Delhi Court March 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.
Dhan Raj Jethwani Vs. Union of India
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-06-1991
Reported in: 1991RLR431
P.K. Bahri, J.(1) [ED. facts : Petitioner filed an application u/Ss. 14 & 17 of Arbitration Act on 20.9.82 for directing Arbitrators, Respdts. 2 & 3 to file the award dt. 6.8.82. Respdt. 3 filed the proceedings stating the award was handed over to the petitioner on 6.8.82. U.O.I. filed objections contending that application was barred by time, that arbitrators did not appoint Umpire as agreed and also as required by R. 2 of 1st Schedule of the Act and that award was not properly stamped. One of the arbitrators filed an affidavit that original award was given to petitioner on 6.8.82. The Court believed this and held that as application u/Ss. 14, 17 was not filed within a month, same was barred.] After detailing above, Judgment is :-(2) Another objection raised in the objection petition is that the arbitration clause appearing in the contract contemplated appointment of an Umpire before the two arbitrators were to enter upon reference and as no Umpire was appointed at any time, the award...
Sudesh Mahajan Vs. Rattan Kumar
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-06-1991
Reported in: 1991(2)ARBLR115(Delhi); 44(1991)DLT171
B.N. Kirpal, J. (1) This is an appeal against the order of the learned Single Judge who allowed the respondent's application under Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 Cpc and dismissed the appellant's application under Order 39 Rule 4 Civil Procedure Code and restrained the appellant herein from dispossessing the respondent from the suit premises bearing No. 58/105, Sahyog Building, Nehru Place, New Delhi. (2) Briefly stated, the facts are that the appellant herein had filed a suit under Section 20 of the Arbitration Act, being Suit No. 831-A/85. It was alleged in the said suit that there was a partnership deed dated 15th February 1980 which was executed between the appellant and the respondent whereby a partnership firm known as Messrs. Royal Enterprizes was formed. It was contended that the partnership had been dissolved when a notice dated 8th April, 1985 had been given and the respondent had been called upon to give vacant and peaceful possession of the suit premises to the appellant herein in te...
Raghbir Singh and anr. Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-06-1991
Reported in: 1991CriLJ2908; 44(1991)DLT253; 1991(20)DRJ410
Arun B. Saharya, J. (1) This appeal was filed by Raghbir Singh and Bhuro against their conviction and sentence under Section 376 and Section 366, Indian Penal Code respectively by a judgment and order dated 21st of October 1976 of Shri Joginder Nath, Additional District and Sessions Judge, Delhi. During the pendency of the appeal, Raghbir died on 8th of October 1982. So, the appeal survives only in respect of Bhuro I would, thereforee, deal with such facts as may have a bearing upon Bhuro's case. (2) On 24th of May 1971 at 9.25 p.m.. Asha Ram Public Witness -2 reported to the police station Rajinder Nagar, that while he and his wife were away to work, their minor daughter Urmila, aged about 15 years, went out to the jungle at about 1.30 pm. to ease herself. From there, without his consent, she was enticed away by the Raghbir. who was living in the neighborhood. He and his wife Kirpa Devi, Public Witness 5 learnt about this from some ladies living near-by. They searched for Urmila, but ...
H.B. Prabhu Vs. Oriental Bank of Commerce and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-06-1991
Reported in: 1991LabIC1954; (1992)IILLJ568Del
Leila Seth, J.(1) These two writ petitions have been filed by Mr. H. B. Prabhu and Mr. Vasant Ayyar, challenging the order dated 7th November, 1984, terminating their services. The said orders have been passed by the Chairman and Managing Director of the Oriental Bank of Commerce under Regulation 20 of the Oriental Bank of Commerce (Officer's) Regulations, 1982. (2) The facts briefly stated are that the Oriental Bank of Commerce started an international banking division after obtaining permission in 1978 from the Reserve Bank of India, to deal in foreign exchange. Mr. Prabhu, who had earlier been working since 1961 in the Canara Bank mainly in 'the foreign department' joined the Oriental Bank of Commerce in early 1979 to work in the international banking division as the Chief Officer. The said division was under the overall charge of Mr. S. C. Singhal, Deputy General Manager. Mr. Vasant Ayyar, who was already working in the Oriental Bank of Commerce was inducted into the international ...
Rama Kapur Vs. Income Tax Development Corporation
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-06-1991
Reported in: 1991RLR234
B.N. Kirpal, J.(1) RULE. D.B. The challenge in this W.P. is mainly to two actions of the respondent Corp. Firstly, the petitioner is challenging her seniority vis-a-vis with those of respondents 4 and 5 and the second challenge is to the respondent Corp. not considering the petitioner as being eligible for being promoted to the next higher post of Senior Manager in the Corp.(2) Briefly stated, the facts are that the petitioner as well as the respondents 4 and 5 are employees of the respondent Corporation. Their details of employment are as follows : Mrs. Rama Kapoor, Graduate, 26.8 67 -Appointed Asstt. Manager (Rs 425-800). 1.8.74-Promoted Senior Asstt. (550-900). Nov. 83-Promoted Asstt. Manager (Rs. 700-1300). 25.7.90-Promoted Manager (1100-1600). C.P.S. Pillai, Non-Graduate, resp. 4 Nov. 69-Appointed in scale Rs. 330-560. 19.9.76-Promoted Senior Asstt. (Rs. 550-900). Sept. 86-Promoted Manager (Rs. 1:00-1600). Sh. A K. Roman, Graduate, resp. 5 June 69-Appointed Jr. Steno (Rs. 330-500)...
Collector of Central Excise Vs. P.M.T. Machine Tools
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Mar-05-1991
Reported in: (1992)(39)ECC165
1. Collector of Central Excise and Customs, Pune had filed the above captioned appeals before the West Regional Bench, Bombay, being aggrieved from the orders passed by the Collector of Central Exise (Appeals), Bombay. The matter had come up for hearing before the West Regional Bench, Bombay and the West Regional Bench Bombay vide order No. 1686-87/88 WRB dated 2nd December, 1988 had placed the matter before the Hon'ble the President for constitution of a Larger Bench to resolve the conflict and the Hon'ble President has referred the matter to this Bench. Since the issue involved in both the appeals is common, the same are being disposed of by this common order.2. The facts of both the appeals are similar. For the sake of brevity the facts in respect of appeal No. 42/84 are being given below :- 3. M/s. P.M.T. Machine Tools Automatics Pvt. Ltd., Pune-18 had made an application for refund of Rs. 11,061.30 on the ground that some of the parts/components of the machines on which they had ...
Shital Parshad JaIn Vs. Union of India and Others
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-05-1991
Reported in: AIR1991Delhi253
ORDERM. C. Jain, C. J.1. The petitioners in the afore said four writ petitions have sought a declaration that the Governor General's Order No. 179 of 1836 is not law or law in force or existing law. There are other prayers as well but the learned counsel for the petitioners has confined his arguments in respect of the aforesaid prayer only, although, inter alia, the petitioners have also sought a declaration that notice of resumption issued under the aforesaid order to the petitioners for resumption of the grant is illegal and null and void and that the notices may be quashed. The two writ petitions relate to the bungalows situated in Jullundur cantonment, and the two bungalows are situated in the Agra Cantonment in the other two writ petitions. According to the respondents, the land comprised in these bungalows are held by the petitioners and their predecessors in interest under the 'Old Grant' tenure or term. So, they are liable to be resumed under the Governor General's Order in Cou...
Urmil Mallk Vs. National Savings Organisation
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-05-1991
Reported in: 1991RLR256
Mahinder Narain, J.(1) Before dealing with the case on merits. I have to deal with I.A.2281/89 u/S. 5 of the Limitation Act has been filed by National Savings Organisation (NSO) for condoning the delay in filing objections to the award. In this application, it is stated that notice was served on 3.2.1989 and objections could not be filed on 1.3.1989 as the filing counter was closedat4.10p.m. However, from objections which are on record the date of filing is 1.3.1989. Apparently it was under objections and it was refiled on 17.3.1989. (2) Normally time which is given to refile the petition after removing objections by the registry, according to the practice in this Court is 7 days. The objections have apparently been filed after the time which is normally allowed. There is no reply to this application as copy of this application had not been given To the opposite counsel. In any case I have heard Mr. Verghese on his objections and I intend to deal with these objections in my order on me...
Schokhi Industrials Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Mar-04-1991
Reported in: (1991)(34)ECC103
1. The issue to be decided in these appeals is whether de-oiled rice-bran and soya bean meal exported by the appellants were liable to Export Duty as Animal Feed under Item 21 of the Second Schedule to the Customs Tariff Act, 1975. The lower authorities have held that they were liable to pay Export Duty as Animal Feed under the Tariff Item Supra, 2. We have heard Shri Rohit Tandon, learned advocate for the appellants and Smt. V. Zutshi, learned Departmental Representative for the respondent. The learned advocate has argued that the appellants exported 10 consignments of de-oiled rice-bran and soya bean meal.De-oiled rice-bran meal was exported in February, 1977 and soya bean meal was exported during 1977 to August, 1978. The goods were exported on payment of Export Duty as Animal Feed under Item 21 of the Second Schedule to the Customs Tariff Act, 1975. They filed applications claiming refund of duty. The applications were rejected by the Assistant Collector of Customs holding that th...
Charan Kamal Card Board and Paper Vs. Collr. of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Mar-04-1991
Reported in: (1991)(55)ELT231TriDel
1. Both appeals involve common issues and hence heard together and disposed of by a common order.2. E/A/2095/88 - arises out of the order of the Collector of Central Excise levying duty on clandestine removal of 87.900 tonnes duplex paper during the period January to June 1985 and E/A/49/89 - has been preferred against the order of imposition of penalty for the same offence.3. We have heard Shri Harbans Singh, learned Advocate and Shri S.K.Sharma, learned JDR.4. The demand for duty is based upon figures of production of duplex paper from January to June 1985 as reported by the appellant to the Development Officer of the Directorate General of Technical Development as follows": The Chartered Accountant's certificate of 15-10-1985 showed the following figures :(a) 1983 (July to December 1983) - 68.91 tonnes(b) 1984 (January to December 1984) - 195.33 tonnes(c) 1985 (January to June 1985) - 203.10 tonnes The figure of 203.1 did not tally with the figure of 143.100 tonnes in the RG 1 Regi...
- ‹ Prev
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 13
- Next ›
- Last »