Delhi Court May 1985 Judgments
Home Cases Delhi 1985 Page 7 of about 108 results (0.022 seconds)Kuldeep Singh Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: AIR1986Delhi56; 1987(1)ARBLR359(Delhi)
Sachar, J.(1) This matter has been referred by a Division Bench by its order dated 8th March, 1983 to a larger Bench. The questions referred are as follows : 1.Can all suits against the Union of India be instituted at Delhi irrespective of the nature of the cause of action, on the ground that the Union of India resides at Delhi, or carries on business at Delhi ? 2. Can such suits also be instituted at all other places in India because the Union of India resides there, or carries on business there ? 3.Is there a difference in the jurisdiction of the court, depending on whether the contract in question is for constructing or, providing material to be used in business by the Government, or buildings or material to be used for purely sovereign purposes by the State ? 4.In the matter of construction work for railways, such as quarters, stations, or railway lines, etc., is the contract to be treated as a sovereign contract and does this have any bearing on the jurisdiction of the Court, part...
Tag this Judgment!Diwan Chand Kapoor Vs. the New Rialto Cinema Pvt. Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: [1987]62CompCas810(Delhi); 28(1985)DLT310
H.L. Anand, J.(1) These petitions, being C .P. 60/81, C.P. 15/8 3, C P. 102/83, C.P. 117/83, C.P. 47/84, C.P, 59/84 and C.P. 84/84, by different creditors, seeking to wind up several companies, on the ground of their deemed inability to pay the debts, forming subject-matter of the petitions, raise a common question, if a claim which became barred by time during the pendency of a petition at the show cause stage, could be a legitimate basis for winding up proceedings, even if it was within time when the petition was filed. (2) During the hearings of the matter on the aforesaid common question, some of the learned Counsel, appearing for the creditors or the companies concerned, did not maintain the distinction between 'maintainability' of a petition, the 'locus standi''of a creditor and the extinction of the remedy on the claim becoming out of time. It is, thereforee, necessary at the outset to clear the ground for a proper consideration of the common question. (3) The distinct terms 'ri...
Tag this Judgment!Gautam Electricals Co. Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Seth and Sons Pvt. Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 29(1986)DLT102
H.L. Anand, J.(1) These petitions, being C P. 60/81, C.P. 15/83, C.P. 102/83, C.P. 117/83, C.P. 47/84. C.P. 59/84 and C.P. 84/84, by different creditors, seeking to wind up several companies, on the ground of their deemed inability to pay the debts, forming subject matter of the petitions. raise a common question, if a claim, which became barred by time during the pendency of a petition at the show cause stage, could be a legitimate basis for winding up proceedings, even if it was within time when the petition was filed. (2) During the hearings of the matter on the aforesaid common question, some of the learned Counsel, appearing for the creditors or the companies concerned, did not maintain the distinction between ''maintainability' of a petition, the 'locus stand' of a creditor and the extinction of the remedy on the claim becoming out of time. It is, thereforee, necessary at the outset to clear the ground for a proper consideration of the common question. (3) The distinct terms 'rig...
Tag this Judgment!Krishan Kumar Jaggia Vs. Jag Mohan Bhardwaj
Court: Delhi
Reported in: AIR1986Delhi142; 28(1985)DLT193
G.C. Jain, J.(1) Smt. Ishwar Devi was the owner of the property No.P/13,Malviya Nagar, New Delhi. She let out a portion of the said property to the respondent Jagmohan Bhardwaj in April, 1963. She died on June 2,1968. (2) Claiming that be had become owner and landlord of the premises by virtue of the will dated June 28.. 1966 the appellant, Krishan Kumar Jaggia on July 14, 1969, brought an application for eviction of the respondent from the said premises. Eviction was sought under clause (e) and (i) of the proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 14 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (for short 'the Act'). (3) ADDL. Rent Controller on March 26, 1974 made an order for eviction of the respondent from the premises in suit on both the grounds. The Rent Control Tribunal reversing the findings of the Addl. Rent Controller allowed the appeal and dismissed the claim for eviction by his order dated October 26, 1977. Feeling aggrieved the appellant has filed the present appeal. (4) Bawa Shiv Chara...
Tag this Judgment!Daver Engineering (P) Ltd. Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1985)(5)LC2172Tri(Delhi)
1. This is a matter in which revision application was filed to the Government of India against Order-in-Appeal No. S/49-1422/78R, dated 24-10-1978, passed by Collector of Customs (Appeals), Bombay. It has been transferred to the Tribunal and is now being dealt with as an appeal.2. Shri F. Taleyar Khan, Advocate, has appeared on behalf of the appellant and Shri S.C. Rohatgi, J.D.R., on behalf of the respondent.3. Briefly, the facts of the case are that the appellants imported goods described as "components for the manufacture of Vari Pitch Sheave Stepless Spindle Speed Regulator for Ring Spinning Frame". These were assessed at a concessional rate of duty under Notification No.350-Cus/76. According to the Department, this was done on the assumption that these were component parts of Ring Spinning Frame falling under 84.63-C.T.A. and that such Ring Spinning Frames were being manufactured by the appellants utilising these imported parts as components. Subsequently, the department observed...
Tag this Judgment!Mohd. Shamim Farooqi and anr. Vs. Delhi Wakf Board
Court: Delhi
Reported in: AIR1985Delhi464; 28(1985)DLT251; 1986(10)DRJ101; 1985RLR461
Sultan Singh, J. (1) This revision petition under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short 'the Code') is directed against the order dated 6th August, 1984 dismissing the petitioner's application for leave to amend the written statement (2) Briefly these are the facts. On 27th September, 1979 Delhi Wakf Board, Delhi, plaintiff filed a suit for possession of premises situated at Masjid Qazi Wali, Bazar Paharganj, New Delhi against the defendants petitioners paras 1 and 2 of the plaint are as under: '1.That at Delhi the plaintiff is corporated body under Wakf Act (29 of 1954) and he is entitled to suit. 2. That Shri Mehmood Qamar is the Secretary of the plaintiff who is fully conversant with the Facts of the- case- and is the Principal Officer of the plaintiff. He is authorised to- file: suit and is compete to sign and verify plaint'.In the written statement these two paragraphs were admitted by the defendants'. On 16th April, 1984 the petitioners filed an application for le...
Tag this Judgment!Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Kavita Tara and ors.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1985(9)DRJ341
(1) Motor Vehicles Act-Section 92-A- Appeal against Order of LearnedMA.C.T. allowing the application of the claimants under Section 92-Aof the Act-Insurance Company pleading that no accident as alleged by the claimants took place as the vehicle was stolen in 197.) and since then the vehicle has not been recovered-appeal admitted....
Tag this Judgment!Employees' State Insurance Corporation Vs. Faqir Chand
Court: Delhi
Reported in: I(1986)ACC318; 29(1986)DLT316
S.B. Wad, J.(1) -THIS is an appeal against the order of the Employees State Insurance Court Delhi dated 18.9.1984. The said Court had directed the respondent Employees' State Insurance Corporation to pay sickness benefit and/or extended sickness benefit for the period between 20.10.1983 to 25.7.1984 at the prescribed rates. The respondent Faquir Chand is working as a machine man in the weaving section of Ayudhiya Textile Mills Limited, Azadpur, Delhi. The Court below had found that the respondent is required to work on four weaving machines and that his job was quite arduous, and had to be performed in conditions of humidity and cotton dust. (2) The respondent developed T.B. and was found to be spitting blood on II.3.1983. He was treated in the E.S.I, hospital of the Corporation in Basaidarapur. On 19.9.1983 he went to the Government T.B. hospital, Kingsway Camp which is a specialized hospital for T.B. treatment. He was admitted in the hospital and treated. As a person insured with the...
Tag this Judgment!Collector of Central Excise Vs. Gurmukh Singh and Sons
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1986)(6)LC168Tri(Delhi)
1. This is an appeal filed by the Assistant Collector, Customs and Central Excise, Ludhiana, authorised by the Collector of Customs and Central Excise, Chandigarh, under Sub-section (2) of Section 35B of Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944, against the Order of the Appellate Collector of Central Excise, New Delhi.2. The appellant is represented by S/Shri K.D. Tayal and V.Lakshmikumaran, SDRs, and the respondents are represented by Mrs.Shyamla Pappu, Senior Advocate, and Shri S.C. Mittal, Advocate.3. The Department claims that the correct classification of the products manufactured by the respondents is under Tariff Item 52 of Central Excise Tariff as nuts and bolts @ 15% ad valorem, whereas, as per the contention of the respondents, which has been upheld by the Appellate Collector, the products in question are unspecified motor vehicle parts, classifiable under Tariff Item 68 and chargeable to duty la) 10% ad valorem.4. On behalf of the appellants, it is stated that the respondents got...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Gift-tax, Delhi-ii Vs. Harinder Singh and Virender Sin ...
Court: Delhi
Reported in: [1986]157ITR292(Delhi)
D.K. Kapur J.1. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal has made this reference under section 26(1) of the Gift-tax Act, 1958. It relates to the assessment year 1963-64 and is concerned with the question whether any gift has been made in favor of minor, Shri Virender Kumar Katyal, by reason of his being admitted to the benefits of partnership. The question referred is as follows : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that there was no transfer of goodwill by the assessed when his minor son, Virender Kumar, had been admitted to the benefits of partnership and that there could be no deemed gift as there had been no transfer of goodwill ?' 2. The facts of the case are that there is a partnership, M/s. Bhagwan Dass & Co., Kashmere Gate, Delhi, in which the partners were as per partnership deed dated April 1, 1959, Shri Bhagwan Dass Katyal and his son, Shri Harinder Katyal. According to this deed, the shares in the profits and losses in th...
Tag this Judgment!