Delhi Court July 2000 Judgments
Home Cases Delhi 2000 Page 26 of about 277 results (0.020 seconds)Pritam Chand JaIn Vs. Bir Kumar and Another
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 86(2000)DLT640; 2000(54)DRJ863
ORDERK.S. Gupta, J.1. Plaintiff filed this suit, inter alia, alleging that he became member of Vardhman Cooperative House Building Society, Kamla Nagar, Delhi in the year 1966 and against payment of Rs.14,155.40 from time to time to the Society, he was allotted plot bearing No. 87, situated in Madipur Village, Delhi, admeasuring 217.77 sq. yds. Sublease regarding this plot was execut- ed in his favor on 13th August 1974. It is alleged that the plaintiff completed the construction of boundary wall around the said plot in the year 1990. Defendant No. 2 is the son of defendant No. 1 and both the defendants have no right whatsoever over the said plot. On 30th April 1990 the defendants threatened to occupy the plot forcibly and as such the plaintiff was compelled to file a suit of permanent injunction against them on that date itself in the Subordinate courts. However, in the suit no ex parte ad interim injunction was granted. The plaintiff filed another application under Order 39 Rules 1 &...
Tag this Judgment!Satbir Singh and Others Vs. Ram Nath Khanna
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 2000VAD(Delhi)645; 86(2000)DLT560
ORDERM.S.A. Siddiqui, J.1. Challenge in these petitions filed under Section 482 Cr. P.C. is to the order dated 6.11.1998 passed by the Metropolitan Magistrate, Delhi directing impleadment of the petitioners as accused in the criminal case filed by the respondent. Both the petitions are being disposed of by this common order. 2. Briefly stated the facts giving rise to these petitions are that on 23.3.1998, M/s. Okara Agro Industries Ltd., (hereinafter referred to as the Company) issued a cheque for Rs. 26,000/- in favor of the respondent. The cheque was signed by the authorised signatory, namely, Shri Narender Jeet Singh. When the cheque was presented for encashment, the drawee bank dishonoured it on 27.3.1998 on account of insufficiency of funds. Respondent issued a notice to the said company on 1.4.1998 calling upon it to pay the amount. As the company failed to pay the amount, a complaint was filed before the Metropolitan Magistrate on 27.4.1998 against the company and its authorised...
Tag this Judgment!Stephen Aranha, Dadan Bhai and anr. Vs. M/S. Jindal LeasefIn Ltd. and ...
Court: Delhi
Reported in: [2003]115CompCas264(Delhi); 2000(56)DRJ456; [2004]50SCL375(Delhi)
ORDERM.S.A. Siddiqui, J.1. The common question that arises in these petitions filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C., is whether a company and its rectors can be proceeded against for having committed an offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (for short 'the Act') after the expiry of the period of payment of the cheque amount before passing of the order of winding up under Section 433(e) and (f) of the Companies Act. Since the relevant facts involved in all the cases are similar and a common question of law arises in all the cases, they were heard together and they are being disposed of by this order. 2. The factual score depict that post-dated cheques were issued on behalf of the company in favor of the complainant in the course of the business of the company. When the cheques were presented for encashment, they were dishonoured by the drawee bank. The complainant issued notice to the company calling upon it to pay the amount. As the company failed to pay the amount, a c...
Tag this Judgment!The Commissioner of Wealth Tax, Delhi-i Vs. H.S. Chauhan
Court: Delhi
Reported in: (2000)163CTR(Del)495; [2000]245ITR704(Delhi)
ORDERArijit Pasayat, CJ.1. On being moved by the Revenue, following question has been referred by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench 'B' (for short the 'Tribunal') under Section 27(1) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957 (for short the Act) for the opinion of this Court: 'Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in upholding the order of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner, cancelling the penalties on the ground that no penalty could be levied under Section 18(1)(a) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957 on the legal heir after the death of the assesseed?'2. Since the question is a pure question of law factual aspects need not be dealt with in detail except stating the bare essentials briefly. Shri H.S. Chauhan is legal heir of one late Shri Bawa Singh Chauhan. He is referred to as assesseed. For the assessment years 1960-61 to 71-72 returns were filed by late Bawa Singh Chauhan. He died after completion of assessments. Since there was delay in fil...
Tag this Judgment!Rajiv Gupta Vs. State and Another
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 2000VAD(Delhi)802; [2001]104CompCas26(Delhi); 86(2000)DLT798
ORDERM.S.A. Siddiqui, J.1. The common question that arises in these petitions filed under Section 482 Cr. P.C., is whether a company and its Director can be proceeded against for having committed an offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (for short 'the Act') after the expiry of the period of payment of the cheque amount before passing of the order of winding up under Section 433(e) and (f) of the Companies Act. Since the relevant facts involved in all the cases are similar and a common question of law arises in all the cases, they were heard together and they are being disposed of by this order. 2. It is sufficient to set out the facts from one of these petitions in this batch. Facts in Crl. M. (M) No. 3444/99 are the following: M/s. Sakura Seimitsu (India) Ltd. is a Limited Company incorporated under the Indian Companies Act. The petitioner was the Managing Director of the said company. Mr. M.L.Gupta, Chairman of the said company issued the following postdated ch...
