Delhi Court November 1988 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.
Y. Rajeshwari Vs. Bombay Tyres International Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-08-1988
Reported in: 1989(1)ARBLR183(Delhi); 37(1989)DLT22; 1989(16)DRJ137; 1989RLR11
P.K. Bahri, J.(1) This petition has been brought under Section 25-B(8) of the Delhi Rent Control Act against the order dated August 25, 1984, of Smt. Manju Goel, Rent Controller, by which she had dismissed the eviction petition brought by the petitioner on the ground of eviction covered by Clause (e) of Sub-section (1) of Section 14 of the Delhi Rent Control Act (for short 'the Act'). (2) The Controller has given the findings that the petitioner is proved to be landlady and owner of the premises in question and on merits she held that the letting purpose of the premises in question is not proved to be residential only and that the petitioner, in fact, bonafide does not require the demised premises for occupation for herself or for any family member She also gave the finding that no family member is financially dependent upon the petitioner. She also held that the petitioner is actuated by avarice as she had been demanding increase of rent from the respondent and had been getting also i...
Krishan Sharma and P.S. Ghose Vs. Bal Bhavan Society India
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-08-1988
Reported in: ILR1988Delhi642
P.K. Bahri, J.1. These two writ petitions involve about questions of facts and law and thus are being disposed of by this judgment.2. Bal Bhavan Society India is a Society registered under the Societies Registration Act of 1860. Petitioner Krishan Sharma was appointed as Artist by the said Society on June 17, 1974 and was made permanent on July 6, 1979 and was also granted Selection Grade. There exists a Bal Bhavan Staff Welfare Society and Shri Krishan Sharma was elected as Joint Secretary of that Association on March 14, 1987.3. P. S. Ghose in the other writ petition was appointed as Research Assistant by the said Society on January 2, 1973 and was made permanent on January 2, 1975 and was granted Selection Grade on March 1, 1984. He was elected as Secretary of the Association on March 14, 1987.4. The said Staff Union had made a representation to the Director of the Bal Bhavan Society on April 3, 1987 for grant of bonus according to the new pay scale but no reply was received and on ...
Vijay Plastic Industries Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Nov-07-1988
Reported in: (1988)(20)LC196Tri(Delhi)
1. The appellants Sported a consignment of 721 cartons containing plastic moulded components (shells and outter cases for cassette tapes) under a bill of entry No. 2468/4 dated 25.2.1982. They produced It claimed that it covered the goods.2. The Customs Department was of the opinion that licence did not cover the goods and that the value declared was not correct. Therefore, they initiated proceedings. The appellants waived the issue of a show cause notice but requested for personal hearing which was granted by the Collector. After hearing them the Collector passed an order holding that the licence produced by the appellants did not cover the goods and further ordering that the value of the goods be increased from HK & $0.40 to UK $ 0.53 per set. Hence the present appeal.3. We heard Shri B.B. Gujral, the learned advocate for the appellants.He argued that the appellants had a licence specifically for plastic extruded/ moulded components and submitted that this item falls under Sl. N...
Ram Chander Vs. Union of India and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-07-1988
Reported in: 38(1989)DLT402; 1989(16)DRJ159
P.K. Bahri, J.(1) Petitioner has sought a writ of certiorari for quashing the order dated September 12, 1985, passed by Respondent No. 1 and order dated November 16. 1984, passed by Respondent No. 2 and also show cause notice dated March 21, 1984, issued by respondent No. 2 and writ of mandamus requiring the respondents to allow the petitioner to continue to operate the mining area leased out to him under the lease deed dated August 5, 1983 and for directions restraining the respondents from interfering in the possession and working of the petitioner in the said area. A direction is also sough restraining the respondents from leasing this area to anyone else. (2) The facts giving rise to this writ petition, in brief, are that the petitioner had discovered the silica sand in the village of Gothra Mohabata bad. District Faridabad(Haryana) in the year 1981. Petitioner is stated to be involved in the trade and occupation of mining and is holding a Certificate of approval under Rule 4 of Mi...
P.P. Koyakutty Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-07-1988
Reported in: 37(1989)DLT142
Malik Sharief-Ud-Din, J.(1) The petitioner has challenged his detention which has taken place on 2nd of May 1988 pursuant to a detention order passed on 10th of December 1987 under section 3(1) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 (for short Cofeposa Act) by the Government of Kerala with a view to preventing the detenu from abetting the smuggling of gold, engaging in transporting or concealing or keeping smuggled gold, and dealing in smuggled gold otherwise than by engaging in transporting or concealing or keeping smuggled gold. (2) This followed an incident dated 27th of May 1987 when one T.K. Andru who came to the customs for clearing a steel trunk which was said to be carrying household article was found to contain 165 gold biscuits, two gold bangles and one gold bracelet. Mr. Tk Andru made a statement wherein he revealed that this gold belonged to one Hussain which was to be delivered to the detenu whom he also knows as Hussain. T...
Wazir Chand Karam Chand Vs. Union of India and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-04-1988
Reported in: AIR1989Delhi175; 1989(1)ARBLR187(Delhi); 37(1989)DLT164
Mahesh Chandra, J.(1) By this judgment I propose to dispose of suit No. 1706Aofl984 filed under sections 14 and 17 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 and objections incorporated in I.A. No. 953 of 1986 filed under Section 30 read with Section 33 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 against the award dated 12th September, 1984 in the said suit. The objections are opposed on behalf of the Union of India. (2) The facts giving rise to this order are that vide orders dated 2nd August. 1982 in Suit No. 11 A of 1980 the matter in dispute between the plaintiff and defendant No. 1 Union of India was referred to the sole arbitration of Shri O.N. Endley, defendant No. 2 and after said Shri Endley published his award on 12th September, 1984 this suit under Section 14 read with Section 17 of the Arbitration Act was filed with a request that defendant No. 2 should be directed to file the award and the record of the arbitration proceedings in court where after this court may proceed in accordance with law. On the ...
NaraIn Dass Israni Vs. Delhi Development Authority
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-04-1988
Reported in: 1989RLR34
Y.K. Sabharwal, J.(1) The respondent Delhi Development Authority (the 'DDA') awarded a contract for construction of Govt. H.S. School for 960 students at Sadiq Nagar, New Delhi to petitioner (the 'Contractor'). The agreement dt. 20.10.81 was entered into between Dda and the Contractor. Certain disputes arose between the parties and the same were referred to the sole arbitration of Sh. V.R. Vaish in terms of arbitration clause as contained in the agreement between the parties. The arbitration clause provides that in all cases where the amount of claim in dispute is Rs. 50,000.00 and above, the arbitrator will give reasons for the award. Sh. V.R Vaish made and published his award on 22.3.86 (2) The award and the proceedings have been filed in this Court. Dda has challenged the award by filing objections u/s 30, Arbitration Act, 1940. Following issue was framed: 'WHETHER the award is liable to be set aside on the grounds as stated in the objection petition' (3) The parties have filed evid...
Collector of Customs and C. Ex. Vs. South East Asia Shipping Co. Ltd
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Nov-03-1988
Reported in: (1989)(43)ELT479TriDel
1. The appeal No. 1679/84 arises out of the order-in-appeal bearing No.S/49-158/83-CL dated 26-4-1984 passed by the Collector of Customs (Appeals), Bombay. The appeal No. 1680/84 arises out of the order in appeal bearing No. S/49-29/84-M S/49-103/83 Jamnagar dated 29-2-1984 passed by the Collector of Customs (Appeals), Bombay.2. As the party to these appeals are being the same and as they involve common questions of law and facts, they are clubbed together, heard together, hence this common order.3. After hearing both the sides, the Bench had rejected both the appeals on 13-9-1988. The reasons for rejection are recorded as under :- As the facts in both the appeals are common it is sufficient if We set out the facts in appeal No. 1679/84. The vessel M.V. Mahabharat of the respondents arrived at Okha on 16-6-1979 with a cargo of 16 tons of copper scrap and 2.018 M.Tons of piwxwa loaded from Kuwait and Doha. The cargo so loaded was to be discharged at the port of Bombay. But then, at Okh...
Tripty Drinks Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Collector of C.E.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Nov-03-1988
Reported in: (1989)(39)ELT679TriDel
1. By this Misc. Application the applicants have stated that their appeal No. ED/SB/T/A. No. 245/1980-D was disposed of by this Tribunal vide order No. D-107/83, dated 3.3.1983 with consequential relief by way of refund. After the Tribunal's order as aforesaid was received by them, they wrote a number of letters to the Central Excise Authorities, but the refund of Rs. 56,552.59 due to them in terms of the Tribunal's order has not yet been paid. They have prayed that necessary direction may be issued to the respondent-Collector of Central Excise, Bhubaneshwar to make the payment of Rs. 56,552.59 with interest at 17-1/2%. When the matter came up for hearing before this Tribunal on 9.9.1988, the matter was adjourned to 3.11.1988 at the request of learned SDR Smt. Zutshi, who wanted to obtain a report from the Collector. When this matter has come for hearing today, none has appeared on behalf of the applicants. Shri L.C. Chakraborty, learned JDR has appeared for the respondent. Shri Chakr...
Hari Ram Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-03-1988
Reported in: 1989(16)DRJ77
H.C. Goel, J. (1) This is a petition under Section 482 Cr. P.C. directed against the impugned order dated October 29, 1988 of Shri R.C. Jain, Additional Sessions Judge, Delhi by which he has rejected the bail bond of Bal Kishan Jaggi surety as presented on behalf of Hari Ram accused-petitioner in pursuance to a bail order passed by this Court. Hari Ram accused- petitioner was directed to be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.l0,000.00 with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial court namely, the court of Shri R.C. Jain, Additional Sessions Judge, Delhi by order dated October 12, 1988. A surety bond was furnished on behalf of the petitioner by one Bal Kishan Jaggi, a resident of Model Town, Delhi. The learned Additional Sessions Judge sent for a report from the police station concerned regarding sound worthiness of the surety. After obtaining the report from the concerned police the surety bond of Bal Kishan Jaggi was rejected by ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »