Delhi Court July 2000 Judgments
Home Cases Delhi 2000 Page 24 of about 277 results (0.021 seconds)Chanderwati Devi Vs. Harish Chand Rastogi and ors.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 86(2000)DLT636; 2000(54)DRJ820
ORDERS.K. Mahajan, J.1. On 14th July, 1977 a decree for Rs. 69,577.61 paise with proportionate costs was passed in favor of the decree holder and against all the judgment debtors. The decree holder was also granted interest on the principal amount of Rs. 50,077.61 paise @ 6% per annum from the date of the decree till realisation. The decree holder filed execution of the decree on January 9, 1978. She expired on March 14, 1980. It appears that the decree holder had executed a Will assigning the decree in favor of judgment debtors 2 and 3. Probate of the Will was granted by the Court of the Dis-trict Judge on 12th February, 1987. Judgment debtor No. 4 also expired on 20th March, 1990. Judgment debtors 2 and 3 are now seeking to execute the decree against the legal heirs of judgment debtor No. 4. The legal heirs of judgment debtor No.4 have objected to the execution of the decree against them and have submitted that the decree cannot be executed by judgment debtors 2 and 3 on the basis of...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Wealth-tax, Delhi Central-i Vs. D.R. Vadera L/H of Lat ...
Court: Delhi
Reported in: (2000)163CTR(Del)251; [2000]246ITR348(Delhi)
ORDERArijit Pasayat CJ.1. These two reference applications involve identical question and this common judgment shall dispose of each of the cases. At the instance of Revenue, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench-B (for short the Tribunal) has referred the following questions under Section 27(1) of the Wealth-tax Act. 1957 (for short the Act), for opinion of this Court: 'Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in concluding that the W. T. O. had no jurisdiction to consider in the present re-assessment proceedings initiated under Section 17(1)(a) of the W. T. Act for the two assessment years 1966-67 and 1967-68 the question of valuation of the two immovable properties the one at 15, Barakhamba Road and the other at Paharganj at New Delhi and enhanced the valuation of the said two properties while completing the said re-assessments under Section 17(1)(a) of the Act?'2. Factual position as indicated in statement of the case is esse...
Tag this Judgment!M/S. Enkay Construction Company Vs. the Vice Chairman, Dda and anr.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 2000(3)ARBLR8(Delhi); 86(2000)DLT748; 2000(54)DRJ824
ORDERVikramajit Sen, J.1. The Delhi Development Authority (DDA) had awarded a contract for the construction of 1092 Janta Houses at Paschim Vihar, New Delhi to the Peti-tioner in 1980-81. In this connection, disputes arose between these parties which were referred, in 1990, to the Sole Arbitration of the Engineer Member of the DDA. A reasoned Award dated 20.12.1994, in favor of the Petitioner was published subsequently. It was for an amount of approximate-ly Rs. 40 lakhs. Suit No. 197-A of 1995 has been filed by the Petitioner under Sections 14(2), 17 and 29 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 for pronounc-ing a decree in terms of the Award. Notice of this Petition/Suit was served on the DDA on 27.9.1995, requiring it to file Objection, if any, within thirty days. These Objections, numbered as is 58/96 in Suit No. 197-A/95 were eventually filed on 2.1.1996, accompanied with an application, IA. No. 57/1996 for condensation of delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act read with Section 151 C....
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Wealth Tax Delhi Iii. Vs. Mrs. Vidya Malhotra
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 2000VAD(Delhi)745; (2000)162CTR(Del)438; [2000]246ITR524(Delhi)
ORDERArijit Pasayat, CJ.1. Pursuant to directions given by this Court under Section 27(3) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957 (in short, the Act) following questions have been referred for opinion of this Court : 1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified and correct in giving a finding that the value returned by the assessed in respect of the house property No. 9, Aurangzeb Road, New Delhi, was bona fide and there is no material on the record to hold that the value was deliberately understated by the assessed ?' 2. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was correct in law in holding that the assessed discharged the onus that lay on her under the Explanationn to Section 18(10(c) of the Wealth-tax Act, to prove that she was not guilty of gross or willful neglect in understanding her wealth ?' 2. Factual position is to be noted in brief. The dispute relates to assessment years 1968-69 and 1969-70. For the assessment...
Tag this Judgment!M.C.D. Vs. M/S. Om Apartments Pvt. Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 2000(56)DRJ468
ORDERA.K. Sikri, J.1. This Civil Revision is preferred by MCD against order dated 28.8.1995 passed by Learned Additional District Judge thereby dismissing the appeal f the petitioner herein preferred against Order dated 24.7.1982 passed by Learned Sub-Judge Delhi in application under order 39 Rules 1 & 2 in Suit No.153/81 filed by the respondent herein thereby confirming the said order. By order dated 24.7.1982, Learned Sub-Judge restrained the defendant from recovering the property tax in respect of plot No. 4, Rajindera Place, New Delhi which order was confirmed by the first Appellate Court by impugned order and aggrieved against this order, present civil revision is preferred. 2. The petitioner had issued notice to the respondent under section 124 of the MCD Act for the assessment years 1976-77 & 1979-80 demanding property tax from the respondent in respect of Plot No. 4, Rajindera Place, New Delhi. Respondent had filed Suit against the same challenging the aforesaid demand on the g...
