Delhi Court May 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.
Kaveri Co-operative Group Housing Society Ltd. Vs. Union of India and ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-10-1991
Reported in: AIR1991Delhi217; ILR1992Delhi100; 1991RLR323
ORDERB. N. Kirpal, J.1. This judgment will dispose of a bunch of writ petitions which have been filed by different Group Housing Societies challenging the decision of the Government of India dated 20th Jan. 1990 whereby certain guidelines have been laid down regarding the procedure to be followed by the Delhi Development Authority (respondent No. 3) in the matter of allotment of land to such Societies in Delhi.2. Briefly stated the facts are that prior to 16th July, 1983, for some period of time, the Registrar Co-operative Societies (respondent No. 4) (hereinafter referred to as Registrar) was not registering any Group Housing Society under the provisions of Delhi Co-operative Societies Act, 1972. The reason, presumably, was that there was little chance of these Societies being able to get land for construction.3. Most of the land in Delhi having been frozen at the instance of the Government or the DDA as a result of large scale acquisition of land. It was for the DDA to decide to allo...
Orient Enterprises Vs. Union of India
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-10-1991
Reported in: 44(1991)DLT498; 1992(61)ELT189(Del); ILR1992Delhi94
M.C. Jain, C.J. 1. Rule D.B. 2. The petitioner imported certain items and clearance of the same was sought against three bills of entry. However, after show cause notice was issued and proceedings were initiated, an order was passed against the petitioner, the petitioner deposited the duty, redemption fine and personal penalty on 29-8-1979. The Collector of Customs gave an option to release the goods on payment of Rs. 8 lacs and in addition imposed a penalty of Rs. 2 lacs. By the adjudication order, it was directed that the duty be assessed at US $ 530 per MT c.i.f. as against the tendered value of US $ 360 per MT. The difference in duty in these circumstances came to Rs. 35,000. The full redemption fine and penalty as well as difference in duty was deposited on 29th August, 1979. The petitioner preferred an appeal against the order of adjudication and the appeal came to be ultimately heard by the Central Board of Excise and Customs, New Delhi, which decided the same vide its order dat...
Ratlam Ispat Ltd. Vs. Greaves Feseco Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-10-1991
Reported in: [1991]72CompCas548(Delhi); 1992(22)DRJ31; 1991RLR333
M.C. Jain, C.J.1. This is an appeal under section 482 of the Companies Act, 1959, against the order of the company judge dated August 31,1990, whereby the learned company judge ordered the appellant company to be wound up. 2. The controversy in this appeal is a narrow one. The appellant has no grievance against the winding up of the appellation company. The appellant's grievance is only this; that the company judge should have proceeded to wind up the company under section 20 of the Sick Industrial Companies ( Special Provisions ) Act, 1985. It would be relevant to mention here hat , on June 23,1988, the Board for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction passed and order recommending to this court that the appellant company he wound up. 3. The board sent its opinion under sub-section (1) of section 20 of the Act. According to the appellant, the learned company judge ought to have proceeded to pass the order of winding up under sub-section (2) of section 20 and, thereafter, is required t...
inderpal Singh Etc. Vs. Inder Kaur Etc.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-10-1991
Reported in: 44(1991)DLT399
Usha Mehra, J.(1) These two appeals have arisen out of a common judgment dated 4th March, 1985 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Delhi in Suits No. 16 & 17 of 1984. Regular First Appeal No. 165/85 has been filed by the legal heirs of Late Shri Harnam Singh, (plaintiffs before the trial Court) because their suit for declaration and injunction was dismissed by the impugned judgment. Regular First Appeal No. 164/85 has been filed by them because of the judgment and decree having been passed in favor of respondent no I in her suit for possession and injunction. The question which this Court is called upon to determine is whether any right accrued to plaintiff in the property in dispute on account of codicile and what is the effect of their withdrawal of the suit without permission. So far as R.F.A. No. 164/85 is concerned, we have to consider whether the Court was justified in decreeing the suit of respondent no. I without recalling the order of consigning the suit to record...
Mohd. Ayub @ Gama Vs. Mst. Farhat Jamal
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-10-1991
Reported in: 44(1991)DLT452
Santosh Duggal, J.1. This revision petition is directed against the dismissal of an application filed by the defendant in the suit under Order 1, Rule 10 CPC for impleading Mst. Laceq Sultan as a party to the silicon the allegation that she is the owner of the property for which the rent is claimed by the respondent herein, namely, Smt. Farhat Jamat, as plaintiff in the suit.2. On hearing the matter it is noted that the suit of the plaintiff is for recovery of rent on the allegation that she had purchased this property, where the petitioner was admittedly a tenant, from legal heirs of one Ataur-Rehman, who had allegedly purchased this property from said Smt. Laeeq Sultan.3. The suit is before the Judge, Small Causes Court where no question of title can be gone into. Otherwise also, the nature of the suit is such that the question of title may be incidentally involved only in the limited sense that the plaintiff, shall have to establish her right to claim rent from the defendant in the ...
Universal Cables Ltd. Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: May-09-1991
Reported in: (1991)(56)ELT114TriDel
1. M/s. Universal Cables Ltd., the appellants, imported the following goods - against two Supplementary Import licences dated 7-2-1990 and 14-2-1989.They claimed the benefit of the concessional rate of customs duty as laid down under Notification No. 345/86-Cus dated 16-6-1986 (Sr. No. 45 of the table of the said notification) which has been denied by the lower authorities and hence the appeal.2. The Assistant Collector of Customs rejected the claim of the appellants on the following grounds - (i) Licence No. l/5(8)-5/EEl/61 dated 6-9-1961 for (a) Paper/Metallised polypropylene film capacitors and As per these licences and the details mentioned in the letter No. 1660 (86) IL-SCS dated 20-4-1987 addressed to the importer by the Department of the Industrial Development that plastic film capacitors and power capacitors are two entirely distinct and distinguishable entities.3. In the Import and Export Policy 1988-91, all types of Plastic film capacitors appear under Sr. No. II(6) (ii) of ...
Collector of Central Excise Vs. Andhra Industrial Works
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: May-09-1991
Reported in: (1992)(38)ECC18
1. The Collector of Central Excise, Hyderabad has filed an appeal No.E/2713/84-B1 against the order No. 193 & 194/84 (H) passed by the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), Madras. The appeal is against a common order passed by the Collector (Appeals) disposing of two appeals. The department has filed a supplementary appeal No. 1826 with a prayer for condonation of delay. Since the original appeal was filed in time the delay in filing of the supplementary appeal in condoned.Similarly, appeal No. 756/85-B1 is also against a common Order No. 270 to 272/84 (H) passed by the Collector (Appeals) in respect of three appeals. Accordingly, the department has filed two supplementary, appeals No. E/1790 & 1791/91-Bl alongwith applications for condonation of delay. The original appeal No. 756/85-B1 being in time, the delay in filing these supplementary, appeals is also condoned.2. In these five appeals the same issues have been raised. They are, therefore, disposed of by this common ord...
Fusebase Eltoto Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: May-09-1991
Reported in: (1991)LC456Tri(Delhi)
1. The present Miscellaneous Application emerges from Tribunal's Order Nos. 34-36/90-B1 dated 5th March, 1990. The Miscellaneous Application was received in the Registry on the 7th day of January, 1991. The Miscellaneous Application is supported by an affidavit sworn before a Notary Public. In response to the Miscellaneous Application filed by the applicants, the notice of hearing dated 22nd January, 1991 was sent by Registered AD Post to the applicants, listing the miscellaneous application for hearing on 5lh March, 1991. Shri R.M. Ram-chandani, the learned SDR had appeared on behalf of the respondents and the learned SDR had stated that he had no information in this regard whether the refund has been paid or not and the Bench had directed Shri Ramchandani, the learned SDR to gel the report from the Collector and file copy thereof in the Tribunal with a copy to the other side on the next date of hearing and the matter was adjourned to 24th April, 1991.When the matter was again called...
Sudershan Goel Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-09-1991
Reported in: 44(1991)DLT328; 1991RLR338
M.C. Jain, J.(1) Counsel for the petitioner submits that respondent nos. 5 and 6 may be deleted from the array of respondents. Accordingly, respondents 5 and 6 are deleted from the array of respondents. - (2) By this writ petition, the petitioner seeks a direction restraining the Caretaker Central Government from recommending the imposition of President's Rule in the State of Bihar and there is a further prayer made by the petitioner restraining the Chief Election Commissioner from postponing the election process set in motion in the entire State of Bihar. (3) According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the situation is too imminent that any moment there will be imposition of President's Rule on the advice of the present Caretaker Central Government. He took us through the historical background in which the present Caretaker Government came into existence and submitted that the exercise of such a power or authority by the Caretaker Government would be a mala fide exercise of p...
Union of India Vs. I.S. Goel and Co. and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-09-1991
Reported in: 45(1991)DLT277
C.M. Nayar, J.(1) These writ petitions have been filed by Union of India challenging the common order of the Additional District Judge, Delhi dated 22.2.1979 whereby the Additional District Judge accepted the appeals filed by M/s. I.S. Goel & Co. and M/s. Mehra Motors & Co. and set aside the order of the Estate Officer, Land and Development Officer dated 8.3.1978 ordering M/s. I.S. Goel & Co. to pay Rs. 4.49,223.00 for unauthorised occupation of public premises measuring 2481 sq. yds. situated near Arab-ki-Sarai, Nijamuddin and requiring R.K. Mehra of M/s. Mehra Motors & Co. to pay Khasra Girdavris and Jamabandi were at variance. The Additional District Judge has observed that the question of ownership cannot be decided only by looking at the Jamabandi. The Additional District Judge further observed that the land was purchased by way of a sale deed dated 10.8.1910 and the mutation was effected in the name of Baldev & Others in 1912. Khasra Girdavri entries also indicate that Baij Nath ...
- ‹ Prev
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 15
- Next ›
- Last »