Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 38 (0.93 seconds)
Documents citing Sh. Mayank Rastogi vs Sh. V K Bansal & Osrs on 5 January, 1998

Mrs. Sudesh Sibal vs Smt. Sanotsh on 5 October, 2009

That the petitioner is the owner/landlady of the premises in question 8 The petitioner/PW1 has deposed that previously also she had filed an eviction petition bearing no. 200/95 under Sec.14(1)(e) of DRC Act which was dismissed by the Court of Sh. V. K. Bansal, the then Ld. ARC vide judgment dated 02.11.2002 which is Ex.PW1/1. In the said judgment the Hon. Court has categorically held the petitioner to be owner and landlord of the premises in question. Since the said judgment has not been challanged by any of the parties, so the said decision is final and hence, it stands established that the petitioner is the owner and landlord of the premises in dispute.
Delhi District Court Cites 10 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Neelkanth Finbuild Ltd , New Delhi vs Department Of Income Tax on 1 April, 2015

In respect of Sh. V.K Angani who is a resident of 21/2.Mile Dirnapur, the appellant filed copy of certificate (certifying that the Sh. V. K. Anagami is a Schedule Tribe in the State of Nagaland, copy of Election Card and salary certificate of having received salary from M/s Numen Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. as Director. The appellant further stated that Sh. Angami had capacity to invest the money and income so earned by him is exempt u/s 10(26) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The appellant on 24.12.2008 also furnished an affidavit of Sh. V.1<.. Angami to the effect that he has invested in the share ITA No. 2821/D/2009 13 capital of the appellant company and the investment has been made out of his own source of funds and payment made out of his cash balance.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Delhi Cites 24 - Cited by 1 - Full Document

Pioneer Buildwell (P) Ltd., New Delhi vs Assessee on 29 May, 2015

In respect of Sh. V.K Angani who is a resident of 21/2.Mile Dirnapur, the appellant filed copy of certificate (certifying that the Sh. V. K. Anagami is a Schedule Tribe in the State of Nagaland, copy of Election Card and salary certificate of having received salary from M/s Numen Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. as Director. The appellant further stated that Sh. Angami had capacity to invest the money and income so earned by him is exempt u/s 10(26) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The appellant on 24.12.2008 16 ITA NO.6070/Del/2013 also furnished an affidavit of Sh. V.1<.. Angami to the effect that he has invested in the share capital of the appellant company and the investment has been made out of his own source of funds and payment made out of his cash balance.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Delhi Cites 20 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Sh. Om Parkash vs Shri Bunda Lal on 15 February, 2007

Regarding this ingredient, PW1 has stated in his affidavit that neither the tenant nor any member of his family was residing in the premises in question for a period of six months prior to the filing of the present eviction petition. The onus to prove this fact that he was residing in the premises in question was upon the respondent, as obviously, the landlord cannot prove the negative. However, PW1 in his cross examination has stated that "earlier, I have filed a suit against Bunda Lal in year 1999. That suit might be dismissed in March, 2003. It is correct that the address mentioned in the previous suit in the year 1999 till the dismissal address of Bunda Lal was same. It is correct that Bunda Lal was residing in the suit premises till the dismissal of the suit". He further stated in his cross examination "I learnt it today during the course of question that the petition was dismissed on 7.2.2003 by the court of Sh. V. K. Sharma, ld. ARC, Delhi". Accordingly, from the aforesaid admission of the PW1 in his cross examination it is clear that till the dismissal of the previous suit, the respondent was residing in the premises in question.
Delhi District Court Cites 2 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

State vs . Sukhdev on 4 October, 2012

11.The PW8 Dharmesh Sharma is Ld ASJ. He has deposed that on 28.07.1999, an application for conducting TIP was marked to him by the court of Sh V. K. Bansal the then Ld MM. Accused Sukhdev was produced by SI Subhash Chand in muffled face. Accused had declined to participate in TIP. He had warned him about adverse inference which may be drawn on his refusal.
Delhi District Court Cites 13 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

M/S Shrishti Properties Pvt. Ltd vs Royal Nepal Airlines Corporation on 22 March, 2010

(a) (v) regarding service of notice dated 20/11/2001 Ex. AW1/10 on Anand Swaroop Aggarwal SCJ­Cum­RC/New Delhi Eviction Petition (Old) No.137/03/02 Eviction Petition (New) No.06/08/08 5/29 24/11/2001 have been replied in para. 18 (a) (v) of Written Statement by the respondent by stating that DR No. 187/2000 titled as Royal Nepal Air Lines Corporation Vs. Shrishti Properties Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. was pending in the Court of Sh. V. K. Bansal ld. ARC Delhi as there was bonafide dispute as to whom the respondent should pay the rent, there was no requirement & necessity to give the reply to the aforesaid notice. This reply suggest that respondent as a matter of fact was served with notice dated 20/11/2001 Ex. AW1/10. As per the respondent, the respondent is not a defaulter in the matter of payment of rent and as such the present petition is liable to be dismissed with exemplary cost.
Delhi District Court Cites 19 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1   2 3 4 Next