Delhi Court December 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.
Management of Municipal Corporation of Delhi Vs. Workman and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-16-1991
Reported in: 47(1992)DLT113
Sunanda Bhandare, J.(1) The question involved in the writ petitionis very short and can be disposed of at show cause stage. We, thereforee, directthat the writ petition be listed for final hearing on 9/01/1992 as lastitem in after Notice Miscellaneous Matters.(2) By order dated 25.4.1989 this Court had granted ex-pane stay ofthe Award. However, in view of Section 17-B, we are of the view that therespondent-workman should be allowed to work as Daily Wager with the petitioner till the disposal of the writ petition. The respondent-workman willreport for duty on 20/12/1991. The order dated 25.4.1989 is modified to that extent....
Mahindra Sintered Products Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Dec-13-1991
Reported in: (1992)(58)ELT353TriDel
1. At the outset the learned DR raised two preliminary objections when we took up the appeal for hearing. His first objection relates to the raising of an additional ground in the form of a letter of 5th October, 1988 by Dr. B.K. Agarwal of the Department of Metallurgical Engineering. IIT, Bombay who has given his opinion as an Author and Expert wherein he has stated categorically that the appellants' products cannot be considered as thin-walled bearings and that the documents from the book entitled "Engineering Materials and Metallurgy" which has been relied upon by the Department does not contain any discussion or passages which arc relevant for deciding whether the bearings manufactured by the appellants are thin-walled bearings or not. The objection is that the additional ground has not been raised in a separate application which is a requirement of Rule 23 and as a result the Department loses its opportunity to rebut the ground which has been raised directly in the appeal memo. T...
Gwalior Sugar Co. Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Dec-13-1991
Reported in: (1992)(59)ELT482TriDel
1. Being dissatisfied with the demand of duty on filter bags and imposition of penalty as detailed out in the impugned Order, the appellants have filed their present appeal.2. Shortly put the facts of the case are that the appellants M/s.Gwalior Sugar Co. Ltd. are manufacturers of Sugar and Molasses falling under Chapter 17 of CET, 1985. A show cause notice dated 14-8-1989 was issued to the appellants calling upon them to show cause as to why the Central Excise duty amounting to Rs. 1,95,459.91 be not demanded from them on the allegation that they consumed 10,359 Filter bags manufactured out of 23,307.320 mtrs. of Polyproplene cloth purchased by them from the market during the period 1-3-1986 to 15-5-1989 and also to show cause as to why penalty be not imposed upon them. In reply, the appellants submitted that they purchased polypropylene cloth from the market and no filter cloth bags as such were manufactured by them. They only cut and stitch the cloth purchased from the manufacturer...
Air Control and Chemical Engg. Co. Vs. Collector of C. Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Dec-13-1991
Reported in: (1993)(66)ELT663TriDel
1. Air Control & Chemical Engineering Co. Ltd., Barejadi, District Ahmedabad has filed an appeal being aggrieved from the order passed by the Collector of Central Excise, Ahmedabad. The said appeal was presented in the Registry on 15th January, 1990. Thereafter, a stay application duly supported with an affidavit was presented on 10th October, 1991. Shri Kapil Sibal, Senior Advocate with Shri K.S.Nanavati and Yashwant Adiyal, Advocates have appeared on behalf of the applicant. The matter had come up for hearing on 24th October, 1991.Shri K.S. Nanavati, the learned advocate had argued on behalf of the applicant and he had reiterated the facts and contentions made in the stay application. Shri Nanavati had argued that the show cause notice was issued on 17th November, 1987 and it pertains to the period 1st November, 1982 to 31st March, 1986 and the applicant had challenged the show cause notice issued by the revenue authorities before the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court and was admitted ...
ScIndia Potteries and Services Ltd. and ors. Vs. Land Acquisition Coll ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-13-1991
Reported in: 46(1992)DLT77
P.K. Babri, J. (1) We had heard arguments in order to decide whether rule nisi be issued in this writ petition or not. A show-cause notice was issued to respondents and counter affidavits and the Rajenders have been filed. There is an application filed by Scindia Investment Pvt. Ltd. for being joined as a party in the case but it is not necessary to allow the said application. We have heard the arguments and find there is no merit in this writ petition. (2) A notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act in respect of the land in question was issued on June 3, 1988 and a declaration under Section 6 was issued on September 6, 1988. After following the other procedure under the Land Acquisition Act, an award dated September 4. 1990 was made and announced. It Is evident that if date of pronouncement of award is September 4, 1990, then the same having been made within two years, as required by Section 11A of the Act is within time. The learned Counsel for the petitioner, Sh. P.N...
Shrisht Dhawan Vs. Shaw Brothers
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-13-1991
Reported in: 1992(23)DRJ45; 1992RLR97
T.K. Thommen, J. (1) Leave granted. The scope of S. 21 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 has been considered by this Court in a number of decisions. [Shiv Chander Kapoor v. Amar Bose, ; Inder Mohan Lal v. Ramesh Khanna : [1987]3SCR765 ; Subhash Kumar Lata v. R.C. Chhiba : AIR1989SC458 ; V.S. Rahi v. Smt. Ram Chambeli, : [1984]2SCR290 ; J.R. Vohra v. India Export House : [1985]2SCR899 ; Yamuna Maloo v. Anand Swarup : [1990]1SCR715 ; Pankaj Bhargava v. Mohinder Nath : AIR1991SC1233 ; Smt. Dhanwanti v. D.D.Gupta : [1986]3SCR18 ; S.B. Noronah v. Prem Kumari Khanna : [1980]1SCR281 ; Pukhraj Jain v. Padma Kashyap : [1990]2SCR25 ]. (2) The Section embodies the legislative policy to devise a special mechanism to increase the supply of accommodation to meet the rising demands of a growing metropolis. It operates in limited circumstances; and, strictly within those bounds, and subject to the vigilant enquiry of the Controller before according his permission, the parties are, once permitted to ...
Indian Airlines Vs. Airlines CabIn Crew Assn. and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-13-1991
Reported in: (1994)IILLJ587Del
S.C. Jain, J.1. Indian Airlines, petitioner herein, by way of this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has challenged the reference made by the Ministry of Labour, Government of India, for adjudication of an alleged industrial dispute between the petitioner and Airlines Cabins Crew Association, respondent 2 herein. As per the case of the petitioner, its employees are represented by Air Corporation Employees Union, hereinafter referred to as ACEU, which is recognised by the petitioner to be the sole bargaining agent in respect of various service conditions of various categories of employees including cabin crew and flight steward. As per the case of the petitioner, a settlement was signed by ACEU and the petitioner on October 5, 1987 in conciliation in respect of terms and conditions of service of the workmen including that of cabin crew. On May 8, 1987, the ACEU submitted a charter of demands to the petitioner in respect of terms and conditions of service of va...
C.L. Gupta and Sons Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Dec-12-1991
Reported in: (1992)(41)LC36Tri(Delhi)
1. M/s. C.L. Gupta & Sons have filed an appeal being aggrieved from the order passed by the Additional Collector of Customs, New Delhi. The said appeal was received in the Registry on 23.9.1991. Thereafter, the appellant has submitted a stay application which was received in the Registry on 10.10.1991. Shri J.S. Agarwal, the learned advocate, has appeared on behalf of the appellant and pleaded that the applicant has imported Nickel Silver Residue and the same goods were cleared by payment of Rs. 2,03,684/- towards duly as assessed under Tariff Item No. 2620.90 and a sample of the imported goods was drawn after executing a test bond. A show cause notice was issued to the appellant on 3.12.1988 on the basis of the test analysis report and the goods were reassessed treating them as Copper waste and scrap under heading 74.04. He also referred to the show cause notice which appears on page 24 of the paper book. He pleaded that no analysis report was supplied with the show cause notice ...
Bank of Baroda Vs. Thapar Traders and Others
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-12-1991
Reported in: [1993]76CompCas680(Delhi)
Usha Mehra, J.1. The application of the plaintiff in which he sought that the abatement, if any, against defendant No. 3 be set aside, inter alia, on the grounds that defendant No. 3, Shri Joginder Lal, died on October 19, 1990. Knowledge of his death came to the notice of the plaintiff-bank on January 22, 1991. Immediately thereafter, the application for bringing the legal representatives of the said defendant was filed on January 25, 1990, and thereafter, on the filing of the reply by the defendants, the present application was filed in order to avoid any technical objection. 2. The facts of the case are that the plaintiff-bank filed a suit for recovery against Messrs. Thapar Traders of which Shri Ravinder Kumar Thapar, defendant No. 2, is the sole proprietor and Shri Joginder Lal, defendant No. 3, is the guarantor. The notice of the suit was issued to the defendants and they were duly served. All the three defendants were represented by Mr. G. L. Rawal, Advocate. They filed their wr...
Kulbir Singh Srikant Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-12-1991
Reported in: 1991(1)DRJ(Suppl)487
Usha Mehra, J. (1) This order will dispose of an application filed by the petitioner for restoration of this case, which was dismissed in default on 8th November, 1990. The petitioner had filed this probate case against the respondent but after the institution of the suit, the respondent filed the written statement and the time was given to the petition for filing the rejoinder. Neither the rejoinder was filed nor any one on behalf of the petitioner put in appearance. Consequent upon which the suit was dismissed for non-prosecution. On 14th March, 1991, the present application was filed.(2) This application has been contested by the respondent inter-alia on the ground that the suit was dismissed for non-prosecution, thereforee, the remedy for the petitioner was to file an appeal Moreover, no sufficient cause has been shown for the restoration of the same nor the petition is supported by a proper affidavit.. I have perused the record. Admittedly, the word used white dismissing the suit ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »