Delhi Court December 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.
Bhandari Builders Pvt. Ltd. Vs. M.K. Seth and Another
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-07-1987
Reported in: 1988(15)DRJ77; [1989(58)FLR249]; (1988)IILLJ5Del; 1988RLR166
1. Bhandari Builders Private Limited has filed this writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India against the order dated 5th September, 1986 of Shri M. K. Seth, Authority under the Delhi Shops and Establishments Act, 1954. Facts leading to the filing of the present petition are that the petitioner, a private limited company, is engaged in various construction projects in India as well as outside India. At the relevant time, the petitioner company had a project for construction of certain buildings in Baghdad (Iraq). For the purpose of the said project, the petitioner required certain personnel and thus it issued an advertisement in the Hindustan Times, dated 28th August, 1982 inviting applications. At that time there was a vacancy in the accounts branch at the head office of the petitioner company in Delhi for which a candidate qualified as chartered accountant was required. Respondent No. 2, Shri S. S. Pushkarna, who is a chartered accountant, admittedly gave ...
Narinder Kaur Vs. Parshotam Singh
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-07-1987
Reported in: AIR1988Delhi359; 34(1988)DLT54
D.P. Wadhwa, J.(1) This appellant, Narinder Kaur, has come up in this appeal against the order dated 26.9.86 of the Guardian Judge whereby he reviewed his earlier order dated 18.8.86. In the First order the Guardian Judge had granted interim custody of the minor child to the appellant but subsequently he reviewed that order and allowed the custody of the minor to remain with the respondent father. (2) The parties were married on 17.11.1982, A male child was born to the parties on 13.8.1983. He is named Gurmit @ Sonu, The provisions of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956 (for short 1956 Act) apply in the present case. The mother (appellant herein) filed a petition under Section 25 of Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 (for short the Act) seeking custody of the child Sonu. This petition was filed on or about 4.4.1986. In this the mother filed an application seeking interim custody of the child. (3) Earlier also a petition under Section 25 of the Act was filed by the mother. This was...
Mahinder Singh and ors. Vs. Municipal Corporation of Delhi
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-07-1987
Reported in: 34(1988)DLT118; 1988RLR30
P.K. Bahri, J.(1) The petitioners have prayed for issuance of a writ of certiorari for quashing the judgment dated April 26, 1979, passed by Shri D.C. Aggarwal, Additional District Judge, as appellate authority under the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act by which he dismissed the appeal against the demolition order dated November 27, 1978, passed by the Municipal Corporation of Delhi. (2) Admitted facts leading to the filing of this writ petition, in brief, are that the petitioners are owners in possession of property No. 4, Bharat Nagar, Village Khizrabad, New Delhi, which is stated to be part of Khasra No. 13/23. It was the case of the petitioners that they had raised the building somewhere in the year 1947-48 and the respondent could not now demolish on the ground that the building was unauthorisedly constructed in view of Section 195 of the Punjab Municipal Act which was then applicable in Delhi, as no proceedings for demolition took place within six months of completion of the said ...
Chamundi Textiles (Silk Mills) Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Dec-04-1987
Reported in: (1989)(44)ELT332TriDel
1. We have heard Shri V. Sridharan, Advocate for the appellants and Shri L.C. Chakraborti, Departmental Representative for the respondent and have perused the available papers.2. The question arising for decision in this appeal is classification for the purpose of customs of 2000 bobbins made of plastic imported by the appellants - whether they merit classification under heading 39.07 CTA as articles of plastic or under heading 84.38(1) as integral parts of auxiliary machines specified in the heading. The appellants claim for refund was rejected by the Assistant Collector of Customs, Madras by order dated 21-6-1982 placing reliance on Section XVI Note l(c) of the Schedule to Customs Tariff Act, 1975. The order was upheld in appeal by the Collector of Customs (Appeals) Madras by order dated 7-7-1984. Hence the present appeal to the Tribunal.3. A copy of the Bill of Entry is not on file. The same was shown to us during arguments by Sh. V. Sridharan, Advocate (he has been directed to pla...
Ayesha Bhatia Vs. Vijay R. Bhatia
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-04-1987
Reported in: AIR1988Delhi149; 1988(14)DRJ277; 1988RLR160
Sunanda Bhandare, J.(1) Whether the mother or the father should have the interim custody of their minor son Sanjeev now aged about 9 years is the short but difficult question which falls for determination in this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.(2) Embittered and strained relationship between the petitioner mother and the respondent father resulted in filing of a divorce petition by the petitioner under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act. The petitioner and the respondent were married at New Delhi on 13th April, 1973. Two male children were born out of this wedlock. Ashish who is now aged about 11 years, was born on 7th May, 1976; and Sanjeev now aged about 9 years, was born on 3rd October, 1978. After the birth of the two children, for some time the petitioner and the respondent lived together but after 1981 though there were not many serious differences between them, petitioner and the respondent lived separately; father at Ahmedabad and mother at Delhi. The...
