Delhi Court October 1990 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.
N.K. Bhatia Vs. J.P. Singh
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-16-1990
Reported in: 42(1990)DLT541; 1991RLR128
R.L. Gupta, J. (1) This application has been moved under Order 14, rule 5 read with Section 151 of Code of Civil Procedure ('Code' for short) on behalf of the defendant alleging that in para 28 of the written statement a plea bad been specifically taken that this Court had no jurisdiction because the suit was for specific performance of the Contract with respect to the land situated in the State of Uttar Pradesh. thereforee, it has been prayed that additional issue to that effect may be framed. (2) Plaintiff 'THE condition 'unless there has been a consequent failure of justice' mentioned in Section 21 Civil P.C. implies that at the time when the objection is taken in the appellate or revisional Court, the suit has already been tried on the merits. The Section does not preclude the objection as to the place of suing, if the trial Court has not given a verdict on the merits at the time when the objection is taken in the appellate on revisional Court.'This authority rather helps the defen...
Harbhajan Lal Nayyar Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-16-1990
Reported in: 43(1991)DLT25
V.B. Bansal, J.(1) Harbhajan Lal Nayyar petitioner has filed this petition thereby challenging the order dated 3rd February, 1990 of Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Delhi thereby allowing the prosecution to examine 24 witnesses. (2) Briefly stated the facts leading to the filing of this petition are that a challan was filed in the concerned court against the petitioner for trial under Ss. 419, 420, 468 and 471 Indian Penal Code in Fir No. 1296 dated 22nd October, 1974 P.S. Daryaganj. The challan was filed in court on 5th April, 1977. vide order dated 22nd March 1979 of an Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Delhi charges under Ss. 419, 420, 468 and 471 Indian Penal Code were framed against the petitioner to which he pleaded not guilty. The recording of the evidence was commenced on 7th April, 1979. Prosecution was able to examine 11 witnesses in all and after giving numerous opportunities to the prosecution the prosecution evidence was finally closed on 26th July, 1988. Stat...
C.J. International Hotels Ltd. Vs. New Delhi Municipal Committee and o ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-16-1990
Reported in: ILR1991Delhi321
D.P. Wadhwa, J.(1) The petitioner in these proceedings is a public company limited under the Companies Act, 1956 and is running a hotel at 8, Windsor Place New Delhi, called 'Hotel Le Meridien. This application has been filed under clause (b) of section 41 read with Ii Schedule of the Arbitration Act 1940 (Act for short) and section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure (Code) seeking an order restraining the third respondent the Estate Officer under the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 (for short 'P.P. Act') from proceeding further in pursuance to two notices issued by him under section 4(1) and section 7(3) of that Act. First notice is dated 12-3-1990 for showing cause against order of eviction respecting plot of land measuring 4.29 acres along with entire structure constructed thereon at the crossing of Janpath and Raisina Road at Windsor Place, New Delhi, and the second notice is dated 2-4-1990 for requiring the petitioner to pay arrears of license fee, d...
Laga Exporters (India) (P) Ltd. Vs. Rajender Kumar Sachdeva
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-16-1990
Reported in: 43(1991)DLT85
Sunanda Bhandare, J.(1) This appeal is directed against the order of the Rent Control Tribunal dated 20th November 1989 whereby the Rent Control Tribunal dismissed the appeal filed by the appellant-tenant under Section 38(1) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) against the order of the Additional Rent Controller dated 20th December 1988. (2) The respondent-landlord gave premises bearing no. D-27 Panchsheel Enclave, New Delhi to the appellant on a monthly rent of Rs. 1400.00 for residential purpose for 22 months. The permission for letting out the premises for a limited period under Section 21 of the Act was granted by the Additional Rent Controller by his order dated 25th January 1977. Since the appellant did not vacate the premises on the expiry of 22 months, the respondent on 14th May 1979 filed an application in the court of the Additional Rent Controller seeking warrants of possession against the appellant. The appellant filed his objections on 1...
Collector of Customs Vs. Steel Authority of India
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Oct-15-1990
Reported in: (1991)LC33Tri(Delhi)
1. The facts relevant for a decision in this matter, as stated by the appellate Collector, are as follows : "Steel Authority of India imported through Visakhapatnam Port a number of Consignments of Coking Coal and the same was allowed free of duty under Notification No. 142-Cus., dtd. 28-7-1978 which was valid upto 30-6-1980. After the date of expiry of the said Notification the importers filed supplementary Bills of Entry in July 1980 to cover the excess landed quantities. Demands u/s 28 Customs Act, 1962 were issued and subsequently confirmed by Asstt. Collector, Visakhapatnam, Customs House, in respect of goods covered by supplementary Bills of Entry as the exemption Notification was not in force on the dates of filing the supplementary Bills of Entry. The importers preferred an Appeal against this order on the ground that the supplementary Bills of Entry were against original Bills of Entry wherein the quantities were based on Bills of Lading weight when the goods were loaded on t...
Aryavart Overseas (P) Ltd. Vs. Hari Nagar Sugar Mills Ltd. and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-15-1990
Reported in: 1991CriLJ12; ILR1990Delhi530b; 1990RLR555
P.K. Bahri, J.(1) In this petition filed under Section 8 of the Arbitration Act seeking removal of respondent 2 & 3 as arbitrators and for appointing fresh arbitrator. FOLLOWING issue was framed : ' Whether this Court has jurisdiction to try this case? (2) The undisputed facts of the case in brief, are that vide agreement dated April 1, 1976. entered into between .the petitioner and respondent No. 1.the petitioner was appointed as intending agent respondent No. 1 and was entitled to commission @31/2% on The aggregate amount of basic price of Shangrila Biscuits realised by the company for all the directed indirect sales of Shangrila Biscuits effected by the In tenting Agent within the territories which arc detailed out in clause 3 of the agreement. The claims set up by the petitioner in which reference to the arbitrator was sought was with regard to certain sales made by the respondent No. 1 in those territories which resulted in depriving the petitioner of his agreed commission. The ag...
Hari Om Properties (P) Ltd. Vs. B. Dutta
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-15-1990
Reported in: 1991(1)ARBLR107(Delhi); 1990RLR536
Mahinder Narain, J.(1) This is a petition u/S. 20 of the Arbitration Act for filing an agreement containing an arbitration clause between the parties. It is to be found in a collaboration agreement dt. 21.11.1988. (2) The effect of entertaining this petition u/S. 20 of the Arbitration Act, would be to have an arbitrator specifically perform a collaboration agreement which is in connection with construction of a multi-storied building on plot No. C-C/15, Kalkaji, New Delhi, the said plot being about 1145 sq. yds. (3) In my judgment reported as 1990 (3) D. L.325 E1990. R LR. 454 Sulochna Uppal vs. Surtnder Sheet, I have taken the view that it is only the courts that can decree specific performance of contracts, in view of the principles laid down by the Privy Council, and the Supreme Court, referred to and relied upon in that judgment, namely, that when a statute requires a thing to be done in a particular manner, it must be done in that manner, or not at fill. All other methods are forb...
Hari and Co. Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Oct-14-1990
Reported in: (1991)(31)ECC55
1. The issue arising for determination in these two appeals being the same, the appeals were heard together and are disposed of by this common order.2. The issue concerns the classification under the First Schedule to the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 (the "Schedule", for short) - as it stood prior to 28-2-1986 - of two consignments of Off-set Litho Paper Plates imported by the appellants. The lower authorities had upheld the classification of the goods under Heading No. 48.01/21 (1), rejecting the appellants' claim for Heading No. 84.34, of the Schedule."48.01/21 Paper and paperboard, all sorts, whether in rolls, sheets or cut to size or shape (including cellulose wadding, composite paper or paperboard and impregnated, coated, corrugated, embossed, perforated, surface coloured or decorated, ruled or printed paper or paperboard); filter blocks, slabs and plates of paper pulp; stationery made of paper or paperboard; articles not elsewhere specified, of paper, paperboard, paper pulp or cellu...
Collector of Central Excise Vs. Eastern Chemical and Industries
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Oct-12-1990
Reported in: (1991)(52)ELT290TriDel
1. The appeals have arisen on the classification of identical products under the erstwhile tariff and the new tariff of Central Excise. Hence both these appeals were heard together.2. In the appeal filed by the Revenue against the order of the Collector (Appeals) in No. 311/Pat/88 dated 26-10-1988 is dealt with in Appeal No. E/929/89-B and Order-in-Appeal No. 327/Pat/88, dated 13-12-1988 is dealt with the Appeal No. E/1596/89-B and both the appeals are disposed off by a common order.3. The Respondents M/s. Eastern Chemical & Industries, Tupudana Industrial Area, Ranchi, filed a classification list showing 'PVC Insulated Galvanised Tinned Steel Wire' with Neoprene Rubber Plug for use in detonator component, under Tariff Item 68 of the erstwhile tariff and Heading 36.01 and 36.03 of the Central Excise Tariff 1985 which was classified by the Assistant Collector under Tariff Item 33-B(ii) of the Central Excise Tariff. In appeal before the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), the Col...
J.V. Gupta and Sons Vs. Income-tax Officer
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Decided on: Oct-12-1990
Reported in: (1990)35ITD569(Delhi)
1. This appeal by the assessee for assessment year 1986-87 is directed against the order dated 21-8-1987 passed by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-VII, New Delhi.2. The short question to be decided in this appeal is whether the transfer of certain shares resulted in long-term or short-term capital gains.3. Brief facts of the case may first be noted. The assessee is an HUF.It held certain shares of M/s. Chloride India Ltd., in the name of Shri J.V. Gupta, the karta of the HUF. The karta died on 13-1-1980. The aforesaid company issued 348 bonus shares on 13-8-1980 i.e., after the death of the karta. These shares were sold on 29-5-1985. The delivery of these bonus shares was withheld by the company for want of succession certificate. The succession certificate was issued on 21-3-1985. The assessee's plea was that these bonus shares were held for more than 36 months before their sale and the resultant profits were, therefore, long-term capital gains.4. According to the assessing ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »