), these are being disposed of by one common order. A. E/34 to 36/95-C 735 to 737/CE/DLHI/94 dt. 6.10.1994 B. E/291 to 293/95-C 828 to 830/CE/DLH/94 dt. 1.12.1994 2. Briefly stated the facts are that all the three appellants manufacture "Rice Rubber Rolls" which are used in Rice Mill as part of dehusking machinery. Under the erstwhile Central Excise Tariff, the Central Board of Excise and Customs, in exercise of its appeal powers, classified the product under Tariff Item 16A(3) and not under item 68.After introduction of present Central Excise Tariff, the Assistant Collector classified the impugned product under sub heading 4016.99 which was set aside by Collector (Appeals) who classified the product under sub heading 4009.99 of the schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act and also extended the benefit of Notification No. 197/67. The Assistant Collector, however, again classified t...