Delhi Court November 1991 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.
Delhi Transport Corporation Vs. Delhi Administration and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-19-1991
Reported in: 46(1992)DLT109
Mahinder Narain, J.(1) Let this application under Section 17-B of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, be numbered. (2) Section 17-B of the Industrial Disputes Act 1947 reads as under section : 17-B. Payment of full wages to workman pending proceedings in higher Courts. Where in any case a Labour Court, Tribunal or National Tribunal by its award directs reinstatement of any workman and the employer prefers any proceedings against such award in a High Court or the Supreme Court, the employer shall be liable to pay such workman, during the period of pendency of such proceedings in the High Court or the Supreme Court, full wages last drawn by him, inclusive of any maintenance allowance admissible to him under any rule if the workman had not been employed in any establishment during such period and an affidavit by such workman had been filed to that effect in such Court: Provided that where it is proved to the satisfaction of the High Court or the Supreme Court that such workman had been emp...
Laiq Ahmed Vs. Anglo Arabic Higher Secondary School and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-19-1991
Reported in: 46(1992)DLT11; 1991(1)DRJ(Suppl)123
R.L. Gupta, J.(1) The appellant in this second appeal filed a suit against the respondents, challenging an order passed by the Anglo Arabic Hr. Sec. School, respondent No 1 through its Secretary Mirza Mahmood Beg, respondent 4, terminating his services as a teacher in the aforesaid school being malicious, illegal, ultra virus and unsustainable in law and a declaration that he continues in service. In addition, he claimed Rs. 2785.00 on account of arrears of his pay and Rs. 80.00 on account of loss of interest on Provident Fund or in the alternative by way of damages of wrongful and malicious termination of the services.(2) His case in short was that he was holding a permanent post as Assistant Teacher in the aforesaid school and as such was governed by the provisions of Punjab Education Code as amended and adopted by the Chief Commissioner of Delhi. He claimed to have been illegally suspended by the school authorities with effect from 26.8.60 and then illegally dismissed from service w...
Beli Ram Malhotra and ors. Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-19-1991
Reported in: 1(1992)ACC1
P.N. Nag, J.1. This appeal is directed, against the order dated 27th January, 1988 passed by Smt. Mamta Sehgal, Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal whereby the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs. 42,000/- to the appellants. The amount was to be paid to the appellants as per the directions issued therein.2. Being aggrieved against this order dated 27th January, 1988, the appellants have filed the present appeal and prayed for enhancement of compensation along with interest at the rate of 18% per annum from the date of accident till realisation.3. The appeal was placed before the lok Adalat on 7th July, 1991 and the parties voluntarily agreed to resolve the controversies before the Court amicably. They also agreed to abide by the terms and conditions of the Lok Adalat Settlement and re-affirm the settlement made therein before the Court. The case was settled on the terms and conditions that the interest on the awarded amount of Rs. 42,000/- be paid at the rate of 12% per annum with effec...
Collector of Central Excise Vs. I.T.C. Limited
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Nov-18-1991
Reported in: (1993)(67)ELT852TriDel
1. The short question to be decided in these five appeals is whether the respondents could claim the benefit of set-off of duty on use of duty paid material under Notification 178/77-C.E., dated 18-6-1977 as amended by Notification 295/77-CE., dated 28-9-1977 by way of a claim for refund. All these appeals were heard together and are being disposed of by this common order.2. The respondents were using filter rods, on which duty was paid under Item 68 of the erstwhile Central Excise Tariff, in the manufacture of cigarettes during the period 1-6-1978 to 31-10-1979. As many as four claims were submitted between December, 1978 and December, 1979 to the Assistant Collector, Central Excise, Saharanpur claiming refund of duty paid on the filter rods used in the manufacture of cigarettes on the ground that set-off of duty paid on filter rods was permissible under Notification 178/77 as amended by Notification 295/77. The Assistant Collector rejected all the four claims on the ground that set-...
Chawla T. Construct Vs. Punjab National Bank
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-18-1991
Reported in: 1992(2)ARBLR51(Delhi); I(1992)BC569; 1992RLR70
Y.K. Sabharwal, J.(1) [ED. facts : Plaintiff, constructed a building of Deft. Bank and gave final bill of more than Rs.31 lakh. On 21.12.87, the Architect duly certified it for about Rs. 231/2lakh. On 3.5.90, pff. sent a notice demanding this amount and also asked for arbitration. Deft. did not reply this notice. Nor it invoked arbitration clause in the agreement between parties. Pff. then filed instant suit. Deft. applied for its stay u/S 34, Arbitration Act]. After detailing above, Judgment is : (2) An order staying proceeding u/S 34 of the Act can only be made if requirements of the section are fulfillled. One of the requirement ment is that the deft. seeking stay of the suit has to satisfy the court that he was at the time when the proceedings were commenced and at the time when the application for stay is made and till its decision remained ready and willing to do all things necessary to the proper conduct of the arbitration. It is implicit in S. 34 that the deft. has to make a sp...
Kanhaiya Lal Yadav Vs. Municipal Corporation of Delhi and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-18-1991
Reported in: 1991(1)DRJ(Suppl)144
S.C. Jain, J.(1) The short question involved in this writ petition is whether the petitioner, Kanhaiya Lal Yadav who was appointed as Watchman/Chowkidar (re-designated) as Security Guard) in the pre-revised pay scale of Rs. 196-232 and in the revised scale of Rs. 750-940 by Municipal Corporation of Delhi is to be retired on attaining the age of 58 years or 60 years. (2) There is no doubt about the fact that for the purposes -of service, t he petitioner is governed by the Municipal Corporation Service Regulations, 1959 and Regulation 4 of the said regulations makes fundamental rules applicable to the service conditions of the employees of the respondents. (3) F.R.56(A) as contained in Chapter Ix of the Fundamental Rules and Supplementary Rules provides that 'Except as otherwise provided in this rule, every Government Servant shall retire from service on the afternoon of the last day of the month in which he attains the age of fifty eight years. However, by virtue of sub-clause (b) a Wor...
R.L. Kapoor Vs. the Minerals and Metals Trading Corporation Af India L ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-18-1991
Reported in: ILR1992Delhi707
D.P. Wadhwa, J.(1) This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution. The petitioner, who at the relevant time was working as Deputy General Manager of the first respondent (the M.M.T.C.). seeks issue of a writ, order or direction quashing the order of dismissal dated 27 June, 1991 passed by the first respondent against him and then also seeks all consequential benefits. There is a further prayer that rule 30(ii) of the Minerals and Metals Trading Corporation of India Limited Employees Conduct, Discipline and Appeal Rules, 1975, be declared as ultra virus the Constitution. Under this rule disciplinary authority may impose any of the penalties specified in the Rules where the Board of Directors of the first respondent is satisfied for reasons to be recorded in writing that it is not reasonably practicable to hold an inquiry in the manner provided in the Rules. (2) There are three respondents. First respondent (the M.M.T.C.) is the Minerals and Metala Trading Corporation of India ...
Surinder Singh Arora Vs. Hari Raj Sharma
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-18-1991
Reported in: 46(1992)DLT1; 1992(22)DRJ127
(1) In this petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the order passed by the Rent Control Tribunal on 23rd January, 1991, whereby he directed the tenant/petitioner to deposit the arrears of rent from October, 1981 to February, 1988 at the rate of Rs. 2,000.00 per month at which rate the rent was last paid and thereafter with effect from March 1, 1989 at the rate of Rs. 2200.00 per month and to pay future rent month by month by 15th of each succeeding month at the rate of Rs. 2200.00 per month. The respondent was given one month's time to pay the arrears of rent. (2) The relationship between the landlord and the petitioner is admitted. It is not in dispute that the premises in dispute were originally let out in the year 1981 for a period of four years under Section 21 of the Delhi Rent Control Act and the rate of rent at that time was Rs. 1650.00 per month. After the expiry of the limited period of tenancy, the petitioner was allowed t...
BhasIn Associates Ltd. Vs. Hyundai Heavy Industries Co. Ltd. and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-15-1991
Reported in: 1992(22)DRJ238
Sat Pal, J.(1) This appeal is directed against the order dated 4th April, 1991 passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court in is 11649/90 in Suit No. 3908/90.(2) The facts which are relevant for the purpose of deciding this appeal briefly stated are that respondent No. I entered into correct with Northern Coal Fields limited (hereinafter referred to as NCL), a subsidiary of Coal India Limited, for construction of Dudhichua Coal Handling Plant for a value of over Rs.42.75 crores. Respondent No. 1 in turn entered into two sub-contracts - one with the appellant and the other with M/s. Icb Limited. The sub- contract with the appellant dated 15th December, 1987 comprised, inter alia, of designing, engineering, supplies, civil and structural work of the value of Rs.l2,63,84,800.00 . In terms of the aforesaid sub-contract dated 15th December, 1987, the appellant was required to furnish a performance guarantee in favor of respondent No. I for 10 per cent of the value of the sub-contract and...
Elephenta Oil and Vanaspati Industries Ltd. Vs. Union of India
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-15-1991
Reported in: 46(1992)DLT3
Satpal, J.(1) Rule D.B. (2) In the present Writ petition the petitioner has prayed for a direction to the respondents to pay to the petitioner Interest at the rate of 17.5% per annum on the amount of Rs. 1,09, 60,000.00 from the date of deposit till the date of refund. (3) The facts of the case as briefly stated are that the petitioner imported about 4961.501 MTs inedible beef tallow of certain specifications of the value of Rs. 2,32,15,852.00 (4) The Collector of Customs, Bombay (respondent No. 2) by his order of redemption dated 28.3.1983 held that the said goods were liable to beconfiscated under Section 111(d) of the Customs Act, 1962 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). However, the Collector gave option to redeem the goods on payment of redemption fine of Rs. 1,09, 60,000.00 . The petitioner deposited the aforesaid amount of redemption fine for the delivery of the goods. The petitioner, however, preferred an appeal under Section 129 of the Act before the Customs, Excise & Gold...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- 7
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »