Delhi Court December 1994 Judgments
Home Cases Delhi 1994 Page 4 of about 144 results (0.020 seconds)Kreyan Precision Machines Vs. Collector of C. Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1995)(76)ELT110TriDel
1. M/s. Kreyan Precision Machines have filed this application for Rectification of Mistake in the Final Order No. A/703/93-NRB, dated 18-9-1993 on the ground that the Tribunal had wrongly dismissed the appeal filed by the applicant holding that "No doubt the invoices do indicate that inputs are components for Hydro-mechanical Governing Units for Water Turbines and their Spares No. 15.42.1388, dated 2-4-1988 but as seen from their declaration under Rule 57G the inputs declared against these final products are (i) Non-ferrous pistons stampings and (ii) bars and extensions, ferrous." It was also submitted that the Tribunal also wrongly held that these two items were quite different from the inputs for which modvat has been desired.2. Shri B.B. Gujral, the Id. Advocate appearing for the applicant submitted that in the declaration submitted by the applicant on 2-4-1988, all the final products in first column and all inputs with their tariff classification under the column 'Input' were spec...
Tag this Judgment!M/S. Jhalani Tools (India) Ltd. Vs. Union of India and Others
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 2001IIAD(Delhi)596; 90(2001)DLT89; 2001(57)DRJ794
ORDERA.K. Sikri, J.1. Apart from other questions, the main question which falls for determination in this writ petition is as to whether the instant writ petition is barred by rest judicator/constructive rest judicata. This and other related questions, the description of which would be given at the appropriate places, have arisen in the following factual matrix.2. Respondent no.1 announced export policy Resolution 1970 relating to export promotion for the benefit of industrial exporters. From 1970 to February 1981 prices of domestic raw material consisting of various qualities of steel for the manufacture of hand tools were more or less competitive with the prices prevailing in the rest of the world. However, on 9th February, 1981 the Joint Plan Committee (hereinafter referred to as JPC, for short) announced a steep hike of 30% on the average in the administered prices of various qualities of steel. This led to the promulgation of the INTERNATIONAL PRICES REIMBURSEMENT SCHEME 1981 (her...
Tag this Judgment!M/S. International Building and Furnishing Co. (Cal) Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Ind ...
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 57(1995)DLT536; 1995(32)DRJ354
M. Jagannatha Rao, C.J.1. This is an appeal against the order of a learned Single Judge of this court dated 19.8.1994. In a suit filed under Section 20 of the Arbitration Act, by the said order the learned Single Judge came to the conclusion that the arbitration clause requires 'notified claims' alone to be referred to arbitration and in the present case the appellant does not have a 'notified claim' which could be sent for adjudication by an Arbitrator. Hence the application was refused. 2. Aggrieved by the said order, the appellant has come up with this appeal. The brief facts of the case are that the appellant tendered for interior works (part II) furniture, furnishing etc. for construction of CMTI, Gurgaon, Haryana with the Indian Oil Corporation. A formal agreement dated 22.7.1993 was executed between the parties. The estimated value of the works was Rs. 77,71,667 based on schedule of rates annexed with letter dated 31.3.1993. The appellant was required to deposit a sum of Rs. 1,9...
Tag this Judgment!Mokha Light House Vs. Central Pollution Control Board
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1995(1)ARBLR540(Delhi); 57(1995)DLT650; (1995)110PLR32
R.C. Lahoti, J.(1) This order shall govern the disposal of Suit Nos. 2959/90 and 2964/90.(2) Suit No. 2959/90 has been registered on a petition under Section 14 of the Arbitration Act filed by M/s. Mokha Light House seeking filing of the award and making the same a rule of the Court.(3) S.NO. 2964/90 has been registered on a petition under Sections 14,30 and 33 of the Arbitration Act seeking filing of the award and also setting aside of thesame.(4) There was a contract entered into between M/s. Mokha Light House, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as 'the Contractor') and Central Pollution Control Board (hereinafter referred to as 'the Employer') relating to construction of Central Boards Building Complex at Shahdara Delhi (sub-head Electrical installation). The agreement No. was EE/BP/87.88.2. Disputes arose between the parties. There were claims and counter claims preferred. The Arbitrators have given an award dated 17/08/1990 whereby they have rejected the claims and the counterclai...
Tag this Judgment!Hari Om Gupta Vs. R.R. Sharma
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1995IAD(Delhi)198; 1995(32)DRJ103
R.C. Lahoti, J.(1) The petitioner seeks proceedings under Section 8 read with Section 11 of the Contempt of Court Act, 1958 and Order 39 Rule 2-A Civil Procedure Code being initiated against the respondents who are officers respectively of Dda and police. (2) It will be useful to notice the background which has given rise to the initiation of these proceedings since the facts are bit little peculiar. (3) The petitioner filed a suit for permanent injunction in the court of Senior Sub-Judge, Delhi. The relief prayed for in the suit was of the defendants Municipal Corporation of Delhi and Delhi Development Authority being restrained by a decree of permanent injunction from demolishing the suit property which was a portion of Khasra No.1 2383/1849/69 and 3760/ 2382/ 1849/69/1 Mauza Karkarduma, Illaqa Shahdara, Delhi admeasuring 800 sq. yards. It appears that the suit was not contested by the defendants. They simply made a statement before the court that the plaintiff would not be evicted f...
