Delhi Court January 2001 Judgments

Shri Harish Chander Dewan Vs. Sh. Mahesh Chander Dewan and Others

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2001IIAD(Delhi)540; AIR2001Delhi168; 89(2001)DLT568; 2001(57)DRJ547

ORDERK.S. GUPTA, J.1. Vasumati Agencies Pvt.Ltd, defendant No.5 filed this application under Order 6 Rule 17 read with section 151 CPC seeking to add in the written statement additional pleas as under which is being contested by the plaintiff:-(1) At the time of creation of tenancy, defendant No.5 had verified, on proof of documents furnished by Shri Lila Ram Dewan that the property was owned and constructed by him and stood mutated in his name. There was no mention of any HUF involved in the same or any reference to his sons having any interest of any kind in the suit property, during his lifetime.(2) Defendant No.5 was further apprised that previously Shri Lila Ram Dewan had let out the second floor to a tenant and was receiving rent from him and on the vacation, the tenancy of the premises had been offered to defendant No.5 by Shri Lila Ram Dewan himself. Accordingly for valuable consideration and on execution of a lease deed which was duly registered this defendant was inducted in ...

M/S. Pee Kay Associates Vs. Union of India and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2001IIAD(Delhi)773; AIR2001Delhi248; 91(2001)DLT279; 2001(58)DRJ208

ORDERManmohan Sarin, J.1. Petitioner was awarded the contract for providing the pantry car service on Rajdhani Express train Nos.2429/2430 operating on the Hazrat Nizammudin,New Delhi-Bangalore sector, with effect from 30th of December, 1995 for a period of five years. The said contract dated 16.9.1996, awarded to the petitioner was under the control and management of Southern Railway.2. Respondent No.4 had been awarded the contract for providing the pantry car service on the Rajdhani Express train Nos.2437/2438 operating on the Hazrat Nizammuddin, New Delhi-Secunderabad sector, with effect from 1.12.1998. The contract of respondent No.4 was under the control and management of Northern Railway.3. The controversy between the parties arose when the railway authorities sought to increase the frequency of Rajdhani Express to Bangalore from bi-weekly to tri-weekly. Correspondingly, the frequency of Rajdhani Express up to Secunderabad was sought to be reduced from bi-weekly to weekly, with e...

Mr. D. Kochhar Vs. Canara Bank and Others

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2001IIIAD(Delhi)636; 91(2001)DLT142

ORDERDevinder Gupta, J.1. This appeal has been preferred by appellant/defendant No.3 against the order passed on 29.8.2000 by learned Single Judge allowing applications (IAs.8915 and 8917 of 1994 in Suit No.502 of 1985), which were filed by the defendant/appellant. The appellant is aggrieved by the condition imposed on him of deposit of Rs.5,00,000/- within 8 weeks for setting aside the decree against him. 2. A suit was filed by the plaintiff/ respondent under Order xxxvII C.P.C. The appellant was also imp leaded defendant No.3. Summons in the suit were duly served on the defendants including defendant No.3, who duly put in appearance on 13.5.1985. Summons for judgment were directed to be issued. These were stated to have been served on 23.8.1985 not on the defendants but upon their counsel. As no application for leave to defend was filed on behalf of defendant No.3 and the application of defendants 1 and 2 seeking leave to defend was dismissed on 17.8.1993, learned Single Judge procee...

Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Modern Bakeries India Limited

Court: Delhi

Reported in: [2001]249ITR465(Delhi); [2001]117TAXMAN737(Delhi)

Arijit Pasayat, C.J. 1. This order will govern Income-tax References Nos. 283 of 1981 and 284 of 1981. 2. At the instance of the Revenue, the following questions have been referred for the opinion of this court by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench-A (in short 'the Tribunal'), under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short 'the Act') : '1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal Was correct in law in holding that the expenditure of Rs. 43,403 did not constitute entertainment expenditure within the meaning of Section 37(2B) and was thereforee not liable to be disallowed 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is correct in law in holding that the cost of machinery amounting to Rs. 1,24,27,650 gifted by the Government of Australia to the Government of India and given by the Government to the assessed against shares of the assessed to be issued to the Government and shown in the balance-sheet of ...

Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Continental Construction (P.) Ltd.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: [2001]249ITR473(Delhi)

1. At the instance of the Revenue, the following question has been referred for the opinion of this court under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that the assessed's claim under Section 80J for the assessment year 1972-73 should be determined in the assessment year 1975-76 and allowed in that year ?'2. Since there are lots of factual angles involved, we need not go into the factual aspects in detail. However, what seems to have appealed to the Tribunal is reflected in para. 6 of its order which reads as follows :'We agree with learned counsel for the assessed that if the Revenue had any grievance against the direction issued by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) in his order dated January 20, 1979, it should have come in appeal against that order and the direction issued in that order cannot be agitated in an appeal against the order dated March 24, 1979. In the impu...

Kanwal Johar and ors. Vs. Ramey and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2001IVAD(Delhi)764; 90(2001)DLT577

S.K. Mahajan, J.Admit.1. With the consent of the parties, arguments have been heard and these petitions are being disposed of finally.2. Plaintiff filed a suit for injunction against the defendants on the allegations as set out in the plaint. On 24th September, 1990, the suit was dismissed in default. On an application having been made by the plaintiff for restoration of the suit, the suit was restored on 8th March, 1991. Before the restoration of the suit, notice was issued to the defendants including defendant No. 4. Defendant No. 4, it appears, had refused to accept notice and he was, thereforee, proceeded ex-parte.3. Since he had already been proceeded ex-parte, no further notice was sent to defendant No. 4 after the restoration of the suit. Due to non-appearance of the defendants, ex-parte decree was passed against them on 22nd February, 1992. Defendant No. 4 moved an application for setting aside ex-parte decree passed against him, however, this application was dismissed in defau...

Saraswati Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax

Court: Delhi

Reported in: [2001]252ITR430(Delhi); [2001]116TAXMAN306(Delhi)

Arijit Pasayat, C.J.1. These two reference applications at the instance of the assessed involve an identical question which has been referred by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench-A ('the Tribunal' in short), for the opinion of this court under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('the Act' in short) :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the income by way of interest, waived by the assessed, was includible in its total income for the assessment years 1977-78 and 1978-79 ?'2. The assessment years involved are 1977-78 and 1978-79.3. The factual position as indicated in the statement of case is as follows :The assessed, Saraswati Insurance Company Limited, had a wholly owned subsidiary by the name of Saraswati Manufacturing and Trading Company Limited. The assessed had advanced certain loans to the subsidiary company on which payment of interest at 12 per cent, per annum was stipulated. Such interest was bei...

M/S. Metro Appliances Ltd. Vs. Satish Kaushik

Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi

Lokeshwar Prasad, President: 1. The present appeal, filed by the appellant under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), is directed against order dated 21.11.2999, passed by District Forum-I in Complaint Case No. 1332/2000 entitled Shri Satish Kaushik v. M/s. Metro Appliances Ltd. 2. The facts relevant for the disposal of the present appeal, briefly stated are, that the respondent Shri Satish Kaushik, had filed a complaint under Section 12 of the Act before the District Forum averring that in November, 1999, he had visited the Exhibition held at-Pragati Maidan, New Delhi and the representative of the appellant induced and misrepresented to the respondent and his wife stating that Ortem Induction Cooking System (for short Cooking System), a product of the respondent was a time tested and a fast means of preparing food, did not cause any pollution and works swiftly by means of pressing a button only. It was stated that on the above represent...

R.M.i. Steel Vs. Cce, Meerut

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. The appellants are manufactures of Cold Rolled (CR) Steel Strips.Central Excise Officers conducted a physical verification of the stock of finished goods and raw materials in the appellants factory form 6.4.96 (door) to 7.4.96 (4am) and detected an excess quantity of 50.995 MTs of CR Steel Strips (finished product) and an excess quantity of 232.374 Mts of Hot rolled (H.R.) Steel Coils (raw material) vis-a-vis the recorded balances in their RG-1 Register and RG23A Part-I Register respectively. The goods found in excess wee seized by the officers.Statement of one Sh. R.K. Sood, Manager (Accounts) and one Sh. K.K.Verma, Jr. Officer (Despatch) were recorded under Section 14 of the Central Excise Act. The officers also resumed the above registers as well as the production records which were being maintained by the party. Later on, by letters dated 10.4.96 and 16.4.96, the appellants explained to the Assistant Commissioner as to how the above quantities of the finished goods and raw mate...

M/S. Umed Textiles Mills Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Cce, Jaipur

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. The matter was called, no one appeared for the appellants, M/s Umed Textiles Mills Pvt. Ltd. The notice for today's hearing had been issued as early as on 17.11.2000. A copy of the notice was also endorsed to the counsel on record. There is no response. The matter relates to the abatement of duty for one day i.e. 1.3.1999 which the Commissioner of Central Excise had disallowed on the ground that the request for closure was made on 26.2.1999 and the stenters were sealed by the excise officers on 1.3.1999 at 24 hours.2. As the appellants have not responded to the notice, the appeal is dismissed for non-prosecution....