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.
Vikram Roller Flour Mills Ltd. Vs. Municipal Corporation of Delhi and ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-03-1993
Reported in: 53(1994)DLT60
P.K. Bahri, J. (1) This civil revision is directed against order dated February 4,1981, of the Sub-Judge by which the ex-parte stay was declined and against the order dated July 15, 1981, of the Additional Senior Sub-Judge, in which it was held that the appeal was not maintainable as no order had been passed by the learned Sub-Judge under Order Xxxix Rule I or Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure. (2) Unfortunately in this case the Trial Court record had been summoned and the proceedings have protracted unnecessarily and in these last 12 years if the record had not been called unnecessarily in this Court, the suit would have been decided on merits. (3) The plaintiff-petitioner had instituted the suit for injunction restraining the respondents from disconnecting the electricity of the petitioner for non-payment of a sum ofRs.l3,033/60P, the supplementary bill raised by respondent No. 2-Delhi Electric Supply Undertaking claiming it to be equipment rent which was short charged for some e...
Purboshree Mahila Samiti Vs. Union of India
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-03-1993
Reported in: 1993(27)DRJ380; 1993RLR577
Jaspal Singh, J. (1) The petitioner, through this writ petition, seeks the quashing of the revision of the rate of land from Rs.8 lakhs to Rs. 28,50,000.00 per acre and the consequent demand of Rs.10,50,625.00 towards security deposit. However, first the facts.(2) The petitioner is a Society duly registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860. In furtherance of its objects, it has been running a Balwadi and a charitable dispensary. On its application for allotment of land for running a Balwadi and dispensary, it was allotted land measuring 0.5 acres on payment at the rate of Rs.8 lakhs per acre besides 381 annual ground rent of 2-1/2 per cent of the said premium. However, the grievance of the petitioner Society is that by letter dated April 17,1989, it was informed that the land rates had been revised from Rs.8 lakhs to Rs.28,50,000.00 per acre calling upon it, as already noticed above, to deposit Rs.l0,50,625.00 towards security deposit. The case of the petitioner Society is th...
Jagpreet Singh Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-03-1993
Reported in: 1993IIIAD(Delhi)965; 52(1993)DLT217
Anil Dev Singh, J.(1) This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India calls in question the order of detention dated 17/12/1992 passed against the petitioner by the Joint Secretary to the Government of India, respondent No. 2 under Section 3(1) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling ActivitiesAct, 1974 (for short 'COFEPOSA').(2) The allegations against the petitioner are that he was intercepted at the exit of the 101 Airport Terminal Ii, New Delhi on the night intervening19th and 20th November, 1992, on his arrival from Hongkong in an assumed name of Kanwal Mohan Singh Sehgal. On search of the person of the petitioner, one wrapped packet was recovered from the inner waist pocket of his pant. This packet on opening was found to contain 35 gold biscuits of 10 tolas each. The petitioner was not able to produce any document in support of the legal possession and import of the aforesaid gold into India.Pursuant to the notice under Section 108 o...
Collr. of C. Ex. Vs. Maharashtra State Electricity
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Sep-02-1993
Reported in: (1994)(71)ELT156TriDel
1. Both the above appeals involve common issues and hence these are being heard together and disposed of by this common order.This appeal by the Revenue arises out of the order-in-appeal of the Collector (Appeals), Bombay dated 22-5-1985 setting aside the order of the Assistant Collector confirming demands raised on the respondents on prestressed concrete poles held to be manufactured by them. The brief facts of the case are that the respondents (hereinafter called M.S.E.B.) called for tenders for manufacture and supply of prestressed concrete poles of prescribed specifications. M/s. Prestressing Corporation of India, Bombay had submitted a tender which was accepted by the M.S.E.B. subject to certain terms and conditions contained in the letter dated 25-9-1979. Accordingly, a factory in the name and style of M/s. Waman Poles Pvt. Ltd. was set up at Amravati for executing the said order of the M.S.E.B. As the poles manufactured at this unit were being manufactured on behalf of M.S.E.B....
Anil Associates Vs. Delhi Development Authority
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-02-1993
Reported in: 1993RLR554
Mahinder Narain, J. (1) An award dated 13.02. 1991 has been filed by the arbitrator Mr. Om Prakash. Notice of filing of the award is served on both the parties. Only the D D.A has filed the objections to award. M/s. Anil Associates have not filed any objections. (2) Only three objections have been filed. One relates to the award of Rs. 5,198.00 on account of loss of profit against a claim of Rs. 10.000.00. The arbitrator is the final judge. No reasons are disclosed as to why the award of this amount is not in accordance with law. This objection has no merit. (3) Regarding the next objection, the D D.A. objects to payment of pendente lite interest awarded by the arbitrator. The arbitrator has awarded future interest, which according to : AIR1992SC2192 is within his jurisdiction to award. In this view of the matter, there is nothing in this objection of the defendant (4) As regains the last objection that relates to a letter dated 19.06.1991. In this letter, the claimant is stated to hav...
M.A.A. Abu Ghunima Nazer Zohir El Yazgi Vs. Union of India and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-02-1993
Reported in: 1993IIIAD(Delhi)841; 51(1993)DLT679; 1994(28)DRJ64
D.P. Wadhwa, J. (1) Since the incident is common, by this judgment we will decide both the writ petitions (CWP 2120/93 and Cwp 2411/93). Both the petitioners in these two writ petitions are Engineering students studying in the Indian Institute of Technology, Delhi (I.I.T.). There are two respondents. First respondent is the Union of India through the Secretary, Ministry of Human Resources Development, and the second is the Director of the I.I.T. The petitioners seek a mandamus to have the impugned orders against them set aside, and for allowing them to continue their studies in the I.I.T. Against Abu Ghunima (petitioner in Cw 2120/93) the following order was made on 14 January 1993 by the second respondent :- 'THE Institute Disciplinary Committee, at its meeting held on January 12, 1993 considered the incident of a fight between two groups of Palestinian students in September 1992. On the recommendations of the Disciplinary Committee, the Director has imposed the penalty of termination...
Hardayal Singh Vs. K.V. Batra
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-02-1993
Reported in: 1993IIIAD(Delhi)782; 51(1993)DLT683; 1993(27)DRJ188
D.K. Jain, J. (1) The petitioner, Hardial Singh, is the owner/landlord of the premises bearing No.C-82, defense Colony, New Delhi. The respondent capt. K.V.Batra, is the tenant in the said premises under the petitioner. (2) The petitioner filed a petition on 22 December 1983 for the eviction of the respondent/tenant under section 14(1)(e) read with section 25B of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (for short the Act) on the pleas that he is an old person of about 75 years of age, suffering from coronary heart disease with 'effort angina ventricular and super ventricular entopic activity', and that petitioner's wife, aged about 71 years is also suffering from acute depression and is under treatment of Dr. D.Mohan, Associate Professor, All India Institute of Medical Sciences (AIIMS), New Delhi; he after retirement from service is living in village Jamey Rae district Amritsar where no medical facilities are available; none of his children is living with them in the village; petitioner's one...
Sahara Deposits and Investments (1) Ltd. Vs. Majidan and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-02-1993
Reported in: 1993IIIAD(Delhi)1088; 1993(27)DRJ398
Usha Mehra, J. (1) This Court had ordered service of respondent by affixation. The affixation was done at the last known address of the respondent. The Process Server has deposed on the summons that there was no witness available hence affixation could not be evidenced by any witness. This Court, accordingly, did not treat it to be a proper service on the respondent as it was not evidenced by any witness as required under the Rules.(2) Counsel for the O.L. Mr. B.N. Nayyar contended that it was a proper service and the objection raised by this Court is not sustainable. 'According to him the Original Side rules of this High Court are not applicable to the proceedings pending before the Company Court. ' (3) The Company Court has to follow the Companies (Court) Rules 1959, (hereinafter called the Company Rules) or at best the provisions of Code of Civil Procedure, but by no 399 stretch Of imagination the provisions of Original Side Rules of the High Court can be attacked to the proceedings...
Eastman Industries Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Sep-01-1993
Reported in: (1996)(82)ELT65TriDel
1. This appeal arises out of and is directed against the Order-in-original No. S/10-65/88, dated 7-7-1988 passed by the Additional Collector of Customs, New Custom House, Bombay.2. The appellants had imported certain goods, namely, (i) Base and Beam and (ii) Blades declaring them as spares of Mitutoyo Brand instruments (Vernier Gauge and Combination set) in the relevant Bill of Entry dated 19-1- 1988. The clearance of the said goods was sought against their Additional Licence bearing No. 3082653, dated 8-10-1986 in terms of provisions of para 265(6) of AM 1985-88 Policy Book. According to the department the imported items are not actually spares but are complete instruments in themselves and/or not covered against the said licence.Since Vernier Height Gauge of measuring rule are specifically mentioned against the serial No. 23 of Part-A ol Appendix 8 and serial No. Ill of Appendix 2 Part-B of AM 1988-89 Policy. The Additional Collector who adjudicated the proceedings observed that sin...
Omega Alloys Castings Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Collector of C. Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Sep-01-1993
Reported in: (1994)(71)ELT923TriDel
1. The appellants challenge the disallowance of deemed Modvat credit on steel scrap, ferro-alloys, etc. taken during the period March/April 1986 to December 1986 in terms of para 2(ii) of the Government of India Order No. B-22/5/86/TRU, dated 7-4-1986 as amended by order No.22/30/86/TRU, dated 29-8-1986.2. We have heard Shri J.S. Agarwal, learned Advocate for the appellants and Shri S.K. Sharma, DR for the Collector. The appellants who are engaged in the manufacture of steel castings/ingots falling under Heading 73.07/72.06 of Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 on 11-4-1986 filed a declaration as required under Rule 57G of Central Excise Rules, 1944 in which they declared inputs namely cast iron duplex, ferro manganese, ferro silicon, M.S. Scrap and Iron scrap to be used in the manufacture of their said final products for availing the benefit of modvat credit. Alongwith the said declaration they also furnished a statement of balance stock of the inputs lying with them as on 28-2-1986 and...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 10
- Next ›
- Last »