Delhi Court January 2001 Judgments

M/S Rajasthan Antibiotics Ltd. Vs. Cce, Jaipur

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. This is an application, filed by M/S Rajasthan Antibiotics Ltd., for waiver of pre-deposit of Rs. 7,79,573-which was disallowed as Modvat Credit to them and penalty amount of Rs. 50,000/- imposed on them.2. Shri P.K.Mittal, ld. Advocate at the outset mentioned that there was delay of 20 days in filing the appeal as due to inadvertence all papers concerting the appeals were taken away from the library of Delhi High Court by the clerk of another Advocate, Shri Arvind Jha, with his papers; that the appeal papers were returned to him only on 17-11-2000 by shri Jha; that in support he had enclosed a copy of letter dt.17-11-2000 from Shri A.K.Jha Advocate, returning the papers and his own affidavit. In these circumstances, the ld Advocate sought condonation of delay in filing the appeal. Shri K.D.Singh, ld. SDR, has no objection for condonation of delay. LI condone the delay in filing the appeal as the reasons for delay has been satisfactorily explained.3. Shri P.K.Mittal submitted that ...

D.K. Kapur Vs. Reserve Bank of India and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2001IIAD(Delhi)259; 90(2001)DLT127

ORDERS.K. Agarwal, J.1. This appeal is against the order dated 27th October, 1998 passed by the Company Judge, on the application of Reserve Bank of India (hereinafter the complainant/RBI) under Section 446(1) of the Companies Act 1956 read with Rule 117 of the Companies(Court) Rule 1959 (for short 'the Rules') granting leave to pursue its criminal complaint for the offences under Sections 58B(5)(aa), 58B(6) read with Section 58C of the Reserve Bank of India Act 1934 (for short RBI Act), against JVG Finance Limited (Respondent company) and directing the trial court to consider the objections raised on behalf of the appellant. 2. We have heard Sh. Kapil Sibal and Sh. Rajeev Dhawan, learned Senior Advocates, for the appellant and Sh. Rajeev Nayar, learned Senior Advocate for the complainant/RBI and have been taken through record. Learned Counsel for the parties argued that in the appeal maintainability of the criminal complaint against the appellant is questioned thereforee,appeal be fin...

Sh. Roop Kumar Vs. Mohan thedani and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2001IIAD(Delhi)153; 90(2001)DLT427; 2001(57)DRJ709

ORDERA.K. Sikri, J.1. This Regular First Appeal is filed by the appellant, who was defendant in the suit, against judgment and decree dated 19th December, 1996 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Delhi in Suit No. 256/91 filed by the respondents (plaintiffs in that suit) thereby decreeing the said suit in favor of the plaintiffs and against the defendant/appellant. The impugned decree runs as follows: 'a) a decree for Rs.5,500/- is hereby passed in favor of the plaintiff and against the defendant in respect of commission charges for the period from 14th October, 1977 to 31st March, 1978 @ Rs.1,000/-p.m.; (b) a decree for Rs.25,500/- is hereby passed in favor of the plaintiff and against the defendant in respect of commission charges for the period from 1st March, 1978 to 14th March, 1980 @ Rs.1,000/- p.m. and subject to payment of proper court fee; c) a decree for Rs.2,500/- is hereby passed for damages for use and occupation of premises for the period from 15th May, 1980 ...

Nanda Ram Alias Nand Lal Vs. Union of India

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2001IIIAD(Delhi)760; 91(2001)DLT397

ORDERDevinder Gupta, J.1. This is an appeal under, Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' seeking determination of the amount of compensation.2. Claimant's land was acquired for public purpose, namely, Ash disposal and Railway Siding Badarpur Thermal Power Project at public expense through notification issued under Section 4(1) of the Act on 12.6.1969. Along with claimant's land, other lands situate at village Jaitpur were also notified for being acquired for the same public purpose. Collector Land Acquisition had earlier made his award No. 26/70/-71. Claimant's land could not be included in the earlier award, thereforee, supplementary award No. 26-B/70-71 was made by the Collector offering compensation at the rate of Rs. 2500/- per bigha. Feeling dissatisfied with the amount of compensation, reference was sought by the claimant. The Reference Court through the impugned judgment dated 29/10.1985 held that the market value of the land as on th...

Union of India Vs. Shri Jagan Nath and Others

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2001IIIAD(Delhi)634; 90(2001)DLT611

ORDERDevinder Gupta, J.1. Appeal has been preferred by Union of India under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') seeking reduction in the amount of compensation payable to the claimant/respondents and the claimant/respondents have no the other hand filed cross objection seeking enhancement in the amount of compensation at the rate of Rs.10,000/- per bigha.2. Claimants land situated in village Kalu-Sarai was acquired for public purpose at public expense, namely, establishment of a College of Engineering and Technology of Delhi through notification issued under Sections 4, 6 and 17 of the Act on 18.8.1960. While assessing compensation through his award No.1128 dated 27.3.1961, the Collector Land Acquisition classified the land in four categories and fixed different market rates for four categories of land. Feeling dissatisfied with the amount of compensation, reference was sought by the claimants. The Reference Court through the impugned jud...

Ms. Mani Mann Vs. Smt. Ram Dulari (Dead.), Through Legal Representativ ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 90(2001)DLT305

ORDERA.K. Sikri, J.1. This first appeal is filed by the tenant against the judgment and decree dated 30th April, 1999 passed by Additional District Judge, Delhi whereby decree for possession has been passed against him under Order XII Rule 6 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The suit premises, being the ground floor of property no. 76, Sunder Nagar, New Delhi, were let out by the respondent-plaintiff to the appellant-defendant by a Lease Deed dated 21st May, 1977. Rent was fixed at the time was Rs.2000/- per month which was increased from time to time. At the time when quit notice was served under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act, for short) the Suit for possession was filed by the respondent herein, rent of the premises was Rs.10,000/- per month. The period of Lease Deed dated 21st May, 1977 had expired since long. No fresh lease deed had been executed. Respondent served notice dated 7th November, 1997 under Section 106 of the Act terminati...

Shri Kg Mal and Another Vs. Shri Sham Behari Mal (Dead) Through Legal

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2001IIAD(Delhi)83; 90(2001)DLT455

ORDERA.K. Sikri. J.1. Parties to this appeal are related to each other. The appellants, who were defendants in the Suit are brothers of respondent (plaintiff in the Suit). Respondent had filed Suit No. 2 of 1997 against appellants in the Court of District Judge, Delhi. This was s Suit for possession, injunction and recovery of damages in respect of ground floor of house No. B-172, East of Kailash, New Delhi. Suit was filed by the respondent/plaintiff on the averment that he was the owner of property No. B-172, East of Kailash, New Delhi as he had purchased the said plot from Delhi Development Authority. President of India executed perpetual lease deed for the plot of land on 8th August, 1969. The plaintiff had allowed his brothers to stay with him on the ground floor of the house when the same was constructed. At that time, respondent was in Madras. In 1980 he decided to shift his family from Madras to Delhi. At that time, first and second floor were constructed in the Suit premises an...

R.C. Wahi Vs. Lal Singh and anr.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2001IIAD(Delhi)496; 90(2001)DLT23; 2001(57)DRJ676

Cyriac Joseph, J.1. In this civil revision petition, the petitioner challenges an order dated 2.3.1998 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Delhi in Suit No. 196 of 1996 rejecting the request of the plaintiff (petitioner herein) to record evidence on all the issues framed in the suit and deciding to record evidence only on the issue of limitation.2. The petitioner is the plaintiff in Suit No. 196 of 1996. According to the averments in this revision petition, the plaintiff filed the suit for specific performance, cancellation of the sale deed and consequential relief of injunction. On the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed by the Trial Court:(1) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for specific performance of the agreement dated 17.12.1979?(2) Whether the sale deed dated 2nd December, 1998 is liable to be cancelled?(3) Whether the suit is within limitation?(4) Whether plaintiff is entitled for a decree of permanent injunction regarding the western portio...

Neelam Mehta Vs. P.D. Malhotra and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2001IIAD(Delhi)657; 90(2001)DLT785

Vikramajit Sen, J. 1. Mr. R.K. Anand, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of petitioner, submits that the petitioner, submits that the petitioner, Neelam Mehta, is the wife of one of the sons of late Ganga Ram. The Civil Court as well as the Rent Controller has determined late Ganga Ram to be the tenant in respect of the premises. He further contends that late Ganga Ram was one of the partners of Volga Ice-cream Company. In his lifetime he had introduced the petitioner as well as Nand Lal as partners, consequent upon the other partners having retired. I this also his contention that on the death of Ganga Ram his sons and daughters had inherited the tenancy rights as has been clarified by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Gyan Devi's case. It is his argument that since the husband of the petitioner, Neelam Mehta, being one of the sons of late Ganga Ram is undoubtedly a tenant in the premises by operation of law, the possession of his wife, Neelam Mehta, cannot be viewed as anything bu...

The Gap Inc and ors. Vs. Praveen K. JaIn and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2001(58)DRJ69

Madan B. Lokur, J. 1. The Plaintiff has filed this suit for a perpetual injunction restraining the Defendants from using the trade mark GAP in respect of denim jeans, readymade garments or any other allied and cognate goods or any other similar trade mark and from passing off their goods as the goods of the Plaintiff.2. Even though the Defendants were served, there was no appearance on their behalf with the result that they were proceeded against ex-parte by an order dated 1.6th October, 1998. The Plaintiff was given an opportunity to file an affidavit by way of evidence. The affidavit has since been filed.3. The Plaintiff is a company incorporated in USA in 1969. It originally adopted the mark/name GAP as its business name as also its trade mark. The Plaintiff says that it is internationally retailing its goods which are casual apparel, shoes, belts, bags, sun glasses and other accessories under the trade mark GAP.4. Initially, the Plaintiff was marketing its products only in USA but ...