Tag this Judgment!Delhi Goods Transport Association Vs. the Central Board of Direct Taxe ...
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1995IAD(Delhi)185; 57(1995)DLT171
K. Shivashankar Bhat, J. (1) There are three petitioners; the first is the Association of truck owners, transport operators and goods carriers, the 2nd isa company engaged in the business of carriage of goods and the 3rd is a transporter engaged in the business of giving on hire trucks for the purpose of carriage of goods.(2) The petitioners challenge Circular No. 681 dated 8/3/1994 issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes, directing the application of Section 194C of the Income Tax Act to several categories of persons, including the carrier of goods,like the 2nd petitioner. Section 194C provides for deduction of the prescribed percentage by the payer of the consideration and hand over the same to theRevenue.(3) Mr. Pandey the learned Counsel for the Revenue raised a preliminary objection against the maintainability of the writ petition, on the ground that the1st petitioner is not actually carrying on the business and affidavit in support of the writ petition is not filed by the 2nd...
Tag this Judgment!Joginder Lal Kuthiala Vs. Bank of India
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1995IIAD(Delhi)384; 1995(32)DRJ305
R.C. Lahoti, J.(1) This is a suit filed by the plaintiffs against the defendant based on landlord-tenant relationship seeking recovery of possession and damages/manse profit.(2) The suit premises are B-7, Connaught Place, Kothiala Building New Delhi. The plaintiffs are the landlords. The defendant was inducted as a tenant in a part of the property marked in red in the site plan annexed with the plaint admeasuring 2225 sq.ft ( approx.) w.e.f. 5.12.1982 under a deed of lease dated 30.11.1984 ( Ex. DW1/1). The lease was for a period of three years with a clause for renewal for another three years subject to an increase in the rent by 15%. On the date of the suit, the defendant was holding the premises at a monthly rent of Rs. 9200.00. The defendant was served by the plaintiffs through their counsel with a notice dated 12.12.1988 under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act terminating the tenancy of the defendant with the expiry of the day of 5.1.1989.(3) According to the plaintiffs,...
Tag this Judgment!Anil Kumar Khurana and ors. Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1995IAD(Delhi)105; 57(1995)DLT187; 1995(32)DRJ105
K. Shivashankar Bhat, J.(1) These eight writ petitions are connected and properties are situated in the area called Pusa Road, in Karol Bagh, New Delhi. The petitioners seek an order restraining the respondents from demolishing the buildings put up on the re spective plots. Initially, we thought of hearing the entire writ petition and dispose of the writ petitions on merits because the respondents had taken notice and in one of the matters counter affidavit was also filed by the Municipal Corporation of Delhi which was adopted by the Delhi Development Authority. The arguments were addressed by both the learned counsel and in the course of the rejoinder Mr. Lekhi submitted that he was under the impression that the arguments were heard only on the question of issuing the Rule. We made the position clear that we in * tend to hear the entire matter having regard to the general importance and the nature of the litigation, and the counsel thereafter were permitted to address us further. We h...
Tag this Judgment!Shakuntala Devi and ors. Vs. R.K. Mehra and ors.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 57(1995)DLT494; 1995(32)DRJ222
M.J. Rao, C.J.(1) This case has been heard elaborately at the stage of admission after notice, and is being disposed of. The case has had a 'chequered career' as mentioned by the learned Single Judge inasmuch as the suit out of which these proceedings arise was filed in 1959. (2) The appellants are the legal representatives of the original mortgagor, one Bhagmal Jain. He mortgaged the property on 19.9.1958 to Shri Bal Kishan Dass (whose legal representatives 'are respondents 1 to 9). The mortgagee filed a suit on 18.7.1959 for recovery of the amount due under the mortgage by sale of the property. During the pendency of the suit, the mortgagor died inSeptember,1961 and the appellants were brought on record as his legal representatives. (3) On 29.6.1963 the trial court passed a preliminary decree in favor of the mortgagee. The decree was in the sum of Rs. 99,000.00 and odd with interest. (4) In the meantime, one Shri Jatinder Parkash obtained a money decree against the mortgagor,Shri Bha...
Tag this Judgment!Kwality Steel Vs. Delhi Electric Supply Undertaking
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1995IAD(Delhi)202; 57(1995)DLT143; 1995(32)DRJ737
R.C. Lahoti, J.(1) There is a bunch of several petitions under Section 20 of the Arbitration Act, 1940. There are three categories of petitioners :(i) Mixed Load H.T. consumers, (ii) Large Industrial power ( Lip, for short) consumers, and(iii) Lip consumers running induction/arc furnaces arrayed on the one side and Municipal Corporation of Delhi through the General manager (E), Desu on the other side. The controversy centers around the Tariff for the year 1991-92 as the bills under challenge relate to the period March, 1991 onwards, the tariff for 1991=92 being effective from 1.3.1991.(2) Though the disputes raised in the main petition are several-different in different petitions but two of them are common to the petitions in the bunch and they are relating to the applicability or working mechanism of the recovery of demand charges and of the minimum consumption guarantee clause inserted in the form of a Note in the relevant clause of tariff. Several interim orders have been passed in ...
Tag this Judgment!