Delhi Court May 2006 Judgments

Supreme Telecommunication Ltd. Vs. Rpg Transmission Ltd.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2006(89)DRJ520

Swatanter Kumar, J.1. M/s RPG Transmission Limited, the respondent in the present appeal filed a suit against M/s Supreme Telecommunication Limited averring that the appellant had placed a purchase order dated 24.8.2000 which was subsequently amended by letter dated 31.10.01 for supply of 100 M Microwave Tower under which the respondent was required to do the work of foundation as well as erection. The appellant was doing work for its client M/s Samsung SDS Co.Ltd. The last purchase order was to bind the parties and the value of the purchase order was Rs. 72,25,090/- which included supply of 100 M Microwave Tower for a consideration of Rs. 35,41,124.80/-, work of foundation for a consideration of Rs. 25,60,715/- and work of erection was to costs at Rs. 11,23,250/-. A letter of credit was opened by the appellant on 24.4.02 which was subsequently amended on 31.8.02 and it was agreed that on completion of each portion of work a completion certificate would be issued by the respondent to t...

Roopchand Laxmi NaraIn Vs. Union of India and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: [2006]284ITR600(Delhi)

T.S. THAKUR J.In these petitions for a writ of mandamus, the petitioners have prayed for a direction to the respondents including the Comtnissioner of Income-Tax-X (Delhi) and the Tax Recovery Officer to render accounts in regard to the rent collected by them from the petitioners' tenant and to refund the amount so recovered together with the amount of compensation received from the Special Land Acquisition Officer at Dehradun.The petitioners' case as set out in the writ petition is that although no arrears on account of income-tax or wealth-tax dues were outstanding against them, yet the Tax Recovery Officer at New Delhi had got the properties of the petitioners at Dehradun attached for recovery of amounts allegedly due from the petitioners. It is further alleged that the department had even forced the Land Acquisition Officer at Dehradun to remit the amount of compensation due to the petitioners in connection with the acquisition of their properties for adjustment towards the alleged...

Jai Singh and ors. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and anr.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 135(2006)DLT231

Swatanter Kumar, J.1. All the above 111 Land Acquisition Appeals have been preferred either by the claimants or by the Union of India against the judgments of the Reference Court whereby it partially allowed the reference and granted compensation to the claimants @Rs. 1,08,000/- per bigha with other statutory benefits and interest payable in terms of provisions of Section 23(1-A) of the Land Acquisition Act. It is not necessary for us to refer to the facts of each appeal as the learned Counsel appearing for the appellants in all these appeals argued and referred to the pleadings and record of the following appeals :(a) Bhoop Singh v. Union of India and Ors. (LAAPP No. 281/2006)(b) Union of India v. Bhoop Singh LAAPP No. 828/2005(c) Jai Singh and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors. LAAPP 189-91/06(d) Union of India v. Jai Singh and Ors. LAAPP No. 812/2005(e) Ranbir Singh v. Union of India and Anr. LAAPP No. 568/2005(f) Union of India v. Ranbir Singh (LAAPP No. 782/2005)(g) Raghbir v. Union ...

Sh. Risal Singh and ors. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and anr.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2006(89)DRJ527

Swatanter Kumar, J.1. A land ad-measuring 248 bigha 5 bids was in the revenue estate of Village Bamnauli, Delhi, was acquired by the government for a public purpose namely 'Construction of 400 K.V. Sub Station for DESU.' In this regard, notification No. F-7(1)/84-L and B dated 9.1.1987 was issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') in furtherance to which a declaration under Section 6 of the Act was issued on 18.9.1987. After having followed the prescribed procedure, the Land Acquisition Collector made his award bearing No. 15/1989-90 on 12.9.1989 and awarded compensation at a uniform rate of Rs. 12,000/- per bigha for the entire acquired lands in addition to other statutory benefits. Dissatisfied with the fair market price of the land as determined by the Land Acquisition Collector, the claimants filed references under Section 18 of the Act, which in turn were referred to the court of the learned Additional District Judge. Vide sepa...

Sh. Chander Mal Etc. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2006(89)DRJ385

Swatanter Kumar, J.1. In a petition moved by the petitioners under Article 226 of the Constitution of India invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court and praying for issuance of an appropriate writ, order or direction to the respondents for payment of statutory interest on the awarded compensation under Section 34 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), on behalf of the respondent Delhi Development Authority (for short 'DDA') a legal question has been raised with regard to the applicability of Section 34 of the Act to the present case. It is argued that the claimants are not entitled to claim any interest under the provisions of Section 34 of the Act as the possession of the land had not been taken by the Collector or the DDA, prior to making of the award. With some vehemence it is further submitted that there is no specific or general obligation on the part of the Collector to deposit the compensation in court. The non-payment or non-depos...

Sh. Ram Kishan Dass and ors. Vs. Sh. Banwari Lal Suri and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2006(89)DRJ730

Swatanter Kumar, J.1. In the year 1981, Sh. Ram Kishan Dass Along with other plaintiffs filed a suit against Shri Banarsi Lal Suri and other defendants for winding up of the affairs/accounts of the partnership firm viz. 'Rachna Enterprises (India) Regd.'. It was stated that plaintiffs and defendants have been carrying on the business in partnership under the name and style of 'Rachna Enterprises (India) Regd. in terms of partnership deed dated 8.8.77. Sh. Mela Ram was one of the partners who unfortunately died and no fresh partnership deed was executed between the parties. According to the plaintiffs, the share of the partners are as follows:Name Share in profits Share in loss Shri Ram Kishan Das P-1 7% 8%Shri Mahesh Kumar P-2 5% NilSmt Laxmi Devi P-3 12% 13%Shri Banarsi Lal Suri D-1 9% 9%Shri Joginder Paul Suri D-2 9% 7%Shri Raman Suri D-3 8% 8%Master Aman Suri D-5 8% NilShri Ram Sarup Agarwal D-6 12% 13%Kumari Ballo Devi D-7 7% 8%Shri Vishnu Kumar D-8 7% 8%Agarwal Rajan Suri D-9 8% 8...

Roop Chand Vs. Uoi

Court: Delhi

Reported in: (2006)205CTR(Del)377; [2006]155TAXMAN301(Delhi)

T.S. Thakur, J. In these petitions for a writ of mandamus, the petitioners have prayed for a direction to the respondents including the Commissioner of Income Tax-X (Delhi) and the Tax Recovery Officer to render accounts in regard to the rent collected by them from the petitioners' tenant and to refund the amount so recovered together with the amount of compensation received from the Special Land Acquisition Officer at Dehradun.2. The petitioners' case as set out in the writ petitions is that although no arrears on account of income-tax or wealth-tax dues were outstanding against them, yet the Tax Recovery Officer at New Delhi had got the properties of the petitioners at Dehradun attached for recovery of amounts allegedly due from the petitioners. It is further alleged that the department had even forced the Land Acquisition Officer at Dehradun to remit the amount of compensation due to the petitioners in connection with the acquisition of their properties for adjustment towards the al...

Shri Tarachand JaIn Vs. Smt. Saroj Gupta

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 130(2006)DLT617; 2006(90)DRJ527

Manju Goel, J.1. This application under Section 151 CPC seeks recalling the collusive decree of 2.9.99 passed in CS(OS) 2121/1987. Before coming to the averments in the application, it is necessary to have a look at the proceedings in this case.2. The applicant filed the S. No. 2121/87 against Saroj Bala with the following story. An agreement to sell was executed by the defendant in favor of the plaintiff in respect of 15/275, Vishwa Bhawan, Civil Lines, Kanpur (herein after referred to as the suit property ) on 30.9.82 for a consideration of Rs. 4.75 lacs after actual payment of earnest money of Rs. 25,000/-. But the defendant failed to obtain the pre-requisite permissions/sanctions from various authorities and failed to perform the agreement. Two supplementary agreements dated 22-9-83 and 30-3-84 were executed by the defendant in favor of the plaintiff whereby the time for execution was extended up to 30.9.87 with direction to the defendant to obtain necessary permissions and sanctio...

Sh. Rajiv Kapoor Vs. Smt. Seema Kapoor and anr.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 132(2006)DLT300

Swatanter Kumar, J.1. Vide judgment and decree dated 20.5.05, the learned Additional District Jude, Delhi partially allowed the petition filed by Smt.Seema Kapoor and the minor child against her husband Sh.Rajeev Kapoor under Section 18 and 20 of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') granting Rs. 3,500/- per month each to both the petitioners as monthly maintenance. The legality and correctness of this judgment is questioned by Sh Rajeev Kapoor in this Regular First Appeal under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure on the following grounds ;(a) The Court has awarded the above amounts to the respondents in this appeal without assessing income of the appellant, on the basis of no cogent and proper evidence.(b) The Court has fallen in error of law in awarding a sum of Rs. 7,000/- per month to the respondents. Awarding this maintenance is unreasonably excessive and is not in consonance with the principles enunciated in various pronouncemen...

Commissioner of Customs (icd) Vs. M.S. Shoes East Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

2. The dispute raised in this appeal of the Revenue is about the assessable value of a 1993 model Rollo Royce car imported by the Respondent.3. The car arrived in India in 1996 and the Bill of entry was filed on 3.8.1996. Dispute arose about the validity of import license produced by the Appellant. That and other disputes delayed the clearance of the car till 28th March, 2005.4. The car was purchased by the Appellant at a price of 75,000 from a German party, namely M/s. Shone Fab Collection, Germany. The Deputy Commissioner rejected the sale price as basis for value on the ground that "the supplier does not appear to be dealing in second-hand car".Therefore, value was determined going by the catalogue price after granting a depreciation of 38% from the catalogue prices.5. The respondent challenged the above order of valuation before Commissioner (Appeals). The Commissioner allowed the appeal. He noted that the rejection of the transaction value was incorrect in as much as the finding ...