Tag this Judgment!Sona Devi and Another Vs. M/S. Puran Chand Packaging Industries Pvt. L ...
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 2000VAD(Delhi)797; 86(2000)DLT654; 2000(54)DRJ850
ORDERK.S. Gupta, J.1. In this suit for possession and injunction etc. the plaintiffs have filed I.A. 2217/93 under Order 12, Rule 6 read with Section 151 CPC, inter alia, alleging that the defendant was inducted in property bearing No. D-29, S.M.A. Industrial Area, G.T. Karnal Road under an agreement dated 12th June, 1987. In Para No. 3 of the written statement the defendant has admitted that it was inducted in the suit property by plaintiffs. The plaintiffs terminated lease/licence of the defendant by a notice dated 7th December 1994 which was duly received by it. In Para No. 16 of the written statement, on merits, the receipt of said notice is admitted by defendant. It is further alleged that defendant cannot challenge the title of plaintiffs to the suit property under the provisions of Evidence Act. In view of the admissions made in written statement the plaintiffs are entitled to a decree for possession of the suit property. It is prayed that a decree for possession of the suit pro...
Tag this Judgment!Om Parkash JaIn Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 2000(55)DRJ10
ORDERK.S. Gupta, J.1. Om Parkash Jain, plaintiff filed this suit alleging that the firm- V.K.Industries and Fabricators was constituted on or about 10th September, 1966 and dissolved on or about 10th May, 1967 by mutual consent of the partners. He was a partner in that firm Along with defendants 4 to 6. Firm- V.K. Industries was duly registered under Small Scale Industries Scheme vide S.S.I.No. D-1/UP/MTC/4219 dated 4th May, 1963 with the Government of Uttar Pradesh. Under an agreement dated 19th August, 1966, the plaintiff purchased the assets and goodwill of V.K. Industries. Thereafter V.K. Industries and Fabricators Along with the letter dated 1st October, 1966 forwarded the application forms duly completed in triplicate to the Director of Industries, Kanpur for grant of S.S.I. registration number as reroller in its favor in place of said V.K. Industries. 2. It is alleged that defendants 1 to 3 through their auctioneer - M/s. Thakur and Company held a public auction for sale of re-r...
Tag this Judgment!Kishangarh Fibres (P) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (2000)(122)ELT793TriDel
1. This appeal arises out of and is directed against the impugned order dated 27-9-1999 passed by the Commissioner of Customs and Central Excise, Jaipur.2. The issue relates to condonation of delay in late filing the declaration. According to the ld. Counsel, there was no delay in filing the declaration since the declaration was duly filed on 10-9-1997, the date on which the factory was registered as per certificate issued by the Registrar of Factories. He submits that the circular issued by the Board also supports his case. Furthermore, the issue involved, herein, has been covered by the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Seven Hills Papers (P) Ltd. v. Commissioner of Customs and Central Excise, Guntur 4. In the case, referred to by the ld. counsel, it was observed by the Tribunal that circular issued by the Board No. 88/88/94-CX, dated 26-12-1994 is not clear on the point at issue.5. In the instant case, I find that the declaration was filed on the date when the factory was ins...
Tag this Judgment!Desh Rolling Mills Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (2000)(122)ELT481TriDel
1. In these four appeals, filed by four appellants against four Order-in-Appeals, passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), the Common issue involved is whether exemption under Notification No. 1/93-C.E., dated 28.02.1993 and Notification No. 214/86-C.E. dated 02.04.1986 is available to the goods manufactured by them.2.1 Briefly stated the facts are that all the four Appellants manufactured untrimmed sheets/circles of copper, copper alloys on job work basis which were removed by them without payment of excise duty.The demand for duty of excise was confirmed by the Assistant Commissioner and Commissioner (Appeals). However, on appeal the Appellate Tribunal, in the case of Aggarwal Rolling Mills v. CCE, New Delhi - 1997 (93) E.L.T. 615 (T), remanded the matter to the adjudicating authority for de novo consideration in the light of the observations made and the law.2.2 The Assistant Commissioner re-adjudicated the matters and confirmed the demand of duty against all the Appellants, holding t...
Tag this Judgment!Steel Strips Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (2001)(130)ELT137TriDel
1. The appellants herein filed a refund claim for Rs. 42,07,977/- in respect of Central Excise duty paid during the period from 19-2-1996 to 29-6-1996 in respect of cold rolled steel strips made from hot rolled strips on the ground that as per the judgment in their own case reported in 1995 (77) E.L.T. 248 (S.C.), the activity of cold rolling out of duty paid hot rolled steel strips does not amount to manufacture. The Department was of the view that the above judgment which related to the period prior to 28-2-1986 when all kinds of strips were classifiable under T.I. 26-AA, was not relevant in the context of the present Central Excise period which contained separate sub-headings for hot rolled strips (7211.51) and cold rolled strips (7211. 52). It also appears that the as-sessee had passed on the duty burden to its buyers and therefore, grant of refund would amount to unjust enrichment which was against the provisions of Section 11-B of the Central Excise Act as amended in September 1...
Tag this Judgment!