Indian Express Newspapers (Bombay) Pvt. Ltd. Vs. T.M. Nagarajan and or ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-04-1987
Reported in: 1987(15)DRJ212; 1988LabIC1067; 1988RLR194
S.N. Sapra, J.(1) Indian Express Newspapers (Bombay) Pvt. Ltd., the present plaintiff, has filed a suit for permanent and mandatory injunction whereby claiming a decree to restrain the defendants, their agents and supporters from picketing, demonstrating and gheraoing employees of the plaintiff company and from demonstrating within a distance of 200 meters from the entrance of the Express Building at Delhi and to further restrain the defendants, their agents and associates from preventing the ingress and egress of any employee of the plaintiff company, who wishes to enter the office of the plaintiff company. Along with the suit, the plaintiff filed an application being I.A. 8869/87 under Order 39 Rules I and 2 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure for grant of ad interim temporary injunction thereby restraining the defendants from picketing, demonstrating within a distance of 200 meters from the gate of the Express Building, and also from assaulting or gheraoing any empl...
Fixopan Engineers (P) Ltd. Vs. Collector of Customs and C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Dec-03-1987
Reported in: (1989)(42)ELT333TriDel
1. Dr. Gauri Shanker for the applicants and Smt. J.K. Chander for the respondent-non-applicant heard on the stay application. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and in view of what follow pre-deposit of central excise duty and penalty demanded dispensed with and appeal itself taken up for consideration with consent of both the parties.2. Dr. Gauri Shanker, no doubt, at the outset made a grievance as to the jurisdication of Director of Publications but after going through the Notification No. 464/86-CE, dated 9,12.1986 (at Page-70) of the Paper Book, agreed that in view of this Notification, Director of Publications would have jurisdiction in the present matter which had been assigned to him for disposal by the Central Board of Excise and Customs in terms of the abovesaid Notification.3. Dr. Gauri Shanker's only surviving grievance now is that Director of Publications took the impugned decision without affording a proper opportunity of hearing to the appellants.4. On g...
Union of India and ors. Vs. Kamla Bakshi and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-03-1987
Reported in: ILR1988Delhi4
Yogeshwar Dayal, C.J. (1) Though learned counsel for the respondents have filed Cm No. 1538 of 1987 for recalling the order of this Court dated 28th October 1987 passed in Cm No. 218 of 1987, in view of the observations of the Hon'ble The Supreme Court of India in its order dated 24th November, 1987 passed in Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 13530 of 1987, since the main Letters Patent Appeal itself can be disposed of, we find it fit and proper to dispose of the appeal itself.(2) The order under appeal is an order dated 28th October, 1986 passed by learned single Judge while disposing of Cm No. 1114 of 1984 in C.W No. 857 of 1984. By the impugned order the learned single Judge has by ad interim order stayed the re-entry of the premises in dispute i.e. Plot No. 13, Tolstoy Marg, New Delhi.(3) Government of India is the owner of the plot in dispute. It was leased in perpetuity in favor of Sh. N. D. Sanon and Sh. H. R. Sanon, predecessor-in-interest of the respondents in this appeal, by...
Packwell Industries (P) Ltd. Vs. Collector of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Dec-02-1987
Reported in: (1989)(43)ELT705TriDel
1. The facts of the case are that the appellants submitted a classification list No. 1/83 claiming exemption of duty under Notification No. 279/82-C.B., dated 22-11-1982 in respect of printed corrugated board boxes/cartons which were made wholly out of Kraft paper and coated with wax on one side or both sides Under the above Notification corrugated board boxes and corrugated board cartons were exempted from duty if made wholly out of Kraft paper (including bituminised waterproof kraft paper) or out of paper and paper board of the type known as Kraft liner or corrugating medium, whether or not in combination with mill board or straw board. The Assistant Collector of Central Excise held that waxed corrugated board box cartons were not covered by the Notification and hence, the exemption Notification was not applicable to the goods. By the impugned order, the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals) upheld the decision of the Assistant Collector. Hence, this present appeal.2. During the hea...
Goodwill India Limited Vs. K.P. Abdul Jabbar and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-02-1987
Reported in: 1987(2)ARBLR354(Delhi); 34(1988)DLT138
Jagdish Chandra, J.(1) -THIS petition under Section 20 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 has been moved by the petitioner M/s. Goodwill India Ltd. Connaught Place, New Delhi. Respondent No. I K.F, Abdul Jabbar entered into a hire purchase agreement dated 14-9-1983 with the petitioner in respect of the truck in question and respondent no. 2 K.I. Sayed Mohamed signed this agreement as a guarantor of respondent No. 1. It is alleged that the hiring was for a total consideration of Rs. 2,69,295.00 and at the time of the execution of this agreement respondent No. 2 paid the initial hire money in the sum of Rs. 20.895.00 leaving a balance of Rs. 2,48,400.00 which balance amount was payable in 47 monthly hire Installments with effect from 13-11-1983. These Installments were of equal value except the last Installment which is the tune of Rs. 600.00 . (2) It is alleged that defendant No. I made defaults in the payment of the hire Installments in terms of the schedule in spite of repeated notices and ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 9
- Next ›
- Last »