Delhi Court September 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.
Om Builders (P) Ltd. Vs. Edward Keventer (Successors) Pvt. and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-04-1989
Reported in: 40(1990)DLT39
Y.K. Sabharwal, J. (1) Plaintiff has filed the suit seeking a decree of permanent injunction restraining the defendants from selling or otherwise transferring Plot No. 48, measuring 25 acres of land situated at Keventer's Lane, Sardar Patel Marg, Chanakyapuri, New Delhi, to any other person without first offering the same to the plaintiff. (2) Plaintiff has filed LA. 4433/89 under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2, Code of Civil Procedure seeking temporary injunction restraining the defendants from selling or otherwise transferring the suit property to any person without offering the same to the plaintiff for a price of Rs. 24 crores as per the agreed terms. LA. 4434/89 under Order 2 Rule 2. Code of Civil Procedure, has been filed by the plaintiff seeking leave to file another suit to enforce the right of specific performance. I.A. 4433 and 4434/89 were filed Along with the suit. (3) After the written statement was filed, I.A. 5490/89 under Order 11 Rule 14 of the Code was filed by the plaintiff ...
Balle Ram and ors. Vs. the State (Delhi Adminstration)
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-04-1989
Reported in: 41(1990)DLT675; 1989(17)DRJ287; ILR1989Delhi29
Charanjit Talwar, J.(1) The following accused were tried for the offences under Section 302, 147, 148, 149 and 323 of the Indian Penal Code : 1.Balle Ram 2.Satbir 3.Daya Nand 4.Khazan 5.Surender 6.Dhan Raj Five of them, viz., Balle Ram, Satbir, Daya Nand, Khazan and Surender were convicted for the offences under Section 302 read with Section 149, Section 147 and Section 323 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code. Each of them was sentenced to undergo life imprisonment under Section 302 read with 149. Indian Penal Code. Each of them was further sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a further period of six months under Section 147, Indian Penal Code. Further six months simple imprisonment was awarded to each of them under Section 323 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code. All the sentences were directed to run concurrently (2) At the outset we may notice that the acquittal of Dhan Raj was challenged by the State but its petition (Cr. Misc. 456/87) was dismi...
Bajaj Food Products Vs. Central Board Trustee and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-04-1989
Reported in: 39(1989)DLT287; [1990(60)FLR428]; (1991)ILLJ52Del
S.S. Chadha, J. (1) This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenges the decision of the Lt. Governor, Delhi dated October 29, 1988. refusing the petitioners permission under Section 25O of the Industrial Disputes Act 1947 to close its industrial undertaking Delhi Cloth Mills at Bara Hindu Rao, Delhi. (2) The petitioners had earlier filed a petition, being C.W.P. 1281/85 ('D.C.M. Ltd. v. Union of India and Others') under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a writ of certiorari to quash the decisions of the Lt. Governor, Delhi communicated in the letter dated April 16, 1985 rejecting the petitioners' application dated March 27, 1985 and refusing-the petitioners permission under Section 2-O of the Industrial Disputes Act, r-47 (for short called the Id Act) to close its industrial undertaking Deibi Cloth Mills at Bara Hindu Rao, Delhi (for short called the Mill) with effect from July, 1985. The further relief claimed was to declare that the provision of...
Shiraj Ahmed Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-04-1989
Reported in: 1996(82)ELT467(Del); ILR1990Delhi102
Santosh Duggal, J.(1) In this writ petition, the petitioner challenges the detention made by other dated 4th November, 1988 passed by respondent No. 2, the Administrator of Union Territory of Delhi, invoking the provisions of section 3(1) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 (for short 'the Act'), and seeks issuance of writ of habeas corpus for any other order or direction quashing the order of detention, 'and directing his release. (2) The facts in so far as they are relevant for the disposal of the present petition, succinctly are that the petitioner on arrival from Dubai at Indira Gandhi International Airport, New Delhi on 29th June, 1988 was found to have carried in his baggage gold weighing 334 gms. (gross), 330 gms. (net) of 24 ct. purity, valued at Rs. 1,05,600.00 , the same having been concealed at the back of the speakers of three telephones and two transistors. The gold was seized. The petitioner was placed under arrest, and...
Mukesh Singh Rathore Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-02-1989
Reported in: ILR1999Delhi52
R.L. Gupta, J.(1) This criminal writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed for issuing writ of habeas corpus or any other appropriate Writ, order or direction against the orders of detention bearing No. F.673/634/88-CUS/VIII dated 30th December. 1988 passed by Sh. A K. Batabyal, Joint Secretary to the Govt. of India. Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue, New Delhi under Section 3(1) of the Conservation of Foreign. Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act. 1974 (COFEPOSA in short). The order of detention was passed with a view to preventing the petitioner from abetting the smuggling of goods. (2) Although a number of grounds have been taken up in the writ petition in order to assail the order of detention but the only ground pressed before me is the one taken by the petitioner by way of additional ground in the petition It is stated that there is ordinate delay in the consideration and disposal of the detenue's representation da...
Agrasen Engineering Works Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Sep-01-1989
Reported in: (1990)LC246Tri(Delhi)
1. In effect this application is one seeking modification of an earlier stay order dated 30-8-1989 passed by the Bench. It is treated as such.2. Shri Gujral the learned Advocate argued on a number of grounds. For reasons that will be clear a little further we are not going into any of the grounds. Consideration of those grounds is not necessary for the purpose of this matter.3. The circumstances leading to this application are peculiar and exceptional in that certain vital points relevant to the stay application appear to have been lost might of even by the appellants themselves.4. The basic facts and arguments necessary for the disposal of this appeal are that a show cause notice was issued to the appellants seeking to recover duty for the period 1980-81 to 1985-86 (upto 24-1-1986) on 15-7-1986 followed by a "Memo of Charges" dated 7-11-1986. There is no dispute that this show cause notice was signed by the Deputy Collector. It is Shri Gujral's argument that under Section 11A of the ...
Raje Bala Vs. Pankaj and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-01-1989
Reported in: ILR1989Delhi561; 1989RLR453
ORDER 23 rule 1.-Withdrawal of suit or abandonment of part of claim (1) at any time after the institution of a suit, the plaintiff may as against all or any of the defendants abandon his suit or abandon a part of his claim: (2) An application for leave under the proviso to sub-rule (1) shall be accompanied by an affidavit of the next friend and also. if the minor or such other person is represented by a pleader, by a certificate of the pleader to the effect that the abandonment proposed is, in his opinion, for the benefit of the minor or such other person. (3) Where the court is satisfied,- (a) that a suit must fail by reason of some formal defect. or (b) that here are sufficient grounds for allowing the plaintiff to institute a fresh suit for the subject matter of a suit or part of a claim. it may, on such terms as it thinks fit. grant the plaintiff permission to withdraw from such suit or such part of the claim with liberty to institute a fresh suit in respect of the subject matter o...
R.L. JaIn and ors. Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-01-1989
Reported in: 39(1989)DLT463; [1989]180ITR643(Delhi); 1989RLR493
B.N. Kirpal, J.(1) Rule D.B. As the question involved in this bunch of writ petitions is a short one, we proceed to dispose of the writ petitions immediately. (2) The petitioners are persons who are carrying on business in various hotels in Delhi in shops which have been taken by them either on hire or on license basis. The grievance of the petitioners is that on the money which is paid by them to the hotels in respect of the accommodation which is used by the petitioners no tax is payable under the provisions of the Expenditure Tax Act, 1987. (3) In order to examine the aforesaid contention it is necessary to refer to a few provisions of the said Act. (4) Section 4 is a charging section and this provides that there shall be charged a tax at a specified rate on the chargeable expenditure. (5) Chargeable expenditure is explained in section 2(4) as meaning an expenditure which is referred to in Section 5. Section 5 reads as under :- '5.Meaning of chargeable expenditure.--For the purposes...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- Next ›