Delhi Court January 1994 Judgments
Home Cases Delhi 1994 Page 8 of about 100 results (0.016 seconds)Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Limited and ors. Vs. Tata Press
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 53(1994)DLT234; 1994(28)DRJ541
J.K. Mehra, J.(1) The plaintiff has filed this suit, alleging that the defendant in intending to publish yellow pages the defendant known as Tara Press Yellow Pages (hereinafter referred to as the 'yellow pages') is in violation of the Rule 458 of the Indian Telegraph Rules, 1951. The plaintiff has also filed with the plaint aforesaid application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of Civil Procedure Code being I.A. 3592/93 seeking an interim injunction restraining the defendants from printing and/or publishing and/or advertising and/or distributing the 'Yellow Pages' booklet to anyone. No ex-parte interim injunction was granted in this case and notices were issued to the defendants who have since filed reply to the injunction application. The case of the plaintiff mainly is that the publication and printing of the said yellow pages in the form sought to be published by the defendant is nothing but publication of a parallel directory in an abridged form on the line of the yellow pages which a...
Tag this Judgment!Suneel Communications and anr. Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1994)(51)LC161Tri(Delhi)
1. When the matters were called Shri H.A. Ahmadi, learned advocate appears for M/s. J&K Bank Ltd. Shri B.K. Singh, learned SDR appears for the Revenue who has moved this ROM application. There is, however, none on behalf of the other respondents in this application i.e. M/s. Suneel Communication. Our attention has been drawn to the remarks in Hindi of the postal authorities on the envelope in which the notice for today's hearing was sent to the respondents M/s. Suneel Communication. The remarks are as follows, as freely translated in English: Addressees state that office of this name has been closed down. They are not prepared to take this communication.In the circumstances, we treat the communication as received by second respondents in the application. Hence we proceed with the ROM application of the department.2. Shri B.K. Singh, learned SDR, submits that there has been a factual error in para 3 of the final order Nos. C/18-21/93-B2. Para 3 gives the quantum of imposition of fi...
Tag this Judgment!Jindal Strips Limited Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1999)(112)ELT127TriDel
1. This is an appeal against the order dated 29-7-1993 passed by the Collector of Customs-II, Bombay Customs House. The brief facts are that the appellants, herein, imported a consignment of 3 Linings of Dolomite Based Basic Refractory Bricks and filed a Bill of Entry for the clearance thereof dated 24-6-1992. The description of the goods in the Bill of Entry was amplified as Refractory bricks for industrial furnace temperature 1760. The classification of the goods was claimed under Heading 6902.10 read with Notification 77/90, dated 20-3-1990. The Customs House found, on scrutiny of the purchase order dated 28-1-1993, that the Refractory bricks ordered by the importer were meant for AOD converter and not for industrial furnace as mentioned in the bill of entry. The Customs House also found that as per the Customs Tariff, industrial furnaces are classifiable under Heading 84.17 while converters are separately classified under Heading 84.54 and took the view that converters were not co...
Tag this Judgment!Ahluwalia Contracts (India) Ltd. Vs. I.F.S. Co-operative Group Housing ...
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1994IAD(Delhi)228; 1994(1)ARBLR186(Delhi); 53(1994)DLT247
Sat Pal, J. (1) This is a petition filed by (2) Mr. Midha, the leared Counsel appearing on behalf of the Contractor drew my attention to the arbitration clause and submitted that since the Society has admitted the fact of the existence of the dispute between the parties, the disputes mentioned in the petition should be referred to arbitration in terms of the arbitration clause. Dealing with the submissions made in the reply filed on behalf of the Society that there was no agreement enforceable by law between the parties for referring the dispute to arbitration, the leared Counsel submitted that the Society cannot refuse to refer the dispute to arbitration in terms of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in Union of India v. Prafulla Kumar Sanyal, : (1979)3SCC631 and bya Full Bench of this Court in Veil Prakash Mithal v. Union of India, : AIR1984Delhi325 .(3) Dr. Sidhu, the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Society,however, submitted that in the present case as per the terms ...
Tag this Judgment!Gurnam Singh and anr. Vs. Kulbir Singh
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 53(1994)DLT313
Arun Madan, J.(1) Learned Counsel for the petitioners submits that the impugned order dated 7th December, 1993 passed by the learned Addl. District Judge is contrary to the provisions of Order 37 Rule 3(4) of the Code of Civil Procedure since summons for judgment issued against defendants by the Trial Court were served on Harpreet Kaur wife of Paramjit Singh, defendant No. 2 in the suit on 2.6.1992 who inadvertently kept the summons for judgment in her almirah and forgot to deliver the same to the defendants as she was not well being in her advanced stage of pregnancy. It is further contended by learned Counsel for the petitioners that on 22.8.1992 whenSmt. Harpreet Kaur wife of defendant No. 2 was packing her clothes for going to her mother's house, she found the said papers and handed over the summons for judgment to defendant No. I, who in turn contacted his Counsel on 23.8.1992 and his Counsel inspected the file and moved an application before the Trial Court seeking leave to conte...
