Delhi Court October 1987 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
Satish Kumar Pahwa Vs. Suraj Prakash Pahwa and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-21-1987
Reported in: 33(1987)DLT387
S.B. Wad, J. (1) This is an appeal against the learned Sub Judge. Delhi, dated 15.9.1984 rejecting the appellant's application under Order Ix, Rule 13, read with section 151, CPC. By an agreement between the parties dated 7th July 1978 the disputes were referred to the sole Arbitration of Shri Y P. Nanda. Shri Nanda rendered his award on 2.9.1978 and filed the same in court. The award was made the rule of the court on 15.10.1980, apparently because the appellant did not file any objection. The appellant filed an application under Order 9, Rule 13, read with section 151, Civil Procedure Code alleging that no notice was served by the court on him before the award was made the rule of the court. He also contended that he got the knowledge of the order of the court making the award the rule of the court only on 15.10.1980 and thereafter he immediately moved the said application. The learned Sub-Judge had recorded the evidence as regards the service of the notice and came to the conclusion ...
Charan Singh Vs. Security Finance (P) Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-21-1987
Reported in: AIR1988Delhi130; 34(1988)DLT18; 1988RLR74
P.K. Bahri, J. (1) He short but interesting legal point has been raised in this appeal as to whether the fact that after the money decree had been passed against the principal debtor and a surety and the decree holder enters into a settlement with the principal, debtor and agree to accept some less amount from the principal debtor and decides not to proceed for recovering remaining amount from the principal debtor has the effect of discharging the surety judgment debtor or not (2) The facts, in brief, are that the decree holder-M/s. Security Finance Private Limited had obtained a decree for recovery of Rs. 30,155.00, against Bhiku Ram, Attar Singh and Charan Singh. Admittedly, Bhiku Ram and Attar Singh were the principal debtors while Charan Singh, the appellant before me, was a surety. Attar Singh had died during the pendency of the execution proceedings and the decree holder did not pursue the execution against any legal heirs of Attar Singh as the decree holder could not find out th...
Singh Vs. Security Finance Pvt. Limited
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-21-1987
Reported in: 1988(14)DRJ92
P.K. Bahri, J. (1) The short but interesting legal point has been raised in this appeal as to whether the fact that after the money decree has been passed against the principal debtor and a surety and the decree holder enters into a settlement with the principal debtor and agrees to accept some less amount from the principal debtor and decides not to proceed for recovering remaining amount from the principal debtor has the effect of discharging the surety/judgment debtor or not (2) The facts, in brief, are that the decree holder-M/s. Security Finance Private Limited had obtained a decree for recovery of Rs. 30,155.00 against Bhiku Ram, Attar Singh and Charan Singh. Admittedly, Bhiku Ram and Attar Singh were the principal debtors while Charan Singh, the appellant before me, was a surety. Attar Singh had died during the pendency of the execution proceedings and the decree holder did not pursue the execution against any legal heirs of Attar Singh as the decree holder could not find out th...
Kishan Gupta Vs. Municipal Corporation of Delhi
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-21-1987
Reported in: 33(1987)DLT397; 1988(14)DRJ197
P.K. Bahri, J.(1) The petitioner has filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a writ for quashing the orders of the disciplinary authority and the Standing Committee of the Municipal Corporation of Delhi by which the service of the petitioner had been terminated and he has prayed for directions for reinstatement with all back wages.(2) The petitioner was working as Lower Division Clerk and was posted as T.T. Clerk at Shahdara U.P. Border T.T. Post, Delhi. On October 24, 1977, the petitioner collected octroi tax. But according to him, he could not reconcile the total and he took the Ttr Book No. 219 to his house, but he lost the said book and he verbally explained to his superior officer on October 29, 1977, about the loss of the said book and he had collected Rs. 2932/IOP. as the tax pertaining to the said Ttr Book No. 219 and after obtaining the permission of the superior officer he deposited the said amount in the treasury. The petitioner was, h...
Om Parkash Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-21-1987
Reported in: II(1987)ACC527
Charanjit Talwar, J.1. The petitioner Shri Om Parkash has challenged the validity of Section 127-B of the Motor Vehicles Act (for short 'the Act'), which empowers specified officers to compound certain offences under the Act. The legality of Notification No. SECE-3 (42)/82/TPT/13197, dated the 1st October, 1982 issued by the Administrator of the Union Territory of Delhi under Sub-section (1) of Section 127-B of the Act authorising Police officers not below the rank of Sub Inspector in the Delhi Traffic Police to compound the said traffic offences, has also been challenged.2. According to the petitioner he is a driver employed by M/s Nand Lai Ramesh Kumar, Transporters of Delhi. On 16th November, 1983 while driving a truck of his employers, he was apprehended by the Police Officer; he was falsely challenged under Section 81 of the Act and a fine of Rs. 100/-was imposed on him by that officer. It is his case that he had protested and had sought that he be tried in accordance with law but...
Collector of Central Excise Vs. Dura Foam Industries
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Oct-20-1987
Reported in: (1988)LC425Tri(Delhi)
1. After the delay in filing'the appeal was condoned, the matter being simple and parties having no objection, the appeal itself was taken up for consideration on merits.2. Shri G.V. Naik, Jt. Chief Departmental Representative for the appellants and Shri V. Lakshmi Kumaran, Advocate for the respondents were heard and papers perused.3. It is observed that by the impugned order, the Collector (Appeals) classified Top skin, Bottom skin, Side skin, Shreadings and Foam Cut pieces under sub-heading 3921.90 - Other - Residuary item. We observe that for this waste and scrap, Heading 39.15, sub-heading 3915.00 "Waste, paring and scrap of plastics" is specifically there in Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 and this should have been the proper classification. In fact, Shri Lakshmi Kumaran, Advocate for the respondents also agrees that this would be the proper classification of the goods in question.4. We, therefore, set aside the classification of Top Skin, Bottom Skin, Side Skin, Shreadings and F...
Raitan Lal Vs. Ramesh Chand Gupta
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-20-1987
Reported in: 34(1988)DLT82; 1987RLR670
P.K. Bahri, J. (1) This Civil Revision has been brought under Section 25-B(8) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, against the eviction order dated March 3, 1984 passed by Shri S. M. Gupta, Additional Rent Controller, under clause (e) of Section 14(1) of the Delhi Rent Control Act.(2) The petitioner is the tenant in a room and a tin shed shown red in the plan filed Along with the petition at the monthly rent of Rs. 13 per month in house No. 2841, Gali Rajputana, Subzimandi, Delhi. The case set up by the respondent was that he at present is residing with his wife and five children in house No. 65, Majlis Park, Azadpur, which is owned by his wife but the said house is not suitable for him and for his family members inasmuch as the house is located in the unauthorised colony which lacks facility of proper sewerage and roads. Moreover his business premises are located near the house in question and it would be more convenient for him to live in the house in dispute. It was also pleaded by him th...
Ashok Leyland Ltd. Vs. Collector of C.Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Oct-19-1987
Reported in: (1989)(43)ELT486TriDel
1. The issue in the appeal relates to the entitlement of refund claimed by the appellants, M/s Ashok Leyland Ltd., of duty paid by them during the period 1-10-1975 to 31-1-1978 on the U Bolts and the front suspension bolts manufactured by them for use in the Leaf Spring Assembly of automobiles. They had been paying duty under protest. The Assistant Collector under his order dated 15-4-1982 held that duty had been properly paid under Item 52 CET as the goods were not chargeable under Item No. 34A CET. Accordingly he rejected the refund claim. This was upheld by the Appellate Collector under his order dated 21-9-1982.This apeal is against the said order.2. We have heard Shri V. Sreedharan, Advocate for the appellant and Shri Balbir Singh for the department.3. In view of the recent order passed by this Tribunal in the case of Mis New Mangalore Engineering Company (P) Ltd., under order No.746/1987-D, dated 12-8-1987 in excise appeal No. 939 of 1983-D it is unnecessary to consider the subm...
Alpa Steel Industries Ltd. Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Oct-19-1987
Reported in: (1989)(43)ELT712TriDel
1. The appellants imported a consignmentof Tin Mill Black Plate Seconds. On test by the Custom House Laboratory, the Collector found that the goods had got a thin layer of chromium and hence they were classifiable as Tin Free Steel and not as Tin Mill Black Plate as declared. He further found that Tin Free Steel of UK origin imported by another importer, M/s. Shankar Industries,Bombay, had been valued much higher than the price shown in the appellants irrport invoice. On these grounds, the Collector enhanced the value of the goods to the level shownin the import invoice of M/s. Shankar Industries. Further, on charges of misdeclarationand invalidity of the import licence, he ordered confiscation of the goods under Section 111(d), (1) and (m) of the Customs Act, 1962. He gave the appellants option to redeemthe goods for home consumption on payment of fine of Rs. 1 lakh. On the same charges,the Collector imposed penalty of Rs. 50,000/- also on the appellants. The appellants arein appeal ...
S.K. Gupta Vs. Hyderabad Allywn Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-19-1987
Reported in: AIR1988Delhi324; 1987(2)ARBLR265(Delhi); 34(1988)DLT27
Sananda Bhandare, J. (1) This revision petition under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure is directed against the order of the Senior Sub Judge. Delhi dated 30th June 1987 in R.C.A.No. 37/87. (2) The petitioner M/s Rohini Times was appointed as exclusive stockist of the respondent for the Union Territory of Delhi for sale of watches by way of a memorandum of understanding between the respondent and the petitioner dated 1st August 1984. Clause I of the memorandum of understanding reads as follows: 1.This Memorandum of Understanding shall remain in force for a period of 'SIX MONTHS' from the date of its execution. The principal reserves the right to terminate this understanding within this period with or without notice at any time, and without assigning any reason whatsoever.'The case of the petitioner is that this understanding continued till date and the appointment of the petitioner as a stockist was not terminated at any stage, however the respondent committed breach of terms ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »