Delhi Court August 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.
Sabitri Devi Bhotika and ors. Vs. S.A.E. (India) Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-25-1988
Reported in: 1988(15)DRJ295
S.S. Chadha, J. (1) S.A.E. (India) Ltd., plaintiff, took on lease in June, 1966 from defendant No. I, Smt. Sabitri Devi Bhotika, premises No. 2-B, Victoria Terrace, Calcutta. The tenancy was surrendered on May 22, 1978 and at that time a sale and purchase agreement in respect of various additions, fixtures and fittings was executed between the parties. Defendant No. I agreed to purchase the same and undertook to pay Rs.l,75,000.00 by December 31, 1978 and in default defendant No. 1 was to pay interest at a rate of 18% per annum and Rs. 25.000.00 by way of liquidated damages. The other defendants are guarantors. Defendant No. 1 had paid a sum of Rs. 50.000.00 on or about 9th July, 1980 and the remaining amount was due. With these allegations, the plaintiff filed a suit under Order xxxvii of the Code of Civil Procedure on 22nd May, 1982 claiming a decree for the recovery of Rs. 2,17,093.14 with interest at the rate of 18% per annum. Summons were issued under the provisions of Order xxxvi...
Anand Swarup Malik Vs. Municipal Corporation of Delhi
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-25-1988
Reported in: 36(1988)DLT304; 1988(15)DRJ278
B.N. Kirpal, J.(1) This is one of those cases where a rich litigant feels, and in fact convinces himself, that not only there is no law for the rich but such a litigant can also, with impunity and without batting an eyelid, try and mislead the Court at every juncture. The facts, as will presently be set out, clearly bring this to light. (2) The plaintiff has filed the present suit along with an application under Order 39 Rules I and 2 and the prayer in the suit is for a permanent injunction restraining the defendant from taking demolition action or scaling of the premises bearing No. 7-A/1, W.E.A. Karol Bagh, New Delhi. The averments made in the plaint are that these premises were purchased by the plaintiff vide a registered deed dated 7th April, 1983 and thereafter a plan was submitted for demolishing the old structure and constructing a new building. It is alleged in the plaint that the building plans were approved by the Corporation and thereafter the building was constructed as per...
Unitech Machines Ltd. Vs. Jagatjit Industries Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-23-1988
Reported in: 1988(15)DRJ347; 1989LabIC974a
S.N. Sapra, J. (1) Along with suit plaintiff filed an application being I.A. 4828/87 under Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 read with 151 Cpc, thereby praying for grant of temporary injunction.(2) Vide order dated August 25, 1987 notice was issued to defendants No. I and 2 and they were further restrained from terminating the agreement with plaintiff and from encashing the bank guarantee No. 4970/87. After service of stay granted by this court, defendant No. 1 filed an application being I.A. No. 4923 of 1987 under Order 39 Rule 4 Cpc, thereby praying that the order of temporary injunction dated 26th August 1987 be vacated. (3) For better appreciation of the respective contentions of the learned counsel for the parties, it will be useful to refer to, in brief, the facts of the case. (4) Plaintiff has been carrying on the business of manufacturing different types of machinery, particularly the machineries required for ghee manufacturing and related equipments. In the plaint it has been alleged by pl...
Collector of Customs Vs. Amarsingh P. Rajput
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Aug-22-1988
Reported in: (1989)(22)LC349Tri(Delhi)
1. This appeal arises out of and is directed against order in appeal No. S/49-217, 218, 219/87-T.S. (Vadodara) passed by the Collector of Customs (Appeals) Bombay.2. The appellant in this case is the Collector of Customs, Gujarat, Ahmedabad. The brief facts necessary for the disposal of this appeal are: On the basis of intelligence, the officers of the Customs, Surat, searched the house belonging to Shri Bachubhai V. Bansiwala, one of the respondents in this appeal and seized a refrigerator of Japanese origin valued at Rs. 21,000/-. The statement of Shri Bachubhai was recorded.He stated, inter alia, that his friend Shri Yogeshbhai A. Kapadia, who is another respondent in this appeal, was the owner of the said refrigerator and he had requested Shri Bachubhai to keep the refrigerator in his house. But then, Shri Kapadia had not given any customs clearance documents. He also stated that he has not resided in the house in which the refrigerator was found.3. The statement of Shri Kapadia w...
Collector of C.Ex. Vs. M.M. Rubber Co. Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Aug-22-1988
Reported in: (1988)(18)ECC99
1. This is a matter in which action was taken by the Government to review order-in-appeal passed by the Appellate Collector of Central Excise, Madras in appeal filed by M/s. M.M. Rubber Company Ltd. under Section 36(2) of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944. On the setting up of this Tribunal, the matter has been transferred here and is being treated as an appeal of the department before us against the orders of Appellate Collector of Central Excise, Madras.2. The facts of the case are that the respondent company manufacture what the department calls 'latex foam sponge' cut into shape for use in the manufacture of cushion seats for motor vehicles. The company claimed classification of the goods under Item 68 of the Central Excise Tariff (hereafter Central Excise Tariff). The Assistant Collector rejected this claim and held that the goods were classifiable under Item 16A Central Excise Tariff. The Appellate Collector, when the matter came up to him, decided that dual seat cushions f...
