Delhi Court July 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.
Girwar Singh Vs. Charan Singh and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-20-1989
Reported in: 1990ACJ528; ILR1989Delhi57; 1989RLR384
Malik, J.(1) The appellant is aggrieved of the quantum of compensation granted to him by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Delhi, by its order dated 23rd of November 1979. The total amount assessed by the Tribunal is Rs. 10,000. Out of this Rs. 8,000 was awarded as general damages while a sum of Rs. 2,000 was allowed for treatment, special diet and expenses on conveyance. The claim arose in favor of the appellant as a result of an accident which took place on 20th of January 1979 at about 7.30 P.M. with the Army truck owned by the respondents in which the right foot of the appellant was crushed under the front wheel of the truck which had to be amputated ultimately on medical advice. (2) The Tribunal came to the conclusion that the injuries were sustained by the appellant as a result of rash and negligent driving of the military truck No. Y-53749 which was being driven by respondent No. 1 at the relevant date and time. It was further found that there was no negligence on the part of ...
Collector of Customs Vs. B.P.L. (India) Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jul-19-1989
Reported in: (1989)(25)LC187Tri(Delhi)
1. Collector of Customs, Bangalore has filed an appeal being aggrieved from the order passed by the Collector of Customs (Appeals), Madras.Subsequently, a Stay Application was also filed by the Assistant Collector of Customs (COFEPOSA), Bangalore. Shri M.S. Arora, the learned JDR who has appeared on behalf of the applicant has stated that the order passed by the Collector of Customs (Appeals) is not correct in law as the benefit of Notification No. 188/87-Cus. has been extended to the respondents incorrectly. He has stated that the terms of Notification had to be construed strictly. The goods imported are different to those mentioned in the Notification No. 188/87. The goods imported by the respondents are stated below :- 2. Shri M.S. Arora, the learned JDR stated that in terms of Notification No. 188/87-Cus., dated 29th April, 1987 benefit is available only to switches with contract rating less than 5 amps at 250 volts AC, or DC. The goods imported by the respondents are different to...
Sai Electricals Vs. Income-tax Officer
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Decided on: Jul-19-1989
Reported in: (1990)32ITD186(Delhi)
1. This is an assessee's appeal directed against the order dated 6-3-1986, passed by the CIT, Meerut, under Section 263 of the Income-tax Act.2. The facts of the case are these. For the assessment year 1981-82, the assessee's accounting period was from 1-7-79 to 30-9-80. The assessee firm was constituted under a partnership deed dated 1-7-76.The firm consisted of Smt. Prem Goel, Shri Girish Kumar and Shri Vipin Goel as partners. Shri Barun Kumar Adarsh was, however, admitted to the benefits of the partnership. The profits and losses were to be divided as under: -Sl. Name of the partner Profits LossesNo.3. Shri Baran Kumar attained majority on 26-7-79. No fresh partnership deed was executed. The ITO treated the firm as registered firm without any discussion. While scrutinizing the assessment records, the CIT found that the assessee firm had been wrongly given the status of a registered firm. He, accordingly, issued a show-cause notice and after giving an opportunity of hearing to the a...
Uttam Wires and Machines (P) Ltd. Vs. State of Rajasthan and Another
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-19-1989
Reported in: AIR1990Delhi72; 1989(2)ARBLR314(Delhi); 39(1989)DLT291; 1989RLR351
ORDER1. The petition u/ S. 20 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 has been filed by the petitioner seeking direction from this Court that the respondent should file the arbitration agreement agreed between the parties as mentioned in letter No. F-815(4)/7/ Part III/ Sec. IV/ D-9/ 72-73 dated 27-3-73 and refer the dispute to the arbitration in accordance with law.2. The relevant facts which are necessary to be mentioned are that the petitioner being a manufacturer of Rollers gave a quotation to Chief Engineer (Roads), P.W.D. (B & R), Rajasthan (Jaipur) for supply of Road Rollers of a particular description to begin with and as a result of this tender respondents issued a letter for supply of 14 Rollers to the petitioner but of different specification and description. The petitioner after having received this counter offer of the respondents to purchase the Rollers of different description and specification in the interest of maintaining cordial business relations accepted the same and thereby ...
D.B. Gupta Contracts P. Ltd. Vs. Punjab National Bank
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-19-1989
Reported in: 1989(2)ARBLR399(Delhi); 39(1989)DLT229; 1989RLR354
P.N. Nag, J. (1) The plaintiff has filed this petition under Section 20 of the Arbitration Act of 1940 for directing defendant to file the arbitration agreement in Court and also for reference to arbitration to settle the differences and disputes between the parties. The facts giving rise to the filing of this petition are that the plaintiff was awarded the work of sanitaryinstallation, external water supply and drainage and pumping equipment work by the defendants, for their staff housing and hostel complex at 8Underhill Road, Delhi, vide their letter dated 14/11/1985. followed by a formal agreement dated 1/12/1986. The plaintiff vide its letter dated 26.8 85 submitted its tender to the defendant with certain clarifications. Thereafter the plaintiff has discussed with the defendant and the architect and after discussions the plaintiff agreed to amend certain clauses vide its letter dated 23.9 85. It did not conclude there and thereafter further discussions were held between the plaint...
Sanjay Vats Vs. Attro
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-19-1989
Reported in: 39(1989)DLT283; 1989RLR348
P.N. Nag, J. (1) In a suit for specific performance and perpetual injunction filed by the plaintiff against the defendant on the basis of an agreement to sell the agricultural land in village Mundka, Delhi dated 9th October: 1987 he has also filed an application under Order 39 Rules I and 2 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure praying therein that the defendant should be restrained from selling, transferring, alienating or otherwise encumbering the land in dispute and also interfering in any manner with peaceful possession of the plaintiff over such land.(2) The relevant facts stated in the plaint by the plaintiff are that the defendant has entered into an agreement to sell the agricultural land bearing Khasra Nos. 111/13 (2-14), 111/17 (4.16), 111/18 (5-06) and 111124 (4-16), total measuring 37 bighas 12 bids was with the plaintiff on 9th October, 1987. The defendant having entered into the agreement to sell received a sum of Rs. 2,38,000 in advance by way of part paym...
Krishan Kumar Vs. Delhi Mah. Telephone
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-19-1989
Reported in: 1989RLR393
R.N. Pyne, J.(1) This writ petition is against the impugned notice dated 10.11,88 calling upon the petitioners to arrange to settle the outstanding dues in respect of telephone No. 7113634 provided to M/s, Darbar India at their business premises at Shalimar Industrial Area, Delhi failing which telephone Nos. 641-8487 and 634438 in the names of petitioners 1 and 2 respectively shall be disconnected. M/s Darbar India, is a partnership firm of which one of the two sons of petitioner no. 1 is a partner. The case of the petitioners is that they have nothing to do with telephone no. 7113634. The same has been subscribed by said M/s. Darbar India and if that firm has fallen in arrears of dues in respect of the said telephone it is the liability of the partners of that firm alone and so far as the two telephones of the petitioners are concerned, they are not liable to be disconnected on the failure of the partners of the said firm in the payment of the dues which may be recoverable from the su...
Vimpex Dye Chem Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jul-18-1989
Reported in: (1992)(43)LC567Tri(Delhi)
1. Additional Collector (Customs), vide his Order-in-Original No. 44/89 dated 28.2.1989, ordered confiscation of the goods imported by the appellant, under provision of Section 11 l(d) and 11 l(m) of the Customs Act, 1962 with an option to the appellant to redeem the consignment on payment of fine of Rs. 50.000/-. Additional Collector also disallowed the benefit of concessional duty under Customs Notification No. 386/86 as claimed by the appellant. This order has given rise to this appeal. The appellant imported 20 MTs of Tartaric acid from its foreign supplier and filed Bill of Entry at ICD, Delhi for clearance of the goods vide Bill of Entry dated 14.4.1988. The Customs authorities delayed clearance and, as alleged, had been making irrelevant inquiries, which were being replied by the appellant. During the course of time, the appellant came, to know about the Customs Notification No. 386/86 dt. 29.7.1986 (as amended) which exempts payment of basic customs duty over and above 20% and...
Haryana Insulated Wires (P) Ltd. Vs. Collector of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jul-18-1989
Reported in: (1989)(24)LC501Tri(Delhi)
1. M/s. Haryana Insulated Wires (P) Ltd., Gurgaon, have filed an appeal being aggrieved from the order passed by the Ad- ditional Collector of Central Excise, Ne Delhi. The said appeal was presented in the Registry on 4th April, 1989. In column No. 3 of the memo of appeal, the date of com- munication has been mentioned as 3rd November, 1988. Thereafter, the applicants had presented an application for condonation of delay duly supported with an affidavit and medical certificate in original.Thereafter, another affidavit dated 7th July, 1989 sworn before an Oath Commissioner was also filed. The date of communication in column No. 3 of the appeal memo has been mentioned as 3rd November, 1988. Thus the appeal is hit by limitation and there is a delay of 59 days.2. Shri J.S. Agarwal, the learned advocate, has reiterated the contentions made in the application for condonation of delay and the subsequent affidavit. Shri Agarwal, the learned advocate, stated that the appellants' Director Shri ...
Mohd. Saleem Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-17-1989
Reported in: AIR1989Delhi340; 39(1989)DLT421; 1989(24)ECC225
Charanjit Talwar, J. (1) The following five questions formulated by a learned Single Judge have been referred to us for decision. 1. 'Whether the judgment given in the case of Ibrahim Bachhu Bafan v. State of Gujarat and Ors. : 1985CriLJ533 is binding on the point, whether the officer who passes the detention order has the power to revoke the order?' 2. 'Whether the judgment given in the case of State of Maharashtra & another v. Sushila Mafatlal Shah and others : 1989CriLJ99 is per incuriam inasmuch as the law laid down in the case of Ibrahim Bachu Bafan (supra) by a larger bench was not taken note of ?' 3. 'Where in the grounds of detention the detenu has been given a right to make a representation to the officer, who has passed the detention order, in addition to his right to make a representation to the appropriate Government, still is it incumbent upon the officer concerned not to dispose of the representation made to him at his own level?' 4. 'Where the detaining authority had rea...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- 7
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »