Delhi Court February 2000 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.
Sant Ram Vs. Janki Parshad
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-24-2000
Reported in: 2000IIIAD(Delhi)687; 85(2000)DLT41; 2000(56)DRJ187
ORDERMadan B. Lokur, J.1. The Appellant is a tenant in the suit premises being one room on the ground floor in House No. 685, Gali No. 3, Punjabi Basti, Military Road, Anand Parbat, Delhi. 2. Prior to the institution of the present proceedings, the Appellant had defaulted in payment of rent to the Respondent but since he complied with the interim orders passed under Section 15(1) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), he was given the benefit granted by Section 14(2) of the Act, by an order dated 19th November, 1981. 3. As per the version of the Respondent/landlord, it is alleged that the Appellant did not thereafter deposit rent for the period from 1st November, 1981 up to 31st March, 1982. The Respondent sent a notice of demand dated 12th April, 1982 stating therein that the Appellant had defaulted in payment of rent for three consecutive months and was, thereforee, called upon to make the payment mentioned in the notice of demand within a period of...
Krishnawanti Vs. Dr. K. Madan
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-24-2000
Reported in: 2000IIIAD(Delhi)897; 85(2000)DLT362
ORDERMadan B. Lokur, J.1. There is an adage to the effect that fools build houses for wise men to live in. This has almost come true in this case. 2. Sometime in 1983, the Appellant/landlady had filed an eviction petition seeking eviction of the Respondent/tenant on three grounds, namely, under clauses (e), (h) and (k) of the proviso to sub-section (1) of section 14 of the Delhi Rent Control Act,1958 (hereinafter referred to as the Act.) 3. Insofar as the ground under clause (e) is concerned, the learned Additional Rent Controller came to the conclusion (in his order dated 13th September,1985) that no case was made out by the Appellant. This ground was not pressed further. Insofar as the ground under clause (k) is concerned, the learned Additional Rent controller came to the conclusion that the Respondent was in breach of the provisions of Clause (k) of the proviso to section 14(1) of the Act since the respondent was misusing the premises for commercial purposes, that is, for running a...
Commissioner of C. Ex. Vs. Spectra Electronics (P) Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Feb-23-2000
Reported in: (2000)(119)ELT672TriDel
2. The issue relates to Modvat credit. The Assistant Commissioner has denied the benefit on the ground that serial number of invoice is written with hand observing that each invoice shall be Printed Serial Number running from April and that the condition cannot be relaxed or dispensed with being statutory requirement.3. On the other hand, the Commissioner (Appeals) has decided the issue in favour of the party following the ratio of the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Larsen & Toubro Ltd. v. C.C.E., reported in 1994 (72) E.L.T. 948 (Tribunal).4. When the matter was called none appeared on behalf of the respondents. However, they have requested to decide the case on merits submitting that the issue involved in this case has been decided in favour of the assessee in a series of cases including Hindustan Radiators Co. v. C.C.E., Jaipur,Nahar Spinning Mills Ltd. v. C.C.E., Indore, reported in 1998 (97) E.L.T. 127 (Tribunal) and Bengal Safety Industries, reported in 1997 (92) E....
Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Venkatesh Beverages Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Feb-23-2000
Reported in: (2000)(69)ECC694
1. This is an appeal filed by the Revenue against the impugned order passed by the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals). Broadly two issues have been agitated in this case. The first issue is about the finding of the Ld.Commissioner (Appeals) that is the demand beyond six months is time barred. The second finding agitated by the Revenue is regarding levy of nominal penalty.2. At the outset Shri S.K. Agarwal, Ld. Consultant submits that there has been delay and that there was no request for condonation of delay.From the papers placed before us, we find that the impugned order was communicated on 18.6.9 whereas according to the record placed before us, appeal was filed on 17.6.99. The contention of the respondents was that the appellate authority and the other Commissioner were sitting in the same building and since the order was passed or 11.6.99, it could not reach another office after a gap of seven days and should have reached there early. On the copy of the order we find that there is stamp ...
C. Net Communication (India) Pvt. Vs. Commr. of Cus.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Feb-23-2000
Reported in: (2000)(120)ELT420TriDel
1. This issue involved in this appeal filed by M/s. C. Net Communication (India) Pvt. Ltd. is whether signal decoder SND105, imported by them, is classifiable under sub-heading 8528.12 as confirmed by the Commissioner (Appeals) in the impugned Order or under sub-heading 8543.90 of the First Schedule to the Customs Tariff Act, as claimed by the Appellants.2. Shri Harish Chandra, learned Advocate, submitted that signal decoder is used by a Cable Operator for distributing the satellite signals; that dish antenna collects the satellite signals, concentrates them and reflects the same to the feedhorn; that as the signals collected by the feedhorn are weak, the low-noise-block down converter (LNB) is used for amplification and frequency down conversion of such weak signals in order to feed a usuable signal to the satellite receiver; that satellite receiver is connected to the modulator which modulates the signal frequency and with the help of channel combiners, distribution amplifiers, chan...