Tag this Judgment!Hira Singh Vs. Govt of Nct of Delhi and ors.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 86(2000)DLT545
ORDERManmohan Sarin, J. 1. The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner assailing the decision of the respondents is not recognising the petitioner as a successor to late Sh.J.S. Sekhon, who was the lessee of the plot in ques-tion and treating the petitioner as an illegal occupant. Further, the petitioner seeks a writ of mandamus restraining the respondents from unlaw-fully dispossessing and evicting the petitioner without following the due procedure of law. 2. As regards the second relief is concerned, learned counsel for the respondent submits that for the eviction of the petitioner, respondent shall take action in accordance with the due process of law only. As regards the first prayer, I have heard counsel for both the parties at length. Mr. Shali has raised a preliminary objection to the maintainability of the writ petition on the ground that the petitioner is seeking adjudication and assertion of contractual rights through a writ petition. He relies on the judgment ...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Wealth Tax Vs. L.N. Ahuja
Court: Delhi
Reported in: [2000]112TAXMAN436(Delhi)
Pasayat, C.J.At the instance of the revenue, the following questions, in a hunch of eight references, which shall be governed by this common judgment, pertaining to the assessment years 1971-72 to 1978-79, have been referred by the Tribunal, Delhi Bench, under section 27(1) of the Wealth Tax Act, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as `the Act') for opinion of this court :'1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the Wealth Tax Officer had no valid authority under section 7(1) of the Wealth Tax Act to estimate the market value of the property which is higher than Rs. 50,000 of the value declared by the assessed in his wealth-tax return ?2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in not holding that the market value of the properties was Rs. 3,60,000 ?'2. In our opinion, since the second question is only consequential, answer to the first question would suffice.3. Factual position, whic...
Tag this Judgment!Ravalgaon Sugar Farm Ltd. Vs. Collector of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (2000)(121)ELT488TriDel
1. In this appeal filed by M/s. Ravalgaon Sugar Farm Ltd. the matter relates to the classification of the product - choco cream toffee (double trouble). The appellants had sought its classification under sub-heading No. 1704.90 of the Central Excise Tariff, which covered sugar confectionary including white chocolate not containing cocoa. The Asstt. Collector of Central Excise had classified the same under sub-heading No. 1804.00 of the said Tariff as other food preparation containing cocoa. The classification as settled by the Asstt. Collector of Central Excise was confirmed by the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), Pune.2. The matter was heard on 31-5-2000 when Shri L.P. Asthana, Advocate submitted that the main issue for consideration in this appeal was whether the product in question contained cocoa or not. It was his plea that the product choco cream toffee contained unsweetened covering chocolate. While it was admitted that the unsweetened covering chocolate was made of cocoa...
Tag this Judgment!Pepsu Steel Rolling Mills Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (2001)(127)ELT779TriDel
1. The issue involved in both these appeals is common. The appellants are manufacturers of steel products. They were covered by the provisions of Section 3A of the Central Excise Act and paid duty according to their installed capacity and not based on actual production. The dispute has arisen on account of the changes made in the installed machinery. The appellants sought re-fixing of the production capacity and duty liability consequent to the changes made in the machines and its effect on the capacity of production. Even though the capacity of production was revised by the Commissioner taking into account the changes made in the machinery installed, he refused to reduce the duty liability holding that in terms of Rule 5 of Hot Re-Rolling Steel Mill Annual Capacity Determination Rules, 1997, the annual capacity was deemed to be equal to the actual production of the mill during the financial year 1996-97, despite the change in machinery and its adverse impact on the capacity of produc...
Tag this Judgment!Densons Poly Products Ltd. Vs. Collector of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (2000)(121)ELT340TriDel
1. In this appeal filed by M/s. Densons Poly Products Pvt. Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as M/s. 'Densons'), the matter relates to the eligibility of the appellants' factory to the benefit of small scale exemption Notification No. 175/86-C.E., dated 1-3-1986 when the product HIP (High Impact Polystyrenes) Moulds manufactured by them were affixed with the brand name 'Densons' of ineligible person - M/s. Yamuna Gases and Chemicals Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as M/s. Yamuna'). The value of clearances of M/s. Yamuna had exceeded the eligibility limit for small scale exemption. Further, they were availing of the benefit of Modvat credit and were paying central excise duty at the applicable rate on their clearances of excisable goods. The Collector of Central Excise, Delhi, who adjudicated the matter observed that as M/s. Yamuna were not eligible for the benefit of small scale exemption Notification No. 175/86-C.E., the goods manufactured by M/s. Densons affixed with the brand name 'Denso...
Tag this Judgment!