Delhi Court July 1990 Judgments
Home Cases Delhi 1990 Page 2 of about 91 results (0.020 seconds)D.T.C. Vs. Ram Kumar
Court: Delhi
Reported in: I(1991)ACC164; 1991ACJ872
Mahesh Chandra, J.1. By this order 1 propose to dispose of two appeals F.A.O. No. 141 of 1980 filed by D.T.C. and F.A.O. No. 309/1980 filed by Ram Kumar, injured. Both these appeals arise out of the award given by Mr. H.P. Bagchi, Judge Motor Accident Claims Tribunal whereby a sum of Rs. 56, 773.00 was awarded as compensation to the respondent-injured Ram Kumar for the injuries alleged to have suffered by him in an accident on 4th December, 1975 with D.T.C. bus. In addition the respondent-injured has been granted interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the application till realisation. Both D.T.C. and Ram Kumar feeling aggrieved have come up before this court I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and have gone through the lower court file and after giving my considered thought to the matter before me I have come to the following findings:2. Facts in the matter are not more less disputed. It is not disputed before me that the accident took place on 4th December, 19...
Tag this Judgment!Mohd. Nasim Vs. Union of India Etc.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 45(1991)DLT103; 1992(38)ECC50
Arun B. Saharya, J.(1) By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed for a writ of habeas corpus or any other writ, order or direction in the nature thereof to quash an order dated 17th of August 1990 made by Shri Mahendra Prasad, specially empowered officer of the Central Government, for his detention under Section 3(1) of the Cofeposa Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) with a view to preventing him from smuggling goods. (2) The grounds of detention together with relied upon documents were served upon the petitioner along with the order of his detention. (3) The detention order has been challenged on various grounds. It is, however, unnecessary to enumerate the same as learned Counsel for the petitioner has pressed only one of them at the time of hearing. (4) He has contended that the detention order should be set aside as some of the relied upon documents furnished to the detenu were illegible. The relevant plea taken in ground No. X...
Tag this Judgment!Vee Kay Industries Vs. Collector of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1990)(50)ELT520TriDel
1. M/s. Vee Kay Industries, B-22/1, Wazirpur Industrial Area, Delhi-110052 have filed an appeal being aggrieved from the order passed by the Collector of Central Excise, New Delhi. Briefly the facts of the case are that M/s. Vee Kay Industries are engaged in the manufacture and clearance of Elastic Rail Clips, Cotters and other fabricated items falling under Tariff Item 68 of the Central Excise Tariff.On 16th January, 1986, the Central Excise Officers visited the factory premises of the appellant and resumed the relevant records for scrutiny and investigation. On enquiry the process of manufacture of elastic rail clips had been revealed as under :- "An Iron rod is cut into a required size. Then the rod is put into an oil fired furnace. After it becomes red hot, it is put into a bending machine, which is a horizontal power press, give it a U-shape. The U-shape rod is again put on the horizontal power press to give another U-bend to the rod at a different angle; thereafter the piece is ...
Tag this Judgment!Collector of Central Excise Vs. National Wires and Cables Inds.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (2002)(145)ELT683TriDel
1. The question is whether the refund claim of the respondents is barred by limitation.2. The respondents manufacture copper and copper alloys, bus flat bars, and commutator bars of above 10 m.m. thickness and copper and copper alloys rectangular rods and round rods. They were classified under tariff item 68. The respondents continued to pay duty under tariff item 68 as per the approved price list. The respondents on 10th May, 1978 filed another classification list classifying such flats of more than 10 m.m. under tariff item 68 and claiming assessment under job work charges under Notification No. 119/75, dated 30th April, 1975.3. In pursuance of the order of the Asstt. Collector the respondents filed a refund claim for Rs. 28,730.67 on 10th July, 1979, for the refund of duty paid by them under protest during the period 3rd April, 1978 to 29th September, 1978. A show cause notice was issued proposing to reject the claim as time barred. On receipt of the reply the Asstt.Collector rejec...
Tag this Judgment!C.L. Misra Vs. Nehru Bhawan Trust
Court: Delhi
Reported in: AIR1991Delhi39; 1990(2)ARBLR370(Delhi); 42(1990)DLT290; ILR1990Delhi142; 1990RLR370
ORDER1. C. L. Misra, sole proprietor of M/ s. C. L. Misra & Associates, had entered into a contract with Nehru Bhawan Trust. Certain disputes having arisen between the parties with regard to the said contract, the petitioner had filed a petition under Section 20 of the Arbitration Act for appointment of arbitrator and for reference of the claims of the petitioner for decision to such arbitrator. The Court had allowed the petition on March 12, 1980 and had made reference to the arbitrators to be nominated by the respondent. The two arbitrators, namely, S/Shri K. P. Sharma and S. G. Pradhan had given the non-speaking award dated August 12, 1985, awarding Rs. 77,290/43 p. to the petitioner against the respondent with the directions that the amount be paid within one month failing which the respondent will be required to pay interest @ 12% per annum till payment or on decree whichever is earlier. The petitioner filed the application for filing of the award and for making the award rule of ...
Tag this Judgment!S.A. Builders (P) Ltd. Vs. Delhi Development Authority
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1990(2)ARBLR318(Delhi); 42(1990)DLT499
Arun B. Saharya, J.(1) Suit No. 2346/67 was registered on filing of an award dated 12th of October 1987 along with arbitration proceedings by the arbitrator Shri S.R. Hingorani. Respondent No. 1 filed objections to the award The same were registered as I.A. 1675/88. In the meanwhile, the petitioner also filed an application under Section 17 of the Arbitration Act, praying that the award filed by the arbitrator (Respondent No.2) may be made rule of Court and a decree may be passed in terms thereof with interests and costs. This application was registered as suit No. 278-A/88. Since both the suits relate to the same subject matter, they were connected and proceeding have taken place in suit No. 2346/87. (2) Respondent No. 1 has filed objections to the award, inter alia, on the grounds that the arbitrator has not given any reasons for the award, and that the award suffers from errors apparent on its face. The petitioner has controverter the objections. (3) On 31st of October 1988, the fol...
Tag this Judgment!Uttam Singh Duggal and Co. Ltd. Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1990(2)ARBLR344(Delhi); 43(1991)DLT75
D.P. Wadhwa, J.(1) In this suit for declaration and injunction by this order I am to decide two applications. The first application is of the plaintiff and is under Order 39, Rules I and 2 and Section 151 of the Code of Civil procedure and the second is under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 and has been filed by the defendant. Both the parties have filed their respective replies to these applications. I will record at tile outset that filing of reply to the application of the plaintiff by the defendants was without prejudice to the rights of 'the defendants under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act. ft was so recorded in an earlier order. (2) As the name suggests the plaintiff is a public limited company. The defendants are five in number. Second defendant is the Delhi Administration through the Secretary, Public Works Department, Delhi Administration and the other three defendants are respectively the Chief Engineer, the Superintending Engineer and the Executive Engineer in char...
Tag this Judgment!Chandraswami Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation
Court: Delhi
Reported in: ILR1990Delhi136
M.K. Chawla, J.(1) Sometime in the month of September, 1987, one Lakhubhai Pathak. a non-resident Indian, residing in London forwarded his complaint to the High Commissioner of India, against Shri Chandraswami and his associate/Secretary Shri K. L. Aggarwal .for dishonestly inducing him to part with two cheques totalling Us $ 1,00,000 in a New York hotel on January 4, 1984, as consideration for obtaining some contract for the complainant. The said complaint was forwarded to the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) in or about October 1987 on the basis of which an Fir u/s 420 read with Section 120-B, I.P.C. was registered. (2) Both the accused persons were arrested and later on granted bail by the court by the Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, New Delhi, on 17-2-1988, with the condition that they shall not leave the country without the prior permission of the Court. Later on, they moved an application for modification of the order to the extent that they be permitted to go abroad fo...
Tag this Judgment!Lachho Devi Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1991CriLJ2793
V.B. Bansal, J. (1) Smt. Lahho Devi has filed this appeal thereby challenging her conviction under Sec. 20(Part II) of the Narcotic Drugs & Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter to be referred to as the Act) and the sentence of rigorous imprisonment for 10 years with a fine of Rs. 1,00,000 and to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for one year in case of default in the payment of fine vide judgment and order dated 24th February. 1990 of an Additional Sessions Judge, New Delhi. (2) Shri I. U. Khan appearing for the appellant has submitted that there has been non-compliance of the. mandatory provisions of the Act and there are numerous material discrepancies in the statements of the witnesses. He has further submitted that S.I. Gurdial Singh was inimical towards the appellant and was in search of an occasion to falsely implicate the appellant in a case and immediately on getting such an occasion while officiating as S.H.O. he managed to implicate the appellant in a serious of...
Tag this Judgment!M.A. Pocker Haji Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1990(31)LC708(Delhi)
M.K. Chawla, J.1. In this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner M.A. Pocker Haji is seeking the issuance of a writ of habeas corpus or any other writ, order or direction against the order of his detention dated 20.7.1989 Under Section 3(1)(i) and 3(1)(iii) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 (hereinafter referred to as the COFEPOSA Act), with a view to preventing him from smuggling as well as transporting, concealing and keeping smuggled goods.2. In pursuance of the said order, the petitioner was detained on 31.7.1989 though the grounds of detention were served on 3.8.1989. This preceded an incident when the petitioner after having landed at Bombay was traveling in bus No. MMS 5001 of Amar Tour, plying from Bombay to Tirur. The bus was intercepted on 12.2.1989 by the Special Customs Preventive Unit, Cannore, and the petitioner was allegedly found in possession of 37 gold biscuits weighing 3906.1...
Tag this Judgment!