Nestle (India) Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Feb-23-2000
Reported in: (2000)(117)ELT376TriDel
1. Learned Counsel representing the appellant challenges that part of the order passed by the authorities below whereby following discounts were disallowed in finding out assessable value of goods manufactured by the appellant: 2. Before going into the issues specifically raised by the Learned Counsel, it is worthwhile to refer to a decision of the Supreme Court in Union of India v. Bombay Tyres International Pvt. Ltd. 1984 (17) E.L. T. 329. The ratio in this decision has not been understood or followed by the authorities below. More than 16 years have passed after the decision was rendered by the Supreme Court. It is rather unfortunate to state that the law laid down by Supreme Court has not been understood by the tax recovery authorities and their attempt is to deny its benefit to the assessees. For a proper understanding of the decision we read the same. "1. Trade Discounts. - Discounts allowed in the Trade (by whatever name such discount is described) should be allowed to be deduc...
N.K. Sharma and anr. Vs. Presiding Officer and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-23-2000
Reported in: 2000IIIAD(Delhi)1048
ORDERA.K. Sikri, J.1. This petition is preferred against Award dated 21.9.1996 passed by Central Government Industrial Tribunal in ID No. 117/88. The petitioner had challenged his transfer by raising the aforesaid dispute and by the impugned award, the CGIT has upheld the transfer of the petitioner. 2. Petitioner No.1 was elected as Deputy General Secretary of the State Bank of India Chandigarh in June 1984. He was relected to the same office in June 1987. It is the allegation of the petitioner that respondent felt soared about the trade union activities of the petitioner No. 1 and petitioner's union and wanted to crush this union by hook or by crook. Accordingly SBI started victimising the petitioners and indulged in various acts of unfavourable practice. It ultimately resulted in transfer of the petitioner No. 1 from Section7 Chandigarh Branch to Patauda, Haryana. It is the case of the petitioner No. 1 that petitioner No. 1 who is a permanent Teller and was promoted as such on city s...
B.W.L. Ltd. vs. M.T.N.L.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-23-2000
Reported in: 2000IVAD(Delhi)165; 85(2000)DLT84; 2000(53)DRJ437
ORDERVikarmajit Sen, J.1. By this judgment I propose to decide three petitions filed under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. Arbitration Application No. 45/1998 is directed against the Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Ltd.; and Arbitration Application Nos. 46/1998 and 47/1998 are against the U.O.I., Ministry of Telecommunication. The facts of the case need not engage the attention of the Court at this stage, since the prayers contained in the Applications are for the appointment of an Arbitrator and referral to him of all the claims/disputes that have arisen between the parties. On 11.10.1999 I had indicated to Learned Counsel for the Respondents that it was open to the Respondents to expeditiously appoint an Arbitrator in accordance with the Arbitration Clause and that if this was not done, and the Petition was allowed to run its full course, this opportunity may not subsequently remain available to them. No appointment has been made and arguments have been addressed ...
R.K. Malhotra Vs. Smt. Santosh Kaur
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-23-2000
Reported in: 2000IIIAD(Delhi)231; 84(2000)DLT618; 2000(53)DRJ406; (2000)125PLR21
ORDERS.K. Agarwal, J.1. This order will dispose of an application for amendment of the written statement under Order 6, Rule 17 and Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short CPC) whereby para 7 of the written statement is sought to be amended by the defendant. Plaintiff filed a reply opposing the application. 2. Brief facts necessary for disposal of the application are ; that the plaintiff filed a suit for partition of the property bearing Municipal No. II-J-33/A, Lajpat Nagar - II, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the suit property) alleging therein that her grandmother Smt. Bhagwanti Devi owned properties in Pakistan and after partition she acquired and got a plot measuring 100 sq. yards, on which two storey building was constructed and after the death of Smt. hagwanti Devi, the suit property was mutated/transferred in the name of her father Sh. Joginder Singh Malhotra, husband of the defendant, who till his death was occupying and staying therein with his fami...
Anokhe Lal and Another Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-23-2000
Reported in: 2000IIIAD(Delhi)200; 84(2000)DLT538; I(2000)DMC314
ORDERM.S.A. Siddiqui, J. 1. This revision is directed against the order dated 6.7.1995 passed by the Addl. Session Judge Delhi directing framing of the charges under Sections 304-B/498-A/34 I.P.C. against the petitioners. 2. Briefly stated, the prosecution case is that the accused Yogesh and the deceased Kavita were married on 15.2.1994. On 27.6.1994 at about 6.05 a.m., the deceased was found lying dead in a pool of blood in her bed room. The accused Yogesh was also present there. The police, on receipt of the said information, came to the spot. The deceased was removed to the hospital. Immediately thereafter, the deceased's father Hari Singh Sharma came to the hospital and noticed several injuries over the dead body of her daughter. Hari Singh Sharma made a statement before the S.D.M. that after marriage her daughter was being harassed in connection with dowry demand. On the basis of the said statement F.I.R. was registered at the Police Station Bhajanpura. Investigation pursuant ther...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »