Delhi Court September 1999 Judgments

Krishna Devi Vs. Shri Bhool Singh Through Lrs.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 1999VIAD(Delhi)231; 82(1999)DLT82; 1999(51)DRJ642

ORDERVijender Jain, J.1. Mr. Malhotra, learned counsel for the appellant has contended that the objector was one of the co-owner of the property in question and, thereforee, he could have maintained the objection under Section 25 of the Delhi Rent Control Act. He has further contended that the finding in paragraph 6 by the Rent Control Tribunal that the objection is not claiming an independent title is contrary to the facts on record. Eviction petition was filed by deceased respondent Bhool Singh on 12.5.1981 against Ram Chander, tenant. Eviction order was passed against Ram Chander on 11.7.1989. On 20.7.1989, the appellant filed objection which was withdrawn. Another objection was also filed. The same was dismissed on 24.11.1989 in view of the fact that the objector had filed earlier objection and the same was withdrawn. Aggrieved by the said order, the appellant preferred an appeal before the Rent Control Tribunal and the Rent Control Tribunal also dismissed the appeal on 27.8.1991. ...

Engineering Development Corporation Vs. Municipal Corporation of Delhi

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2000IAD(Delhi)460; 2001(1)ARBLR269(Delhi); 2000(3)RAJ131

ORDERS.N. Kapoor, J.1. Heard learned counsel for the parties at length. Two short questions are required to be considered: one relates to fact of existence of arbitration agreement in between the parties and the other relates to interpretation of subsection (6) of Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as 'the fact' for short). There is no dispute in between the parties that the following work relating to: 'construction of 15.3 ML capacity additional clear water underground reservoir at 3rd 40 MGD W.T.P. at Wzd @ Rs. 88.40% above the scheduled rate at a cost of Rs. 51,02,726/- (Rupees Fifty One lacs Two Thousand Seven Hundred Twenty Six Only) and at a total cost of Rs. 95,98,489.20 (Rupees Ninety Five lacs Ninety Eight Thousand Four Hundred Eighty Nine & Paisa Twenty Only) excluding rebates subject to terms & conditions contained in offer dt. 4.1.94 and approved by DWS&SD; Committee vide its decision No. 2118/DWS&SDC; dt. 16.8.94 as per propos...

Anil Das and Others Vs. Union of India and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 1999VIAD(Delhi)265; 82(1999)DLT310; 1999(51)DRJ325

ORDERS.K. Agarwal J.1. This judgment disposes of above noted three writ petitions, by which petitioners have challenged three separate detention orders passed against them, each dated 6th April, 1999 under Section 3(1) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 (for short the Act) by the respondent No. 2, with a view to preventing them from engaging in and transporting smuggled goods. These petitions raise a common question whether petitioners were prevented from making effective represen-tation against the impugned order of detention, on the ground that complete copies of the documents, in the language known to them, relied upon by the detaining authority, were not supplied thereby vitiating their continued detention. 2. Brief facts are : that on 9th August, 1998 officers of the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (for short DRI ) intercepted an abandoned truck near Agra ; no person was available in the truck, the officers kept sur-veillan...

Sanjay Gupta Vs. Smt. Kala Wati

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2000IVAD(Delhi)257; 85(2000)DLT828; 2000(53)DRJ653

ORDERJ.B. Goel, J. 1. Application (I.A. 12820/95) under Order 1, Rule 10 CPC read with Section 151 CPC has been filed by one Iqbal Singh for being imp leaded as a party in a suit for specific performance filed by the plaintiff against the defendant on the basis of an agreement of sale dated 31.3.1992 whereby the defendant had agreed to sell her 1/135th (8 Biswas) undivided share in agricultural land comprised in various khasras as mentioned in the plaint situated in village Bijwasan for a consideration of Rs. 90,000/- out of which a sum of Rs. 10,000/- was paid as advance. The balance of Rs. 80,000/- was payable at the time of execution of sale deed. The sale deed has not been executed by the defendant in spite of legal notice dated 12.5.1995. The suit was filed on 9.10.1995. On an application under Order 39, Rules 1 and 2 by an Order ex parte temporary injunction passed on 17.10.1995 defendant was restrained from transferring, alienating, parting with possession or creating third part...

Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. R.L. Sood

Court: Delhi

Reported in: [2000]245ITR727(Delhi)

1. By this petition under Section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short 'the Act'), pertaining to the assessment year 1982-83, the Revenue seeks a direction to the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal to state the case and refer the following question for the opinion of this court :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal is correct in law in holding that for the purpose of Section 54, the date of agreement to purchase should be taken as the date of purchase and the date of registration of sale deed for purchase is not relevant ?'The assessed was the owner of a residential house which he sold on September 22, 1981, for a total consideration of Rs. 2,75,000, On September 25, 1981, he entered into an agreement for purchase of a residential flat and by September, 1982, paid a sum of Rs. 2,39,850 to the builder of the said flat. The actual possession was delivered to the assessed on February 17, 1985, and the sale deed in his favor was...

Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. R.L. Sood

Court: Delhi

Reported in: [2000]108TAXMAN227(Delhi)

ORDER1. By this petition under section 256(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), pertaining to the assessment year 1982-83, the revenue seeks a direction to the Tribunal to state the case and refer the following question for the opinion of this court :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is correct in law in holding that for the purpose of section 54 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, the date of agreement to purchase should be taken as the date of purchase and the date of registration of sale deed for purchase is not relevant.'2. The assessed was the owner of a residential house which he sold on 22-9-1981 for a total consideration of Rs. 2,75,000. On 25-9-1981, he entered into an agreement for purchase of a residential flat and by September, 1982 paid a sum of Rs. 2,39,850 to the builder of the said flat. The actual possession was delivered to the assessed on 17-2-1983 and the sale deed in his favor was registered on 26-...

The National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Sh. Om Prakash Aggarwal

Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi

Lokeshwar Prasad, President: 1. The present appeal, filed by the appellant, is directed against order dated 13.8.1999, passed by District Forum No. I in Complaint Case No. 779/97 entitled Sh. Om Prakash Aggarwal v. The National Insurance Company Ltd. 2. The facts relevant for the disposal of the present appeal lie in a narrow compass. The respondent/complainant filed a complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') before the District Forum, averring that his Tanker, bearing No. DLIG-A/4149, insured with the appellant for the period from 22.7.1995 to 21.7.1996 got burnt on 19.9.1995 while the above said Tanker was being filled in with thinner at the factory premises of M/ s. Rajdhani Petrochemicals, situated at 32-33/1, Holambi Kalan, Alipur, Narela. The respondent/ complainant, in terms of the insurance policy preferred a claim for total loss with the appellant on 20.9.1995. Since the claim preferred by the respondent/complainant...

V.K. Industries Vs. Collector of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2000)(67)ECC114

1. This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the impugned Order dated 23-9-1993 passed by the Collector of Central Excise, Chandigarh.Shri G. Shiv Das, Advocate appearing for the appellants submits that he has no instruction from his clients to go with the case. On the other, Shri Ashok Kumar, JDR appearing for the Revenue submits that the issue involved herein has already been concluded by the Tribunal in the case of Vivek Re-rolling Mills v. C.C.E., Chandigarh reported in 1994 (73) E.L.T. 660 (Tribunal). He submits that the issue relates to denial of the benefit to Exemption Notification No. 202/88-C.E., dated 20-5-1988.2. In the case referred to above, it was held that input materials being classifiable as the "old and unserviceable re-rollable scrap" and not as angles, shapes and sections and being not specified as eligible inputs in Notification No. 202/88-C.E., dated 20-5-1988. Accordingly, it was held that exemption thereunder is not admissible.3. Since the issue involved...

C.C.E. Vs. Western Metal Industries

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2000)(67)ECC116

1. This is an appeal filed by the Department against the impugned order passed by the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), Pune.3. Both the authorities have decided the issue in favour of the assessee. The Asstt. Collector allowed the benefit of exemption under Notification No. 98/88 dated 1.3.88 in respect of Cupro Nickel Strips manufactured by the party. The department has become unsuccessful even before the Collector (Appeals). We find that this position has been properly analysed by the Collector (Appeals) in the last part of his order. The relevant para is as under:-- I have carefully considered the submissions made by the respondents as well as appellants. I find that the appeal has been filed only on the ground that the Cupro Nickel Bars were cleared at nil rate of duty under Notification No. 98/88 dated 1.3.88 and, therefore, they cannot be considered as\duty paid and, therefore, the exemption was not admissible. In this regard, I observe that it is now well settled that pay...

Jindal Alloys Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2000)(115)ELT518TriDel

1. Shri R.P. Singh, ld. Consultant submits that the Commissioner's order fixing the changed capacity of production was dated 20-3-1993 which was received by the applicant on 28-3-1993. He submits that this communication was not a speaking order. In support of his contention, he cites and relies upon a number of decisions of this Tribunal, particularly the decision in the case of Shalimar Industries Ltd. v.C.C.E. reported in 1991 (56) E.L.T. 481 (Tribunal) and in the case of Incab Industries Ltd. v. C.C.E., Patna reported in 1994 (72) E.L.T. 711 (Tribunal). He also places reliance on the decision of this Tribunal in the case of IDL Chemicals Ltd. v. C.C.E., Bhubaneswar reported in 1997 (19) RLT 658 (CEGAT-EZB). He submits that since the appellants were of the view that the order passed by the ld. Commissioner was not a speaking order and entered into correspondence with the ld.Commissioner requesting him to pass a speaking order. He submits that after several reminders, only on 24-8-19...