Delhi Court February 2000 Judgments

Megh Raj Vs. M/S. D.C.M. Limited

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2000IVAD(Delhi)554; AIR2000Delhi332

ORDERDr. M.K. Sharma, J.1. The main issue that falls for consideration in this appeal is whether the appellant is a lessee or a licensee which is to be arrived at on the basis of the interpretation and construction of the agreement between the appellant/defendant and the respondent/plaintiff and marked Ex.PW2/1 and on the basis of surrounding circumstances. The trial court held that the appellant is a licensee which was affirmed by the appellate court as against which the present appeal has been preferred. 2. The respondent/plaintiff is the owner of shop No.5, Line No. C, Gaushala marg, Kishan Ganj, Delhi. The appellant/defendant took the aforesaid shop from the plaintiff as a licensee vide license deed dated 11.6.1980 at the rate of Rs. 50/-per month for the purpose of selling milk and milk products for the benefit of workers and their families residing in the DCM colony. The said license was for 2 years and was revokable even prior to that without assigning any reason. The said licen...

Naresh Chandra JaIn and ors. Vs. Union of India

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2000IIAD(Delhi)552; 2000(52)DRJ707

ORDERK.S. Gupta, J.1. Plaintiffs filed this suit, inter alia, alleging that they are the owners of property No. C-1/52, Safdarjung Development Area, New Delhi having the carpet area on the ground floor of 2670 sq. ft. and on first, second and third floors of 2601 sq. ft. each, totalling 10,473 sq. ft. Before handing over the vacant possession of property on 17th December, 1973, the plaintiff No. 1 had fully discussed the terms and conditions on which the plaintiffs were agreeable to lease it out with the Commander, Indo-Tibetan Border Police. Those terms and conditions through the letter dated 17th December, 1973 were communicated by plaintiff No. 1 to the Inspector General of Police, I.T.B.P. (Ministry of Home Affairs) Government of India, R.K. Puram, New Delhi. Rent was to be determined at commercial rate together with composition fee @ 20% of the rent as the property was to be used for office purpose by the defendant. It is stated that draft lease agreement dated 14th February, 1975...

Smt. Nanki Devi Vs. Satish Kumar

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2000IVAD(Delhi)723; 85(2000)DLT405

ORDERMadan B. Lokur, J. 1. The Petitioner is the landlady of the suit premises comprising one drawing-cum-dining room, one bed room, one kitchen, one bath and toilet on the first floor and a barsati on the second floor in premises No. A-314, Kalkaji, New Delhi. 2.She had filed a petition seeking the eviction of the respondent under the provisions of provisos (b) and (e) of section 14(1) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). The petition, insofar as it pertained to proviso (b) of Section 14(1) of the Act had failed before the learned Additional Rent Controller and apparently no appeal was filed against that order dated 4th April, 1996. She had, however, succeeded in proving her case under proviso (e) to Section 14(1) of the Act before the learned Additional Rent Controller. 3.Section 14(1) proviso (e) of the Act reads as follows: '14. Protection of tenant against eviction- (1) Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in any other law or cont...

H.C. Builders Vs. Union of India

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2000IIAD(Delhi)765; 84(2000)DLT222; 2000(53)DRJ370

ORDERManmohan Sarin, J.1. By this order, I would be disposing of the suit and the objections preferred by the respondent Union of India by way of IA.345/93 under Sections 30 and 33 of the Indian Arbitration Act, 1940. 2. Petitioner had been awarded the contract for construction of the laboratory building for the Institute of Pathology at the Safdarjung Hospital, New Delhi and Agreement No.7/EE/CD.IX/85-86 was entered into. Clause 25 of the said agreement provided for reference of disputes to the arbitrator. The arbitrator was required to give a reasoned award. 3. Disputes arose between the parties and were referred to the sole arbitration of Shri S.S. Dudeja, nominated by the respondent Union of India in terms of Clause 25 of the Agreement. The learned arbitrator has made and published his Award bearing No. ARB.SST.438 dated 24th of May, 1993. 4. The learned arbitrator filed the Award in Court on 4.4.1994. Notice of the filing of the Award was issued on 17.5.1994. Petitioner accepted n...

S. Sukumaran Vs. Director of Enforcement

Court: Appellate Tribunal for foreign Exchange New Delhi

1. This appeal is directed against the adjudication order No. AO/178 of 1989, dated 30-10-1989 (in file No. T-4/56/TVM of 1989) under which a penalty of Rs. 7,500 has been imposed on the appellant for contravention of section 9(1)(b) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 (the Act). 2. A perusal of the memorandum of appeal discloses that the appellant has not denied the allegation that he received an amount of Rs. 30,000 from his brother, Shri Madhavan, a resident outside India, in the manner violative of section 9(1)(b). However, he has explained the circumstances in which that an amount had to be received by him. It is seen from the record that the proceedings for disposal of appellants petition for waiver of pre-deposit had already been held on 18-2-1993 at Kochi. Under this Boards order of 29-3-1993 the appellant was directed to pre-deposit the entire amount of penalty of Rs. 7,500. 3. In the circumstances, and particularly in view of the facts constituting the contravention ...

KingwIn Universal (India) Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2000)(69)ECC317

1. The brief facts of the case are that acting on information that M/s.Kingwin Universal, M/s. Kingwin Chemical, M/s. Kingwin International, M/s. Kingwin Johnson (hereinafter referred to as KWU, KWC, KWI, KWJ respectively and also jointly referred to as 'KINGWIN' were engaged in the manufacture and clearance of Industrial cleaners, polishes, speciality chemicals for machine cleaning, water treatment and preventive maintenance, as well as cosmetics, falling under Chapter Headings 3823, 3305, 3405 without obtaining Central Excise licence/registration and without payment of Excise duty, officers of the Central Excise, Jaipur visited the factory premises on 25-10-1997 and seized certain records and recorded the statement of Dr. S.N.Chadha, Prop, of M/s. KWC who stated inter alia that all the four units were engaged in the manufacture of common products in the same plot and that records of all the four units were maintained in the same plot; that Proprietors of all the four firms were, him...

Chaurasiya Steel Udyog Vs. Collector of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2000)(119)ELT143TriDel

1. The Appellants herein filed a classification list in respect of (1) M.S. Bars (Round) of Iron and (2) M.S. Bars (Rectangular) of Iron, claiming classification of both the items under Central Excise Tariff sub-heading 7214.90 and claiming the benefit of exemption from duty in terms of Notification No. 202/88, dated 20-5-1988. On 22-2-1991 a show cause notice was issued to them proposing denial of the exemption under the notification on the ground that their inputs i.e. Kabar Iron and steel like twisted pieces of Iron plates, pieces of Girder, Angle iron with hole etc. are not specified in the list of inputs at Sl. No. 2 of the table to Notification No. 202/88. The Assistant Collector held that all their inputs were purchased from waste and scrap market and were rejected machinery parts etc. which are not prescribed inputs under Notification No. 202/88; he hence denied the benefit under the notification, by his order dated 28-6-1991. As a consequence of denial of benefit of exemption...

Ram Nath Singh Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

1. The applicant is aggrieved by the order passed by the respondents dated 14.12.1999 deleting his name from the promotion list issued by them dated 23.2.1994.2. The brief facts of the case are that the respondents had issued an order dated 23.2.1994 giving the name of the applicant at Serial No. 30 and showing him as promoted to the grade of Assistant Central Intelligence Officer Grade-I (General) (hereinafter referred to as 'ACIO-I/G') in an officiating capacity. According to the applicant, since this order was issued, he had worked in the higher post without any complaint from any quarter. Thereafter, the respondents have issued the impugned order dated 14.12.1999 deleting his name from the promotion list without assigning any reasons, In Paragraph 6 of the O.A., it has been mentioned that no representation had been made as this would only amount to wastage of precious time available with the applicant to seek redressal of his grievance.3. Shri G.S. Chaman, learned Counsel for the ...

Ganender Pal Singh Vs. Mehtab Singh and Others

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2000VIAD(Delhi)162; 84(2000)DLT836

ORDERSuit 374/93 1. In so far as the preliminary issue directed to be heard by this Court's order dated 16th March, 1999 is concerned whether a son can file a suit for partition of HUF property during the life-time of his father, the learned Counsel for the plaintiff has relied upon a judgment of the Hon'ble Division Bench of Court which is reported as Nanak Chand & Ors. Vs . Chander Kishore & Ors., : AIR1982Delhi520 wherein it has been held as follows: 'The other contention that came up for consideration was whether in the life-time of the father, the sons could ask for partition or not. At one time a view was prevalent that in Delhi like Punjab they could not do so. It was based upon some custom, vide Hari Kishan v. Chadu Lal, AIR 1918 Lah. 291 and Sri Ram v. Collector, AIR 1942 Lah. 173. But since the decision of this Court of 26.10.1967 in Khushwant Rai v. Dr. Jagmohan Lal, RFA 1- D/59 and 24-D of 1959, it is now no more in controversy that the son can ask partition from the father...

Chandan Singh Vs. Management of M/S. Swatantra Bharat Mills and Anothe ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2000IVAD(Delhi)539; 85(2000)DLT673; [2000(85)FLR436]; (2000)IILLJ118Del

ORDERA.K. Sikri, J.1. Rule. Since short question is involved in the matter, with the consent of the parties the matter is taken up today and finally disposed of at this stage. Petitioner was charge-sheeted and an enquiry was held. After the enquiry. Enquiry Officer gave its report holding that the charges against the petitioner stood proved. Consequently, respondent management passed an order dated 20th July, 1982 dismissing him from service. Petitioner filed complaint under Section 33 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the Act, for short) in already pending reference, submitting that the dismissal was in contravention of Section 33 as approval of the Industrial Tribunal was not taken before dismissing the service of the petitioner. On the complaint filed by the petitioner, the Labour Court framed preliminary issue as to whether enquiry conducted against the petitioner was valid and proper. On this issue, evidence was recorded by both the parties and ultim...