Tag this Judgment!Shambhu Prasad Vs. Union of India and anr.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 55(1994)DLT194
C.M. Nayar, J. (1) This order will dispose of the present writ petition as well as Civil .Writ Petition Nos. 2831/92 and 1332/93, as they raise common questions of law.(2) The writ petition No. 2365/92 is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for an appropriate writ, order or direction to the respondents to pay Pension and Gratuity to the petitioner as he has put in satisfactory service of about22 years.(3) The facts briefly stated are that the petitioner was enrolled in the Army on 22/11/1969, and he was promoted to the rank of Naib Subedar on FebruaryII, 1990. The incident took place on 28/04/1991, when L/Hav Rajinder Kumar joined the Unit 31 Armoured Divisional Signal Regiment, It is alleged that he was smelling of liquor and was quarrelling with troops of the unit over an issue of his missing wrist watch. He was allegedly beaten by the duty Jco and others. This resulted into commotion. At that moment, the petitioner, who was Naib Subedar Adjutant and Subedar Major G....
Tag this Judgment!Jagdish Kumar Vs. Pushpa Kalia and anr.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 53(1994)DLT315
Arun Madan, J. (1) Heard learned Counsel for the parties. The order sought to be challenged by way of this petition is regarding refusal of the Additional Rent Controller to allow proposed amendments made in the application under Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, which was passed on 24th August, 1992. (2) The case of the petitioner/tenant is that he filed an application before the Addl. Rent Controller by raising the additional grounds, which reads as follow:- ' (i) that the ground floor of the house in question comprising two rooms and a store, varandah, kitchen, bath and Wbc and had been lying vacant since 1989 but the respondent No. 1 took no steps to occupy the said ground floor; (ii) that the petitioner was living with her family at D-869, Netaji Nagar and the accommodation comprised of 2 living rooms and the petitioner and the respondent did not require the premises in question; (iii) that the third ground sought to be added was about the husband of the respondent N...
Tag this Judgment!Paharpur Cooling Towers Limited and Another Vs. Bangaigaon Refinery an ...
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1994IAD(Delhi)157; AIR1994Delhi322; 1994(2)ARBLR41(Delhi); 53(1994)DLT210; 1994(28)DRJ425
ORDERD. P. Wadhwa, J. 1. The first petitioner a public limited company, and second petitioner, its shareholder, have filed this petition challenging the action of the respondents 1 and 3, rather of the first respondent in awarding the contract for the construction of cooling tower and cooling water treatment plant of the first respondent to the second respondent. The contract was awarded after notice inviting tender (NIT) had been issued and evaluation of different bids, first of technical and then of financial, done. First petitioner claims to be engaged in the business of manufacturing, erecting, and commissioning of cooling towers and cooling water treatment plants.2. The respondents number five. First respondent Bangaigaon Refinery & Petro-Chemicals Limited (BRPL) which required the construction of works in question is a public sector company; the second respondent Bridge & Roof Company (India) Limited (B & R) to whom the contract was awarded is also a public sector company; so is ...
Tag this Judgment!Madan Lal Vs. Dr. Jaswant Batra
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1994IAD(Delhi)222; 1994CriLJ1767; 53(1994)DLT326; 1994(28)DRJ335; 1994RLR121
ORDER1. This is a criminal revision petition against the order of Shri B. N. Chaturvedi, Additional Sessions Judge dated April 25, 1992 whereby the criminal revision of the respondent was allowed and the order of the trial court dated December 15, 1990 summoning the respondent to stand trial for an offence punishable under S. 363, IPC was set aside. 2. Facts giving rise to this criminal revision petition are as under : A complaint was filed by the petitioner against Tulsi Dass and respondent under Ss. 342/343/346/361/363/366 and 376/34, IPC with the allegation that the minor daughter of the petitioner, namely, Raj Bala was kidnapped by the respondent on the night intervening January 14 and 15, 1990 with the intention to compel her to marry Tulsi Dass who was keeping her in wrongful confinement ever since she was kidnapped. In support of the complaint the petitioner examined himself and two other persons namely, Shri Nanumal and Shri Yad Ram. On December 15, 1990 the trial court passed ...
Tag this Judgment!Canara Bank Vs. Lightways and anr.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1994(30)DRJ205
Sat Pal, J. (1) The present suit has been filed by the plaintiff bank for the recovery of a sum of Rs. l,25,593.80p with costs and interest at the rate of 17 and a half per cent per annum with quarterly rests from 1st November, 1985 till recovery under provision of Order xxxvi of the Code of Civil Procedure. By order dated 26th September, 1986 defendants were granted leave to defend the suit without any condition imposed on them. Thereafter written statement was filed on behalf of defendants and replication was also filed on behalf of I he plaintiff bank. The is sues were framed on 15th November, 1988. (2) On 6th January, 1994, learned counsel for the defendants submitted that the defendants want to make statement regarding payment of the suit amount. Accordingly the statements of the defendant No.2, who was the proprietor of the defendant No.1 has been recorded today. The statement of Defendant No:3, who is the husband of the defendant No.2 as well as guarantor, has also been recorded...
Tag this Judgment!