Delhi Court May 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.
Vijay Singh Vs. Wadia Institute of Himalayan Geology Society
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-25-1989
Reported in: 39(1989)DLT169
M.K. Chawla, J. (1) The petitioner is an M. Com and his specialised in Accountancy. At the relevant time. he was working as an Administrative Officer with the respondent Wadia Institute of Himalayan Geology Society, Dehradun, (hereinafter referred to as the Society. Besides others, his duties were to supervise and maintain the accounts and point out irregularities in the purchase of material instruments and other items required for the proper functioning of the society. During the course of his service, he is alleged to have incurred the wrath of one Dr. G. C. S. Gaur, a scientist working in the Society, in the back-drop of the following circumstances :- (2) In the beginning of January, 1979, Dr. G. C. S. Gaur indented a piece of equipment of which the only specialisation he vouchsafed was 'a small glass blowing unit'. At that time, neither the petitioner nor any member of the staff including the scientist belonging to other disciplines knew as to what a glass blowing unit was. Dr. Gau...
Great Eastern Shipping Co. Ltd. and anr. Vs. Union of India and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-25-1989
Reported in: AIR1989Delhi289; 1994LC679(Delhi); 1992(58)ELT374(Del)
Rabindra Nath Pyne, J. (1) The petitioner No. 1 is the owner of a fleet of ships, namely, Dry Cargo Bulk Carriers, Product Tankers, Oil Bulk Ore Carriers and Offshore Supply Vessels and carries on business of operating such fleet of ships. The petitioner No. 2 is the Vice Chairman, Managing Director and a shareholder of petitioner No. 1. The petitioners have filed the instant writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution challenging the notification No. 390 dated 29th September 1984 issued by the Ministry of Shipping and Transport (Port Wing) whereby the basis of charging port dues as well as basic rate per ton of ships calling at Paradip Port have been changed from 'Net Register Tonnage (for short 'N.R.T.') as stipulated under Indian Ports Act 1908 (for short the 'Act') to 'Gross Register Tonnage (for short 'G.R.T.'). According to the petitioners, the change so effected by the said notification is contrary to the express mandate of the Act and as such the said notification is il...
Khushbir Singh Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-25-1989
Reported in: AIR1990Delhi59; 39(1989)DLT37
Y.K. Sabharwal, J.(1) Shri Jeevan Singh died on 24/11/1981 at R-569. New Rajinder Nagar, New Delhi. The petitioner is his son who seeks probate of the Will purported to have been executed by Sh. JeevanSingh on 23rd November 1961. Under tr the Will the petitioner has been appointed as sole executor and all moveable and immoveable properties have been bequeathed in his favor.(2) Some undisputed facts : Petitioner Kushbir Singh is son of Sh.Jeevan Singh from his first wife who had died before Jeevan Singh had married Dr. Deep Kaur. The marriage between Jee(3) Dr. Deep Kaur and Ms. Harleen Kaur have opposed the grant ofprobate. Both mother and daughter in reply to probate petition have denied the factum and validity of the Will. The opposition of mother and daughter is contained in Paras 4 and 7 of their reply to the petition which reads asunder:Para 4 'Para No. 4 of the petition is denied. It is incorrect thatS. Jeevan Singh made the Will in question, as alleged. The answering respondents...
Satish Chandra Prahlad NaraIn Vs. Collector of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: May-24-1989
Reported in: (1989)(24)LC331Tri(Delhi)
1. This appeal is directed against the order dated 30-3-1988 passed by the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), Delhi by which he had rejected the appellants appeal as time-barred.2. Shri Gopal Prasad, the learned consultant appears for the appellants and submits that the Assistant Collector order in this case was received by them on 24-10-1986 but that they could file the appeal before the Collector (Appeals) only in December, 1987 and that this was because of the fact that they were pursuing their writ petition in the matter before the High Court and also before the Supreme Court and the Supreme Court decision was given on 5-10-1987. They have taken steps to file the appeal before the Collector (Appeals) thereafter. The learned consultant has urged that the appeal has been dismissed by the Collector (Appeals) without giving them an opportunity to explain the delay and they should be given such opportunity by remanding to case to that authority. He pointed out that in the order als...
W.S. Construction Co. Vs. Hindustan Steel Works Construction Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-24-1989
Reported in: AIR1990Delhi134; 1989(2)ARBLR253(Delhi); [1990]68CompCas286(Delhi); 38(1989)DLT452
Y.K. Sabharwal, J.(1) By agreement dated 26th June 1981 entered into between the parties respondent No. 1 awarded to the petitioner a contract for construction of civil and plumbing works of school building at Beida District in Libya. The contract contains an arbitration clause which inter-alia provides that except where otherwise provided for in the contract, all questions and disputes shall be referred to the sole arbitration of the Managing Director and if the Managing Director is unable or unwilling to act to the sole arbitration of some other person willing to act as such arbitrator. The arbitration clause further provides that the arbitrator to whom the matter is originally referred being transferred or vacation of his office or being unable to act for any reason such Managing Director at the time of such transfer, vacation of office or inability to act shall appoint another person to act as arbitrator in accordance with the terms of the contract. It is further provided that no p...
K.C. Bhatia and Associate Vs. Urban Improvements Co. (P) Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-24-1989
Reported in: 1989(2)ARBLR308(Delhi); 1989(2)Crimes512; 39(1989)DLT1; ILR1989Delhi349
Y.K. Sabharwal, J. (1) The sewerage work: in Sector 'C' of Green Fields Colony, Faridabad (Haryana) was awarded by the respondent/to the petitioner. Disputes and differences between the parties were objector referred to the sole arbitration of Brig. Harish Chandra (Retired) inaccordance with the arbitration agreement. The arbitrator has filed theaward and the proceedings in this Court The respondent has challenged the validity of award and has filed objections thereto (I.A.766/88). On pleadings of the parlies, following issues are framed : (1)Whether there is any error apparent on the face of the award ?(2) Whether the award has been improperly procured ?(3) Whether the arbitrator is guilty of misconduct as alleged in the objection petition ?(4) Whether the award is liable to be set aside ?(5) Relief.(2) Parties have filed evidence in the form of affidavits. As all the issues are inter-connected, it will be convenient to take them up together.(3) The main objection raised by the respon...
Sarbjit Singh and ors. Vs. All India Fine Arts and Crafts Soclety and ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-24-1989
Reported in: ILR1989Delhi585
Mahinder Narain, J.(1) By this order, I propose to deal with an application filed by the plaintiffs under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, and objections regarding maintainability of the above said suit. (2) By the application, the plaintiffs prayed that defendants No. 1, 2 and 3, its employees and agents be restrained from in any manner renewing/negotiating or executing a fresh lease deed with respect to the premises of All India Fine Arts & Crafts Society Building, Rafi Marg, New Delhi, which is occupied by the British Cbuncil. The plaintiffs also seek to restrain: the defendants from parting with possession of any part of the premises. The plaintiffs also seek an order from this Court restraining defendant No. 2, S. S. Bhagat, and defendant No. 3, Jag Mohan Chopra, from acting as Secretary and Chairman of the All India. Fine Arts & Crafts Society, defendant No. 1, tall tits annual General Meeting is held as per law and as per Memorandum & Articles of Associatio...
ishwar Parasram Punjabi Vs. Union of India and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-24-1989
Reported in: 38(1989)DLT381; 1989(23)LC200(Delhi)
B.N. Kirpal, J. (1) The challenge in these four writ petitions is to the orders of detention passed on 7th December, 1988 by the Joint Secretary, Government of India under Section 3(1) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 (hereinafter referred to as the Cofeposa Act'.(2) The main contentions which were raised in Crl.W. No. 11 of 1989 filed by Ishwar Parasram Punjabi are common to the other petitions but as additional contentions were raised on behalf of the other petitioners, it is more appropriate to seal with and consider the common contentions in Ishwar Punjabi's Case and to separately consider the additional contentions raised by the other detenus. Cri. W. No. 11 of 1989(3) Briefly stated, the case of the petitioner Ishwar Punjabi is that while he was attending to his business as the sole proprietor of M/s Modesto Corporate on on the morning of 18th November. 1988, the Customs Officials entered his premises and searched the same a...
Continental Construction Ltd. Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: May-23-1989
Reported in: (1989)(23)LC508Tri(Delhi)
1. The appellants are M/s Continental Construction Ltd. They are engaged in the execution of large size turnkey construction projects awarded by various Government Authorities in India and abroad. They had undertaken an international contract for the construction of Wadi Ghan Dam in Libya and Karkh Water Supply Scheme-I in Iraq. On completion of the overseas projects in Libya and Iran they imported into India old and used construction equipment, machinery and accessories in 3 lots, which were purchased by them new in foreign exchange out of their overseas projects earnings and were used extensively for 8 to 10 years for construction work carried out abroad.1.1 Paragraph 213(5) of the I.T.C. policy for 1985-88 under the heading Project Exports, permits import of old and used equipments and machineries. In pursuance of the said policy they have imported vide bill of entry No. 2248/1 dated 31-8-1987 472 packages of construction equipment, machineries etc. used in the construction of the ...
Bitumen Products (India) Vs. Collector of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: May-23-1989
Reported in: (1989)(24)LC283Tri(Delhi)
1. This appeal is directed against the order issued on 3-9-1985 of the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), Calcutta by which he had upheld the order of the Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Calcutta-I Division dated 16-4-1985 demanding a duty of Rs. 1,93,715.82 from the appellants as central excise duty on the goods cleared by them during the period April, 1983 to September, 1983. The appellants herein are engaged in the manufacture of various Bituminous products. They filed an application with the jurisdictional Assistant Collector on 1-4-1983 seeking exemption under Notification 77/83, dated 1-3-1983 for the financial year 1983-84. The department, however, found on scrutiny that the aggregate value of clearances of all excisable goods falling under Tariff Item 68 and Tariff Item 11 by the appellants had exceeded Rs. 40 lakhs during the preceding financial year 1982-83 and hence they were not eligible for the exemption. This is because para 2 of the Notification 77/83 lays do...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- Next ›
- Last »