Delhi Court September 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.
Parent Forum for Meaningful Education and ors. Vs. Central Board of Se ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-10-1993
Reported in: 1993IVAD(Delhi)73; AIR1994Delhi44; 52(1993)DLT445; 1993(27)DRJ475
Sunanda Bhandare, J. (1) This petition filed in public interest seeks directions in respect of examinations for Class X and Class Xii conducted by the Central Board of Secondary Education, The main grievance of the petitioners is regarding the use of multiple set of question papers for Class X and Xii throughout the country. The petitioners pray that the Examinations Bye-Laws 1990 in so far as the same permits use of multiple set of question papers be quashed and the decision based on the report of Madan Mohan Committee and the Seminar held there under be also quashed. It was submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that another writ petition being C.W.P. 843 of 1992 was filed in this Court by a student in which similar relief was sought because multiple set of question papers were introduced by the respondent for examinations to Class X & Xii only in Delhi to be held in March 1992. Learned counsel submitted that though the writ petition was disposed of primarily because th...
Jayanti Prasad Goel Vs. Sumitra JaIn and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-10-1993
Reported in: 1993IIIAD(Delhi)1001; 52(1993)DLT298; 1994(28)DRJ42
Anil Dev Singh, J.(1) This is an application by the petitioner-complainant under section 439(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for cancellation of bail of the respondents. (2) The petitioner is the father of the deceased Smt.Chhama Jain. On July 4, 1991 marriage of Chhama Jain was solemnised with Suresh Jain. On April 5, 1992 Chhama Jain died of burn injuries. At the time of death, she was six month's pregnant. The incident took place in the matrimonial home of the deceased. (3) On April 6, 1992 the petitioner Jayanti Prasad Goel, father of the deceased lodged a report about the incident. In the report it was, inter-alia, stated that after four months of marriage, when Chhama came to the paternal house,she told him that her sisterin-law, Savita & mother-in-law, Sumitra were harassing her for bringing insufficient dowry. After five and a half months of her departure to the in-law's house, Suresh husband of the deceased came to the house of the complainant and demanded a sum of ...
Daulat Singh Chadha Vs. Rajender Kumar and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-10-1993
Reported in: 53(1994)DLT437; 1993(27)DRJ259; 1993RLR591
Jaspal Singh, J. (1) Is the appellant a lawful sub-tenant and if so, is he protected under sections 17 and 18 of the Delhi Rent Control Act? This is the question in this second appeal which needs to be decided. However, first a bird eye view of the facts. (2) Rajender Kumar and Radhey Shyam Along with their mother Smt. Chandra Wati were the landlords of the premises. They had let out the same to one Sudha Rajan Jain. This was on June 1, 1978. In the year 1979 the landlords filed a petition for eviction of Sudha Rajan Jain on the ground of non-payment of rent underclause. (a) of sub-section (l)ofSection 14 of the Act in which an exparte order of eviction was passed on February 8, 1980. Thereafter they moved an application for delivery of possession in execution of the said order. While that application was pending one Amarjit Singh filed objections under section 25 of the Act alleging that he had been inducted as a lawful sub-tenant by Sudha Rajan jain on the basis of the consent in wri...
Khazano Devi Vs. Moti Lal and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-10-1993
Reported in: I(1994)ACC197; 1994ACJ485; 53(1994)DLT102
P.K. Bahn, J.(1) By this order, I shall disposed of the Fao 85/81 filed by the claimants and the cross-objections (C.M.3003/89) filed by the owner of the truck in question. (2) Vide award dated October 17, 1980, the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal had awarded compensation of Rs. 64,260.00 to the claimants and the amount is directed to be recoverable from all the respondents jointly and severally but the liability of the respondent. Insurance Company, was limited to Rs. 50,000.00 . (3) The facts of the case, in brief, are that on June 5, 1974, at about 3.30 P.M. the deceased 0m Prakash Gupta, was proceedings on a cycle on Ring Road towards Ashok Vihar when a truck No. Dig 2897 which was being driven by respondent No. I and was owned by respondent Balram, and which truck was insured with respondent No. 3, M/s. New India Assurance Company Limited, came at a fast speed and had struck the cyclist from the back which not only damaged the cycle but also resulted in fatal injuries to the decea...
inspecting Assistant Vs. Srikrishan Khanna
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Decided on: Sep-08-1993
Reported in: (1994)48ITD1(Delhi)
1. While Revenue is in appeal, assessee is in cross objection for assessment years 1973-74 and 1974-75. Several common issues have been raised both in the appeals and the cross objections preferred by the assessee. Therefore, these are combined together and disposed of by this order.2. One of the issues relates to the valuation of a factory building held by M/s. Amritsar Swadeshi Woollen Mills. Assessee is a joint Hindu family and a partner in M/s. Amritsar Swadeshi Woollen Mills. According to WTO, the valuation of the factory building shown in the balance-sheet of the partnership firm at Rs. 3,79,178 was a case of under-valuation. Land occupied by the factory building was taken at Rs. 12,334 while the value of the building was shown at Rs. 3,79,178. Thus the total value of the building shown at Rs. 3,91,512 was considered an under-valuation by the WTO. He, therefore, referred to the Valuation Cell the valuation of the factory building of the said partnership concern. Valuation Cell p...
Collector of Cus. and Ex. Vs. Premier Vinye Flooring Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Sep-07-1993
Reported in: (1999)(113)ELT247TriDel
1. This is an application of condonation of delay in preferring present appeal. (i) Because of the demolition of disputed structure at Ayodhya on 6-12-1992, there were communal riots in the country and as a result of that indefinite curfew was imposed in Meerut town. (ii) That the Office of the Collector, Central Excise, Meerut is situated in a most sensitive area of the Meerut town. Therefore Collectorate office had to remain completely closed for a period of more than 20 days. (iii) That thereafter partial relaxation of curfew was allowed for a good number of days till the normalcy was maintained. Therefore, for about a month the work of the office remained paralysed completely in the Collectorate office. (iv) Similar position prevailed in Ghaziabad town also. The indefinite curfew was also imposed in certain parts of this town. As a result of that there was no communication between Meerut and Ghaziabad offices for a pretty long time. (v) The authorisation letter filing an appeal ag...
Collector of Central Excise Vs. Super Rubber Works
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Sep-06-1993
Reported in: (1994)(51)LC71Tri(Delhi)
1. The issue involved in this appeal is whether reclaimed rubber manufactured by the respondents is classifiable under the Tariff Item 16A or under Tariff Item 68 of the erstwhile Central Excise Tariff. The Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Coimbatore classified the item in question under Tariff Item 68 in his order dated 22.3.1982. The respondents preferred an appeal against the Assistant Collector's Order before Collector (Appeals) Madras. He observed that impugned goods would fall under the Tariff Item 16A, set aside the Assistant Collector's Order and allowed the appeal. Aggrieved by the Collector's Order department preferred an appeal before the Tribunal. The Tribunal vide Order 359/84-D dated 1.6.1984 held that impugned item is classifiable under the Tariff Item 68 of the erstwhile Tariff and set aside the order passed by the Collector (Appeals). Not being satisfied with the order passed by the Tribunal the respondents filed writ petition before the Madras High Court and th...
G.G. Dandekar Machine Works Ltd. Vs. Collector of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Sep-06-1993
Reported in: (1994)(69)ELT81TriDel
1. The issue involved in this appeal is whether the products rubber roll and rubber brakes which are admittedly parts of rice and Dal Mill Machinery are classifiable under sub-heading No. 4017/4016 as held by the Collector (Appeals). It has been contended on behalf of the appellants that these are classifiable under sub-heading 4009.99/4008.29. It is further claimed that the rubber rolls are having a uniform tubular/cylindrical shape and these are in lengths upto 10" and these are rightly classifiable as tubes, pipes under 4009.99 which is not restricted to only those tubes and pipes which are used for conveying of fluids. Similarly, as regards rubber brakes, it is claimed that these are blocks of unhardened vulcanised rubbers which are covered by sub-heading 4008. For both these products, it is claimed that the fact of their being used as parts of rice and Dal Mill Machinery will not militate their being classified as pipes and tubes/blocks/strips etc.2. On behalf of the Department, ...
Surinder Kumar and Bros. Vs. Union of India
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-03-1993
Reported in: 1993IIIAD(Delhi)858; 1994(1)ARBLR16(Delhi); 52(1993)DLT11; 1993(27)DRJ328; (1993)105PLR59
Mr. D.K. Jain, J.1. In a building contract between M/s. Surinder Kumar & Brother and Union of India, on contractor's raising disputes and invoking the arbitration clause, the matter was referred to the arbitration of Shri N. H. Chandwani, Arbitrator. He made the award dated 30 July, 1990. On the arbitrator filing the award and the related proceedings, notice of filing of the same was accepted for the petitioner/contractor on 28 September, 1990. None being present on behalf of the Union of India on that day, notice of filing of the award was issued to the Union of India through the Secretary, Ministry of Urban Development, Nirman Bhavan, New Delhi. 2. It was received back with the process server's report dated 5 February, 1991, which purported to state that on the said date, he visited Room No. 323, Nirman Bhawan, tendered the notice to a clerk for service, who read it and stated as it was not accompanied with a copy of the application, the same may be given. No witness was available. P...
V.K. Shukla and ors. Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-03-1993
Reported in: 1993IIIAD(Delhi)1073; 1993(27)DRJ307
B.N. Kirpal, J. (1) This bunch of writ petitions is concerned with admission to the Post Graduate Course to various disciplines in medicine and concerns allocation of seats in what is commonly known as the All India Quota. (2) Seats to the Post Graduate Medical Courses used to be reserved entirely for those candidates who fulfillled the residence requirements. The Supreme Court in the case of Dr. Pradeep Jain v. Uoi, : (1984)IILLJ481SC was of the view that reservation of seats should only be to the extent of 50% and the rest of the seats were required to be filled by All India competitive examination to be conducted by the All India Institute of Medical Sciences. By a subsequent order this quota was altered and, as a result there of, 75% of the seats could be filled by local students while 25% of the Post Graduate seats in all the institutions in India were required to be filled on the basis of the aforesaid examination. (3) The manner in which the seats to All India quota should be fi...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 9
- 10
- Next ›
- Last »