Delhi Court November 1993 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.
Hilda Basant Lal Vs. Basant Lal
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-09-1993
Reported in: 52(1993)DLT286; I(1994)DMC185
P.N. Nag, J.(1) In the petition under Sections 22 and 23 of the Indian Divorce Act. (hereinafter referred to as the Act), the petitioner (wife)has prayed for judicial separation and also for grant of permanent alimony under Section 37 of the Act, to the extent of Rs. 60 lakhs, which would be about half of the respondent's income.(2) Along with the petition under Sections 22 and 23 of the Act, the petitioner has also filed the present application, being is 12407/92, under Sections 27 and 28 of the Act, seeking restraint order against the respondent(husband) from selling, renting out or alienating in manner the propertyNo. X-37, Green Park, New Delhi 110016.(3) On 1-10-1992, when the matrimonial reference and is 12407/92came up for preliminary hearing, this Court passed the following order on this Ai 12407/92. 'IN the meanwhile, the respondent is restrained from alienating or transferring in any manner property bearing No. X-37, GreenPark, New Delhi. The respondent will also not interfer...
Anand Kumar Gupta Vs. Delhi Development Authority
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-09-1993
Reported in: 1993IVAD(Delhi)838; 55(1994)DLT289; 1994(28)DRJ255
Mohd. Shamim, J.(1) This is a suit for specific performance of the agreement of sale and for possession over plot No. 12, Block 10, Kalkaji Extension, New Delhi.(2) The matrix of the case of the plaintiff is that on March 20, 1984 the defendant bad auctioned the leasehold rights in respect of a residential plot bearing No.12, Block No. 10, Kalkaji Extension, New Delhi. The plaintiff gave the highest bid for the aforementioned plot which was to the tune of Rs 4,23,000.00. The plaintiff deposited a sum of Rs.1,05,750.00 with the defendant by way of earnest money on March 20, 1984. The defendant through the Director, Dda sent a letter dated March 23, 1984 to the plaintiff slating therein that the bid of the plaintiff for Rs. 4,23,000.00 for the said plot has en confirmed by the Vice Chairman, Delhi Development Authority. The plaintiff was further asked through the above said letter to pay the balance amount of Rs. 3,17,261.00 within sixty days from the date of the issue of the said letter...
Kelson Constructions Vs. Versha Spinning Mills Ltd. and Another
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-08-1993
Reported in: 1993IVAD(Delhi)803; 1994(1)ARBLR385(Delhi); ILR1994Delhi110
J. K. Mehra, J.1. This is a petition under Section 20 of the Arbitration Act wherein the petitioner has alleged that the petitioner is a partnership firm and they were awarded the work of construction of factory building and ancillary building at Bawal (Haryana). According to the petitioner an agreement of M/s. Build India System Construction which had already been executed by the employer/respondent No. 1 was to be executed under the same terms and conditions and rates by the petitioner and the work was to be executed under the supervision of respondent No. 2. It is further alleged that the respondent No. 1 has invited and accepted the tender submitted by M/s. Build India Construction System Limited who had left the work after completing the work up to plinth level only and the balance work was thereafter given to the petitioner on the same terms and conditions contained in the said tender as a consequence of the letter of acceptance by respondent No. 2. 2. Differences having arisen b...
Dhurum Jeet Khera Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-08-1993
Reported in: 1993IVAD(Delhi)761; 1994(3)Crimes22; 1994(28)DRJ216
S.C. Jain, J. (1) The petitioiier, Mr. Dharam Jeet Khera has filed this petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. read with Article 227 of the Constitution praying for the stay of the proceedings in Criminal Case tided as State v. Dharam jeet Khera arising out of F.I.R. No. 286 of 1988 of Police Station Malviya Nagar, New Delhi under Section 447 Indian Penal Code (2) Earlier the petitioner had filed a petition being Cr.M(M) 1028 of 1989 in this Court for quashing the F.I.R., but the same was dismissed by this Court.(3) Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the complainant, Smt. Mahendra Kumari had also filed a Civil Suit being No. 2303 of 1988 titled as Mahendra Kumari presence of that civil suit, the criminal proceedings under Section 447 Indian Penal Code ., initiated on the basis of the complaint made on behalf of Smt. Mahendra Kumari cannot continue. According tot he learned counsel for the petitioner, these criminal proceedings be ordered to be stayed till the disposal of the ci...
Lmp Precision Engg. Co. Ltd. Vs. Collector of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Nov-05-1993
Reported in: (1994)LC432Tri(Delhi)
1. All these appeals are being taken together because they emanate from a common impugned order passed by the Collector of Central Excise, Vadodara. Briefly stated the facts are as follows:- 1.1. M/s. LMP Precision Engineering Co. Ltd. is having two units at Mahadevnagar and at Aritalia Billimora in Gujarat. There is another Private Limited Company by the name and style of LMP Drilling and Mining Equipment (P) Ltd. Directors of the aforesaid two companies are the same, namely - These two companies are manufacturing drilling rigs and parts thereof.Apart from the aforesaid two Private Limited Companies there are two partnership firms, namely (i) Bharat Iron Works and (ii) Kisan Enterprises. Partners in the said two firms are the same four brothers, as mentioned above, which are also the Directors in the two Private Limited Companies.1.2. LMP Precision Engg. Co. Ltd. came in existence in 1969. LMP Drilling and Mining Equipment (P) Ltd. came into existence in 1979. The two partnership fir...
Tobu Enterpries Ltd. and ors. Vs. the Lt. Governor, Delhi and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-05-1993
Reported in: 1993IVAD(Delhi)609; 53(1994)DLT255; 1994(28)DRJ515; [1994(68)FLR615]; (1994)ILLJ1221Del
D.P. Wadhwa, J.(1) This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution is directed against the order dated 16 April 1991 of the Lt. Governor of the Union Territory of Delhi, authorising Shri Raj Kumar Gupta, President of Tobu Mazdoor Sangh (Regd.), under section 34 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short ' the I.D. Act') to file a criminal complaint for an offence under section 25U of the I.D. Act against M/s. Tobu Enterprises Limited, its Managing Director and the General Manager, who are now the petitioners before us. (2) The only question which arises for consideration in this petition is if a private person could be so authorised under section 34 of the I.D. Act to file a complaint for an offence under section 25U of the said Act. (3) We are not concerned with the facts of the case as such as any observation made by us may prejudice the case of either of the parties. We are only concerned with the legal proposition as afrorementioned. (4) To understand this proposition it w...
Syn Pack (P) Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Nov-04-1993
Reported in: (1994)LC56Tri(Delhi)
1. The appellants herein had filed a declaration on 3-5-1988 claiming exemption from licensing control under Notification No. 174/86 dated 1-3-1986 in respect of the products manufactured by them in their factory. It was mentioned in the declaration that they were manufacturing (i) printed self-adhesive paper labels (ii) plastic labels which were classifiable under sub-heading No. 4821.00 and 3926.93 respectively and their products were exempted unconditionally under Notification No. 228/86 dated 3-4-1986. Supdt. of Central Excise informed them that their products were classifiable under Chapter sub-heading No. 3910.00 and that they were not eligible for small scale exemption, as the S.S.I. Unit certificate produced by them was not for the said unit in respect of which exemption was claimed. They were, therefore, informed to take out a Central Excise licence immediately.From the declaration filed by the assessee, it was observed that Mrs.Tara Sarup and Mr. Arun Sarup were common Direc...
Deepak Atal and ors. Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Nov-04-1993
Reported in: (1994)(52)LC53Tri(Delhi)
1. The above applications for waiver of pre-deposit of penalty of Rs. 10 lakhs imposed on each of the applicants arise out of the order of the Collector of Central Excise, Delhi confirming a demand of Rs. 32,96,88,000/- on alleged suppressed production and clandestine removal of cigarettes without payment of duty during the years 1984 and 1985 by M/s. New Tobacco Company and imposing penalties on the company and its Directors.2. Shri T.R. Andhyarujina, learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of Shri Deepak Atal (applicant in E/Stay/634/93-NRB) and Shri Bhaskar Banerjee (applicant in E/Stay/635/93-NRB) contends that there is no specific allegation against either of these persons who were part-time Directors during the relevant period, in the show cause notice, and that the Department has not brought out the role purported to have been played by either of these applicants in the alleged offence. He relies upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court dated 11.11.1992 in the cas...
World Trade Centre Vs. Bharat Hotel Ltd. and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-04-1993
Reported in: 1993IVAD(Delhi)561; 52(1993)DLT517; (1994)107PLR12
V.B. Bansal, J.(1) World Trade Centre Welfare Society, appellant/plaintiff filed this appeal, thereby challenging the order dated 26.6.1991 of Satpal, J. vide which the interim stay granted on 18.3.1991 in IA.2538/91 in Suit No. 900/91 wasvacated.(2) World Trade Centre Welfare Society is a Society registered under the Societies Registration Act and was formed by most of the occupants of the building known as World Trade Centre, situated at Barakhamba Lane, New Delhi. There are62 members of the plaintiff who have been allotted different spaces/portions in the aforesaid premises as per the details mentioned in Schedule 'A' to the plaint. The plaintiff had filed a suit for declaration, mandatory injunction, permanent injunction and rendition of account against M/s.Bharat Hotels Limited, a Company incorporated under the Indian Companies Act, defendant/respondent No. 1(hereinafter referred to as defendant No. 1), M/s Jagjit Cotton Textiles Limited, a company incorporated under the Indian Co...
Kusum Lata Vs. Satish Kumar Khanna
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-04-1993
Reported in: 1993IVAD(Delhi)595; 1993(27)DRJ516
D.K. Jain, J.(1) This First appeal by the wife is directed against the order dated 07 August 1989 passed by the Addl. District Judge, Delhi, decreeing the petition of the husband for divorce against the appellant wife under section 13(1)(i-b) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (for short the Act), dissolving their marriage and passing a decree for divorce. (2) Kusumlata, She was teaching in a government school at Shahdara and lived in her parental house in Ghaziabad, U.P. Satish Kumar Khanna, the respondent-husband lived in Delhi with his widowed mother and sister. They were married on 21 November 1971 in accordance with the Hindu rites and both lived in matrimonial home at Delhi intermittently for about eight years. There is no issue from this wedlock. The appellant left her matrimonial home and started living in her parental home at Ghaziabad with effect from 07 March 1979. On 12 April 1979, the respondent filed a petition under section 13(1)(i-b) of the Act, seeking divorce on the grou...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 7
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »