Delhi Court March 1989 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.
Dhani Ram and ors. Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-10-1989
Reported in: 39(1989)DLT208
N.N. Goswamy, J.(1) The challenges in this petition is to the notification issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, dated 28.9. 1987whereby the land of the petitioner bearing Khasla No. 80/2, measuring 3bighas situated in village Khichripur has been acquired. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that the notification includes the application of Section 17 without narrating the urgency. The notification is in the following language : 'NO.F.8(35)/78-L&B;(I):Whereas it appears to the Lt. Governor Delhi that the Land is likely to be required to be taken by Government at the public expense for a public purpose, namely, for'planned Development of Delhi', it is hereby notified that the land in the locality described below is likely to be required for the abovepurpose.This notification is made under the provisions of Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, to all whom it may concern.In exercise of the power conferred by the aforesaid section, the Lt. Governor,...
Ram Kishan Vs. the State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-10-1989
Reported in: ILR1989Delhi409
Santosh Duggal, J. (1) This criminal revision petition is directed against the dismissal of the petitioner's appeal by judgment dated 10th May, 1979 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Delhi, upholding his conviction under sections 279/304-A of the Indian Penal Code by judgment dated 16th March, 1979, recorded by the Metropolitan Magistrate, Delhi. (2) The facts in so far as relevant briefly are that the petitioner was sent up for trial on the allegation that while driving bus bearing No. D.L.P. 5285 on Ring Road on 21st August, 1975 at about 10 a.m., he ran over one pedestrian named Jagan Ram and caused his death by rash and negligent driving on the public road. It was alleged that the accused came driving on the road at a very fast speed and while Jagan Ram was crossing the road, struck him down and crushed him under both the wheels of the bus and then fled away with the bus. The injured was found to have died on the spot. Subsequently, the owner of the bus pursuant to a notice ...
Collector of C. Ex. Vs. Fenoplast (P) Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Mar-09-1989
Reported in: (1989)(22)ECC159
1. Short question involved in both these appeals is whether the Rexine cloth manufactured by the respondent company herein falls under Tariff Item 19-III CET. The original authority based on the definition of cotton fabrics in T.1.19 CET has held that the aforesaid product falls under T.1.19-111. The lower appellate authority has not held the product as falling under that T.1.19-III. He has, however, not pointed out any alternative tariff entry under which item it falls. Hence this appeal by the department.2. Since a common question, as aforesaid, is involved in both the appeals a common order is being issued. Facts as given in the appeal of the department are as follows: The respondent company have two units. Both the units manufacture coated fabrics popularly known as 'Rexine Cloth' in the market. In the first instance the company obtained licence for both the units for the manufacture of goods under T.1.19-111. They filed the classification list accordingly. They however by their l...
The State Trading Corporation of India Ltd. Vs. Chittoor Co-operative ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-09-1989
Reported in: AIR1990Delhi142; 1989(1)ARBLR419(Delhi)
ORDER1. This order will dispose of two applications being is 520/87 filed by defendant 3 under O.1, R. 10, C.P.C. and is 453/ 87 filed by defendant 1 under S. 34 of the Arbitration Act.2. The plaintiff has filed a suit for the recovery of money against the defendants and it is alleged in the plaint that it floated tender for supply of sugar to the plaintiff. The plaintiff is a trading organisation and acts as a canalising agency for import and export of various goods. The sugar, for which the tender was floated, was required to be purchased and exported out of India.3. Defendant 1 is a company which owns a sugar mill and on 26th Feb., 1982 an agreement was reached between the plaintiff and defendant 1 whereby the plaintiff agreed to purchase from the first defendant 1850 M.T. of D-30 grade white crystal sugar of 1981-82 crushing season. According to the plaintiff the first defendant supplied 1406 M.T. of said sugar. Before the contract could be completed the Government of India imposed...
National Steel and General Mills Vs. Official Liquidator
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-09-1989
Reported in: [1990]69CompCas416(Delhi); 38(1989)DLT151
P.N. Nag, J.(1) This reference raises an interesting question of law whether summons or application can be moved by the (1) Company, (2) Creditor, (3) member with a view to proposing compromise or arrangement between Company and Creditors and Members under Section 391 of the Companies Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as 'the 'Act') in case the Company is being wound up or can it be filed in such a situation exclusively by .the liquidator alone (2) In the present case, the summons have been moved by Messrs. National Steel & General Mills (1) Limited (hereinafter referred to as 'the Company'), under Section 391 of the Act proposing a scheme of arrangement between the Company and ifs unsecured creditors, and in support of such summons the affidavit of Shri D.B. Sharda, erstwhile Director of the Company has been filed. The Company has been wound up under the orders of the Court dated August 1, 1988. (3) 'THE reference has been made to this Bench for the 'reason that two views have been e...
Khem Chand Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-09-1989
Reported in: 1989(16)DRJ381
S.S. Chadha, J.(1) This appeal under Clause X of the Letters Patent is directed against the judgment dated September 29, 1978ofD.K.Kapur, J. dismissing the writ petition of the appellant seeking a writ of certiorari to quash the departmental enquiry including the order of dismissal of the appellant from police force.(2) The appellant was appointed on March 29, 1963 as a Constable in the Delhi Armed Police, Delhi. He was served with a memorandum of charge-sheet dated July 2, 1968 informing him that a departmental enquiry under the Punjab Police Rules, 1934 (for short PPR) as applicable to the Union Territory of Delhi is proposed to be held. The allegations on which the enquiry was proposed to be held were set out in the summary of allegations enclosed reading as follows :- 'It is alleged that Const. Khem Chand No. 2152 Dap IIIrd BN'D' Coy while posted at Guard Duty at Rtc Mehrauli on 17.6.68 at 8.10 A.M. was shabbily dressed, and was not got his hairs cut ASl Ganpat Ram checked him and ...
Phoenix Properties Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union of India and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-09-1989
Reported in: ILR1989Delhi490; 1989RLR177
S.S. Chadha, J.(1) This petition under: Article. 226 of the Constitution of India seeks a writ of certiorari to quash the impugned orders dated July 3, 1987. July 6, 1987 and July 10, 1987 cancelling the bids allotments of the petitioners of plots Nos. 80, 81, 82 and 158, Transport Centre, Rohtak Read, New Delhi and forfeiting the earnest money deposited by the petitioners at the time of auction of each plot.(2) The Delhi Development Authority (hereinafter referred to as the Authority) issued a public notice for auction of. commercial plots for shops/offices, godowns, workshops, nursing home and cold storage. The terms and conditions of allotment by auction of perpetual lease-hold tights in the plots have been framed under the Delhi Development Authority (Disposal of Developed Nazul Land) Rules, 1981 (for short called the Rules) framed in exercise of the powers conferred by Clause (j.) of subsection 2) of Section 56 read with sub-section (3) of Section 22 of the Delhi Development Act, ...
Sahab Singh and ors. Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-09-1989
Reported in: 38(1989)DLT127; 1989RLR464
S.B. Wad, J.(1) In this writ petition the validity of Notifications under section 4, Section 6 and Sections 9 & 10 and the consequent Award are challenged. Section 4 Notification was issued on 23.1.65; Section 6 Notification on 6.9.66 and Section 9 & 10 notifications on 21.5.1983. Subsequently, on 19.9.86 an Award purported to be an Award for acquisition of the petitioners' land was made. Counsel has placed a copy of the Award before me. The same be taken on record. (2) The petitioners submit that after the issuance of the notification under Section 6, they served a notice on the respondents on 28.9.76 under Section 55 of the D.D.A. Act, 1957, as they were entitled to get the lands released from compulsory acquisition under Sub-section 2 of Section 55. The respondents have received the said notice under Section 55. This has also been mentioned specifically in a preliminary Award made on 12.9.80. The present Award is a supplementary Award made on 19.9.86. The principal question for deci...
Godrej Boyce Manufacturing Co. Vs. Collector of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Mar-08-1989
Reported in: (1989)(22)LC517Tri(Delhi)
1. M/s. Godrej Boyce Mfg. Co. Ltd., Bombay has filed an appeal being aggrieved from the order passed by the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), Bombay. The said appeal was presented in the Registry on the 26th day of December, 1988. In column No. 3 of Memo, of appeal, date of communication has been mentioned as 15th August, 1988. Simultaneously an application for Condonation of Delay was also filed. Shri Gopal Prasad, the learned consultant who has appeared on behalf of the applicant has reiterated the contentions made in application for Condonation of Delay. He has made a request for adjournment for substantiating his arguments for condonation of delay. Shri A.S.R.Nair, the learned SDR has opposed the request for condonation of delay.After hearing both sides, the Bench had pointed out to Shri Gopal Prasad, the learned consultant the Hon'ble Supreme Court's decision in the case of Union of India and Ors. v. Visveswaraya Iron and Steel Ltd. -1987 (32) ELT 458 where it was held that ...
Smt. Nitu Alias Asha, Vs. Shri Krishan Lal,
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-08-1989
Reported in: 1989(16)DRJ386
ORDERSantosh Duggal, J.1. The appellant in this Letters Patent Appeal is the wife, who was respondent in the petition filed by the husband, seeking divorce by decree of dissolution of marriage, between the parties under S. 13(l)(ib) of the, Hindu Marriage Act, as amended by the Marriage Laws (Amendment) Act, 19761.2. The facts, in so far as are relevant for the disposal of this appeal, are that the petition was brought on the allegation that the marriage between the parties was solemnized on 20th Feb., 1977, according to Hindu rites: and ceremonies, and out of this wedlock, a female child named Poonam was born on 24th Jan., 1978. According to the petitioner (husband), he was residing with his parents, brothers and sister at the time of marriage in flat No. 40, Sarojni Nagar Market, New Delhi, and that the respondent in the proceedings; namely, the wife started pestering him to live separately from his parents after 10/12 days of the marriage, and he was so harassed by her on account of...
- ‹ Prev
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 11
- 12
- 13
- Next ›
- Last »