Delhi Court January 1994 Judgments

Morgan Stanley Mutual Fund Vs. Piyush Aggarwal and Another

Court: Delhi

Reported in: AIR1994Delhi186; [1994]80CompCas283(Delhi); 53(1994)DLT417; 1994(28)DRJ260

Usha Mehra, J.1. Morgan Stanley Mutual Fund (hereinafter called 'MSMF') published advertisements on December 13, 1993, for public issue commencing on January 6, 1994. Respondent No. 1, practicing chartered accountant and respondent No. 2, a practicing advocate felt aggrieved by the said advertisement regarding public issue hence filed a suit for permanent injunction on December 23, 1993. With the said suit an application under Order 39, rules 1 and 2 read with section 151 of the Civil Procedure Code, was filed seeking ad interim injunction thereby restraining the petitioner from floating its public issue of 30 crores units of Rs. 10 per unit on January 6, 1994. The main grievance of the respondents as per the plaint can be summarised thus, namely, that the public issue has been floated without the permission of the Securities and Exchange Board of India (hereinafter called the 'SEBI') and further that the units being offered for public subscription have not been approved or disapproved...

Sh. Inderjit Singh Chani Vs. Union of India and Another

Court: Delhi

Reported in: ILR1994Delhi350

ORDER1. The petitioner has challenged the detention order before even his arrest. According to the learned counsel appearing for the respondent-detaining authority the writ petition is not maintainable as neither the detention order has been served on the petitioner nor he has so far been arrested under the same. In support he relies upon two connected orders of a Division Bench of this Court. The first is Aditya Kumar Bhandari v. Union of India dated August 27, 1993 in Crl. Writ Petn. No. 374 of 1993. The order runs as under : 'Keeping in view the decision of the Supreme Court in Naval shankar Ishwarlal Dave v. State of Gujarat, : 1994CriLJ2170 and Full Bench decision in Ved Parkash Devkinandan Chiripal v. State of Gujarat, : AIR1987Guj253 , we find no merit in the petition. Dismisses' The second order passed on October 6, 1993 was in Crl.W.P. No. 640 of 1993. It was in following terms : 'The said writ petition was rejected because in view of the judgment of the Supreme Court in Naval...

inderjit Singh Chani Vs. Union of India and anr.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 1994CriLJ1808; 1994(1)Crimes539; 1994(28)DRJ409; 1994RLR135

Jaspal Singh, J.(1) The petitioner has challenged the detention order before even his arrest. According to the learned counsel appearing for the respondent-detaining authority the writ petition is not maintainable as neither the detention order has been served on the petitioner nor he has so far been arrested under the same. In support he relies upon two connected orders of a Division Bench of this court. The first is Aditya Kumar Bhandari v. Union of India & Ors. dated August27,1993 in Crl.Writ Petition No.374/93.The order runs as under :- 'KEEPING in view the decision of the Supreme Court in Navalshankar Ishwarlal Dave and another vs. State of Gujarat and others, : 1994CriLJ2170 , and Full Bench decision in Ved Parkash Devkinandan Chiripal and others vs. State of Gujarat and another, : AIR1987Guj253 , we find no merit in the petition. Dismisses.'The second order passed on October 6, 1993 was in Crl.W.P. No. 640 of 1993. It was in following terms: 'THE said writ petition was rejected ...

Power Personnel Trainers Association and ors. Vs. Union of India and o ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 1994IAD(Delhi)193; 53(1994)DLT600

V.B. Bansal, J.(1) In this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India the petitions have made the following prayers:- (a) Declare that the purported/impugned decision of the respondents I & 2 to absorb the respondent No. 3 as Chief Superintendent (Training) Rs. 5100-5700 on permanent basis to be illegal and void, and issue an appropriate writ order or direction quashing the same; (b) issue a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction requiring the respondents 1 and 2 to take prompt steps as in accordance with the relevant provisions of the Power Engineers Training Society (Recruitment) Rules, 1980 as applicable/adopted by N.P.T.I. for filling the post of Chief Superintendent (Training) Rs. 5100-5700 by promotion from amongst the eligible incumbents; (e) issue rule in terms of prayers (a) and (b) above and make the same absolute after Notice to the respondents; (d) issue any other appropriate writ, order or direction as this Hon'bl...

Collr. of Cus. and C. Ex. Vs. General Marketing and Mfg. Co.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1994)(71)ELT106TriDel

1. These are two appeals, one filed by the Collector Customs, Madras and the second filed by M/s. General Marketing & Mfg. Co. These two appeals arise out of the same order and therefore are being disposed of by common order.2. These appeals have been filed by the appellants against the order of the ld. Collector of Customs (Appeals). As the imports in this case took place between 1986 and 1991, the ld. Collector divided the entire issue in two parts :(a) Imports prior to 16-8-1988 covered by Customs Valuation Rules, 1963 and (b) Imports on or after 16-8-1988 covered by Customs Valuation (Determination of Price of Imported Goods) Rules, 1988.3. On the 1st issue namely Customs Valuation Rules, 1963, in his order, the ld. Collector held that the position regarding the valuation of goods under Section 14 of the Customs Act, 1962 prior to 16th August, 1988 however, would be different since under the pre-amended Section 14, there was no legal recognition of the concept of transaction v...

Bal Krishan Vs. Collector of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1995)LC398Tri(Delhi)

1. This appeal arises out of and is directed against the Order-in-Original No. 48/83 dated 15-9-1983 passed by the Collector of Customs, New Delhi.2. Facts: On 17-7-1981 Mercedez Benz Van bearing Registration No.CHA-2519, Chassis No. 309126-13-135-920; Engine No. 615-912-10-014133 made in Germany fitted with Radio Blaupunkt make, four bank, left hand-drive, was seized by the DRI Officers from the possession of the appellant since he could not produce any documents to show the legal import/iicquisition/possession of the said vehicle. On detailed examination it was found that the vehicle in question had been imported by one Mr. Wolfgang Blob, a German Tourist through Land Customs Station, Attari Road on 10-6-1980 under Carnet-de-passage No. 035893 Kd. and that though the said Carnet was discharged, the Car was not actually re-exported and unlawfully kept in India. Accordingly, show cause notice was issued for confiscation of the said vehicle under Sections 111(d) and 111(o) of the Custo...

Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Ltd. Vs. Brij Bhushan Gupta

Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi

R.N. Mittal, President: 1. This revision petition has been filed against the interim order dated 11-11-93 directing the appellant (Opposite Party) to restore the telephone, in case, the complainant (respondent) deposits 25% of the amount of the bill. The National Commission has held in AK Virmani v. D.E.S.U. (Revision Petition No. 606/93 in O.P. No. 284 of 1993 decided on 1st October, 1993) that the prayer for interim relief under the Consumer Protection Act can not be granted. Similar observations have been made by the National Commission in M.C.D. (D.E.S.U.) v. Mohinder Singh Verma (Revision Petition No. 498 of 1993 decided on 19-10-93). 2. In view of the above said observations we accept the revision petition and set-aside the order of the District Forum. The parties are directed to complete the pledings and evidence etc. before the next date, so that the case may be disposed of on that date. If the parties complete the pleadings etc. it will be appropriate that the case be disposed...

Nichimen Corporation Vs. Atlantic Engineering Services and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 1994IAD(Delhi)305; 53(1994)DLT582

Mohd. Shamim, J.(1) These are two objection petitions preferred by Mr. Mr.D.J.S.Sandhu and Premier Engineering Services under Order 21 Rule 58 of the Code of Civil Procedure, against the execution of the decree which was passed against defendant No. 1 vide judgment and order dated October 11,1990passedby Hon'ble Mr. Justice P.K.Bahri. (2) It has been urged for and on behalf of Premier Engineering Services by Mr. J.R.Midha, who appeared for and on behalf of the objector, that the judgment and decree in the instant case was passed against defendant No. 1 i.e.M/s. Atlantic Engineering Services. The objector herein are altogether a different entity and have got absolutely nothing to do with M/s. Atlantic Engineering Services. The objector are a separate firm and hence, in no way connected with M/s. Atlantic Engineering Services. Thus, the decree passed against the above said firm cannot be executed against the present objector. According to the learned Counsel, Mr. Midha, the execution pet...

NitIn Goel Vs. Raj Synthetic

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 53(1994)DLT435

Usha Mehra, J.(1) Master Nitin Goel through Mr. Surinder Kumar Gupta has filed a petition for winding up against M/s Raj Synthetic (Polychem) (hereinafter called the company) under Section 433, 434, and 439 of the Companies Act, 1956 (hereinafter called the Act). The Company took over the entire assets and liabilities of M/s Synthetic Polychem, and thereforee, according to petitioner the Company is liable to pay all the debts of M/s Synthetic Polychem. (2) It is the case of the petitioner that during January, 1987 M/s Synthetic Polychem was facing some financial crisis in the business, hence approached the petitioner for loan. Petitioner gave a sum of Rs. 70,000.00 as loan to the said M/s. Synthetic Polychem on 20.1.87 by pay order of the same date drawn on New Bank of India, Bahadur Garh Branch, Delhi. The said Company also agreed to pay interest at the rate of 15%. In April, 1987 M/s Synthetic Polychem again requested the petitioner for further loan of Rs.l0,000.00 which was given vi...

Caprihans India Ltd. Vs. Mey's Pharmaceuticals

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 1994IAD(Delhi)349; AIR1994Delhi178; 53(1994)DLT421

Usha Mehra, J.(1) M/S Caprihans India Ltd. filed a petition for winding up against M/s Mey's Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Ltd.(hereinaftercalled the Company), under Section 433, 434 read with Section 439 of the Companies Act, 1956 (hereinafter called the Act). Facts in brief are that the petitioner is carrying on business of manufacturing and supplying of Sunblis Thermoforming Foils which is used in pharmaceutical trade. The company placed order for the supply of Sunblis Rigid Pvc Thermoforming Foil of different specifications to the petitioner. Petitioner' supplied the material as ordered and raised various invoices of the Company for payment amounting to Rs. 48,815.95P. The Company in response to those three invoices issued three cheques bearing No. 037276 dated 22.7.90 for Rs. 21.526.03P, drawn on Allahabad Bank and Cheques No. 037398 and 037465 dated 30.8.90 and I.I 1.90 for Rs. 7,687.87 and Rs. 3,000.00 respectively, drawn on the same bank. The said cheques upon presentation were dishonou...