Balbir Kumar Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-22-1988
Reported in: 1988(15)DRJ414
Malik Sharief-ud-Din, J. (1) The petitioner has challenged the validity of the detention order dated 13th of August 1987 pursuant to which he was detained on 13th of September 1987. This followed an incident dated 13th of January 1987 when the petitioner driver-cum-owner of truck No. Bel 2546, was intercepted and taken to Gopalganj. It was found loaded with large quantity of pencils, tiger head brand 3 cell torches and 72 pieces of battery operated flying Jet Planes Pan Am Boeing 744, all Chinese made. The detention order was made by the State Government of Bihar under Section 3(1)(iii) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 (for short Cofeposa Act) with a view to preventing the detenu from transporting smuggled goods. The grounds of detention were also served upon the detenu within the time requisite.(2) Mr. Mangat who appears for the petitioner has assailed the order of detention on a number of grounds. Without going into the merits o...
Murii Litaramani Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-22-1988
Reported in: 1989(2)Crimes103; 1988(15)DRJ407
Malih Sharief-Ud-Din, J. (1) In this petition the order of detention of Murali Lilaramani passed on 5th of March 1988 is being challenged. The detention order was passed by Joint Secretary to Government of India under S. 3(1) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 (for short Cofeposa Act) (as amended) with a view to preventing the detenu from acting in any manner prejudicial to the augmentation of foreign exchange. The detention order is based on an incident dated 8th January, 1988 when the detenu was caught in Hotel Regal, Fatehpuri, Delhi and a sum of Rs. 1,51,000.00 and 8 gold guineas and some documents were recovered from him. On investigation it was found that the detenu has been receiving and making compensatory payments on instructions from abroad (commonly known as Hawala transactions). This illegal business was being done by the detenu from Hotel Regal, Fatehpuri.(2) Mr. R.M. Bagai, learned counsel for the petitioner, has submi...
Pidilite Industries Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Aug-19-1988
Reported in: (1989)(19)ECC186
1. When the matter is called, Shri C.V. Durghayya departmental representative submits that the issue to be decided in this appeal is fully covered in favour of revenue by the orders passed by this Tribunal in the case of Collector of Customs, Bombay v. Parekh Dye Chem Industries (P) Ltd., Bombay 2. Shri Prashant Bhushan Advocate who appears on behalf of the appellants concedes that the orders of this Bench in the matter pertaining to M/s. Parekh Dye Chem Industries (P) Ltd., Bombay fully covered the issue and are against the appellant. He, however, submits that he would like to press the appeal.3. Incidentally, the learned advocate emphasizes that this appeal is related to only one of the case decided in the order-in-appeal relating to Bill of Entry Cash No. 5397, dated 24-3-1984.4. We have carefully considered the facts of the case and the submissions made before us. The issue here is whether Polyvinyl Alcohol (PVA) imported by the appellants is entitled to the benefit of exemption u...
Commissioner of Income-tax Delhi-i Vs. Ammonia Supplies Corporation Lt ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-19-1988
Reported in: [1989]177ITR479(Delhi)
Rabindra Nath Pyne C.J.1. This application has been made by the petitioner for condensation of delay in filing an application under section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'said Act') requiring the Appellate Tribunal to refer three questions of law which the Tribunal refused to refer to this court by its order dated October 25, 1979, passed in the petitioner's application made under section 256(1) of the said Act. 2. Inasmuch as the petitioner's application did not contain full particulars for condensation of delay, the court, by its order dated April 14, 1988, directed the petitioner's counsel to file a detailed affidavit stating the dates on which the petition was returned for defects; when were they refilled and who war the counsel handling the brief on these different dates. Pursuant to such directions, a supplementary affidavit was filed by the petitioner. 3. Facts relied upon by the petitioner for condensation of delay as stated in the supplementary...
Hari Singh Vs. Sher Singh
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-19-1988
Reported in: 36(1988)DLT180; 1988RLR658
P.K. Bahri, J.(1) This civil revision is directed against the order dated 19th April, 1985 passed by Smt Aruna Suresh, Commercial Sub Judge by which she dismissed an application moved by the petitioner under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure praying that the court should amend the final decree and include the relief of possession in respect of the shop in question. (2) Facts in brief leading to the filing of the application before the Commercial Sub Judge are : that the petitioner had instituted a civil suit in the year 1970 seeking dissolution of partnership and rendition of accounts on the averments, that the petitioner and his two brothers are owners of 3098 in Hathi Khan a. Bahadurgarh Road, Delhi while petitioner alone was in exclusive possession of the same and he had obtained a license from the Municipal Corporation of Delhi for carrying out business of wood work and had procured a license of 5 H.P. Industrial Power load and he carried on business for some period but on...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- Next ›
- Last »