Delhi Court February 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.
Prem Raj Vs. Babu Ram
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-26-1991
Reported in: 1991RLR458
P.K. Bahri, J.(1) [ED facts : Plaintiff obtained plot no. 5/60, W.E.A., Ramjas Road on 27.8.43 and built upon it. Pff. agreed to sell it to Defts. 1 & 2 on 9.2.81 & 14.4.81. He executed two Power-of- Attorneys in favor of Deft. 3 (wife of Deft. 1). Deft. 3 then sold the properly to Defts. 1 & 2 who then sold the same to Deft. 4. Pff. then by a Regd. notice cancelled the Poa in favor of Deft. 3. He then sued Defts. alleging that Dda had refused permission to sell and agreement became frustrated and he was entitled to forfeit money received and possession be restored to him. He filed an application for interim injunction]. After detailing above, order is :(2) The learned counsel for the plaintiff has argued that the pff. had cancelled the power of attorneys executed in favor of deft. No. 3 and thus, deft. No. 3 had no legal right to execute the sale deed in favor of defts. 1 & 2 acting as attorney of the pff. It is not disputed before me that the entire sale consideration had been receiv...
Amarjit Singh and ors. Vs. Pramod Gupta and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-26-1991
Reported in: 43(1991)DLT753; 1991(20)DRJ337
N.N. Goswami, J. (1) This judgment will dispose of RFAs No. 309, 310, 356. 357, 340 and 341. all of 1980 All these appeals are directed against the judgment dated May 20, 1980 passed by the Additional District Judge, Delhi whereby the two references made to the Additional District Judge by the Land Acquisition Collector under Section 31(2) of the Land Acquisition Act were decided. One reference was in respect of award No. 2040 involving 721 bighas and second reference was in respect of award No. 2225 involving 3945 bighas and biswas.(2) There were three sets of claimants before the Additional District Judge, The first set was of Gaon Sabha Masoodpur. The claim of Gaon Sabha was based on the allegations that the land in the awards was lying waste in the year 195054 and as such invested in the Gaon Sabha under orders of the Deputy Commissioner, Delhi in the year 1954, and thereafter by another order of the Deputy Commissioner, Delhi dated 10 3.1966 which was published in the official gaz...
D.L.F. Limited Vs. Union of India (Uoi)
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-26-1991
Reported in: DRJ1991(Supp)426
Usha Mehra, J. 1. Appellant's land measuring 2 bigha 1 bids was situated in Krishna Nagar Extension, Delhi was acquired by Land Acquisition Notification under Section 4 on 8.2.1960. The Collector in his award held that the market value was Rs. 600/- per bigha and passed his awards. The learned Additional District Judge in the reference under Section 18 of the Act raised the compensation amount to Rs. 3,500/- (per Bigha). The appellants had challenged the judgment and decree of the Additional District Judge and has claimed that the compensation be paid at the rate of Rs. 20,000/- per bigha. 2. In support of his claim the appellant had produced Exhibits A-1, A-7 A-9 and A-10 which are sale instances from the same village Krishna Nagar, Ex. A-1 is for Rs. 10/- per square yard, Ex. A-7 is for Rs. 6/-, A-9 for Rs. 7/. and Ex. A 10 for Rs. 6.75 per sq. yard. He has also stated instance from who is called Pandit Park. In the said instance Ex. A-6 is for Rs. 20,000 per bigha. The learned Addit...
Collector of Central Excise Vs. thermit Alloys Pvt. Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Feb-25-1991
Reported in: (1991)LC122Tri(Delhi)
1. The Collector of Central Excise, Belgaum, has filed an appeal being aggrieved from the order passed by the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals). In column No. 3 the date of communication has been mentioned as 24th June, 1985, The said appeal was received in the Registry on the 5th day of November, 1985. In terms of provision of Sub-section (3) of Section 35B of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944, an appeal has to be filed within three months. This means the last date for the filing of the appeal was 25th September, 1985. The appeal was received on 5th November, 1985, thus, there is a delay of one month and eleven days.The notice of hearing dated 12th December, 1990 was sent per registered AD post and the matter was listed for hearing on 28th January, 1991.Shri M.S. Arora, learned JDR, has appeared on behalf of the appellant on the last day of hearing and on Shri Arora's request the matter was adjourned for today, i.e. the 25th day of February, 1991 to enable the appellant to f...
Krishana Sahakari Sakhar Vs. Collector of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Feb-25-1991
Reported in: (1991)(55)ELT411TriDel
1. These two appeals arise out of a common order of the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), Bombay, dated 30-11-1989. Facts, in brief, are that both the appellants are Registered Co-operative Society having three separate units, viz. a Sugar Factory manufacturing Sugar and Molasses, a Distillery where ethyl alcohol is manufactured from molasses and an Acetone Plant to manufacture Acetone from Ethyl Alcohol. They are preparing proforma invoices for the removal of Molasses from sugar factory to the distillery and for the removal of Ethyl Alcohol to the Acetone Plant and the transactions between the three divisions are made at the prices fixed by the Government of India under the Molasses Control Order, 1961 and Ethyl Alcohol Price Control Order, 1971.The Govt. of India introduced a new scheme 'money credit' of Ethyl Alcohol under the provisions of Section AAA to Chapter V of Central Excise Rules, 1944 vide Notification 231/87, dated 1-10-1987. The appellants, herein, started availing...
Collector of Central Excise Vs. Hindustan Pencils (P) Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Feb-25-1991
Reported in: (1991)LC415Tri(Delhi)
1. The issue for determination in the present appeal is whether Bindi and Eye Brow Pencils manufactured by the respondents could be treated as preparations for the care of the skin and consequently be held to fall under Item No. 14F(i) of the erstwhile Central Excise Tariff Schedule of 1944. The Collector (Appeals), by the impugned order dated 6-11-1986, held that the goods did not fall under the said item and accordingly set aside the Assistant Collector's order classifying them under the said item. It is this order which is now challenged in the instant appeal.2. The subject goods had been approved for classification under Item No. 68 of the Tariff Schedule prior to 30-9-1981. However, while according approval to classification list No. 2/81 the Assistant Collector of Central Excise had ordered the classification of the subject goods under Item No. 14F(i) with effect from 30-9-1981. The ground put forth in the instant appeal is that the Collector (Appeals) had erred in holding that ...
Shri Bhairav Nath Vs. Central Board of Education and Others
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-25-1991
Reported in: AIR1991Delhi232; 43(1991)DLT688
ORDER1. The petitioner, a student of Government Boys Senior Secondary School, New Police Lines, Delhi, appeared for the 10th class examination conducted by respondent No. 1 - Central Board of Secondary Education, Delhi in March 1990. His Roll No. was 471819. The petitioner appeared in the said examination at the Centre in Government Boys Senior Secondary School No. 2 Roop Nagar, Delhi. The petitioner appeared in all the examination papers offered by him from 15th March 1990 to 30th March 1990 as per the date-sheet issued by respondent No. 1. The last paper in which the petitioner appeared was in Mathematics held on 30th March 1990. It is alleged by the petitioner that the result of the examination was declared on 4th June 1990 by respondent No. 1. When the petitioner went to find out about his result, he found that a remark 'Result withheld' was mentioned against his Roll Number. He, thereforee, made frantic efforts to find out why his result was withheld. The Petitioner thereafter rec...
Vijay Bank Vs. Sansu Industries and Others
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-25-1991
Reported in: [1993]76CompCas652(Delhi)
R.L. Gupta, J.1. The plaintiff bank has filed this suit under Order 37 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 ('the Code' for short), for recovery of Rs. 2,05,120.59 with costs and interest against the defendants. Defendant No. 1 is alleged to be a firm carrying on business in partner ship at C-4/145, Safdarjung Enclave, New Delhi- 110016 with defendants Nos. 2 and 3 as its partners. Defendants No 4 is stated to be the guarantor and husband of defendant No. 3. It is alleged that, in September, 1976, defendant No. 1 requested the plaintiff-bank for grant of certain facilities like term loan for purchases of machinery and hypothecation limit for working capital requirements. The plaintiff-bank, by its letter dated September 25, 1976, granted secured loan of Rs. 80,000 on hypothecation of machinery purchased and to be purchased and overdraft facility by way of open cash credit up to a limit of Rs. 75,000 on the hypothecation to stock In consideration of the secured lan facility, defendants ...
Hira Lall and Sons Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-25-1991
Reported in: (1991)95CTR(Del)225; [1991]190ITR408(Delhi)
M.C. Jain C.J.1. By these reference applications, the petitioner seeks a direction to the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal to state the case in respect of questions Nos. 1 to 15 framed by the petitioner in its reference applications as the same arise out of the order of the Tribunal. We are not stating all the questions mentioned in the applications as, during the course of the arguments, learned counsel for the applicants has confined his submissions in relation to the following two questions : '1. Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was legally correct and justified in law in upholding the disallowance of Rs. 23,196 out of the total payment of Rs. 79,996 made to Shri K. R. Sharma 2. Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was legally correct and justified in law in upholding the disallowance of Rs. 32,770 by invoking the provisions of section 36(1)(iii) 2. Shri C. S. Aggarwal, learned counsel for the appellant,...
Transworld Shipping Service (P) Ltd. Vs. Central Warehousing Corporati ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-25-1991
Reported in: 43(1991)DLT588; 1991(33)ECC114
M.L. Verma, J.(1) This order will dispose of the above Civil Miscellaneous Petition for interim relief seeking a direction to respondent No. 1 to destuff the container No. CTIU-4419530 and release and deliver the same to the petitioners. (2) The petitioners have filed the above writ petition in which rule nisi has been issued. Apart from seeking the relief of release of the container, it has also been prayed in the writ petition that respondents 1 and 2 be directed not to make a claim of ground rent or such other charges against the petitioners, because according to the petitioner, it was not liable to pay the same. (3) Some relevant facts necessary for disposing of this application may be noticed here. The petitioner is a. registered company which inter-alia carries on the business of shipping, brokers and clearing agents. It is stated that 103 and 33 woollen bales were imported by two parties of Panipat namely M/s. Aggarwal Woollen Spinning and Weaving Mills and M/s. Jindal Woollen I...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »