Delhi Court December 1994 Judgments
Home Cases Delhi 1994 Page 5 of about 144 results (0.021 seconds)Atma Ram Properties (P) Ltd. Vs. P.S. JaIn Company Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1995IAD(Delhi)356; 57(1995)DLT131; 1995(33)DRJ178
R.C. Lahoti, J. (1) This order proposes to dispose off the following preliminary issue No.2 :- ' Whether this Court has jurisdiction to try this suit in view of Section 50 of the Delhi Rent Control Act?'(2) The plaintiff has filed the suit for eviction of the defendant/tenant, impleading the sub-tenants also invoking the jurisdiction of Civil Court on the ground that the premises are fetching monthly rent exceeding Rs. 3,500.00p.m. and so the provisions of Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (hereinafter 'the Act', for short) are excluded. The contention of the tenant, on the other hand is that in so far as he and the landlord-plaintiff are concerned, the agreed rent of the premises does not exceed Rs. 3,500.00 and so Section 3(c) of the Act would not apply, the rent paid or payable by the sub-tenant to the tenant being irrelevant for the purpose of determining the applicability of the Act to a suit between a landlord and a tenant.(3) Vide registered deed of lease dated 5th January, 1978 the ...
Tag this Judgment!Nisha Raj and anr. Vs. Pratap K. Kaula and ors.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1995IAD(Delhi)533; 57(1995)DLT490; 1995(32)DRJ89; 1995RLR307
M. Jagannadha Rao, C.J.(1) This is an appeal filed by the appellants under Section 10 of the Delhi High Court Act and Order 43 Rule l(r) of the Civil Procedure Code dated 2.12.1994 passed by the learned Single Judge issuing 'notice' to the defendants in is No. 10356/94 in Suit No. 2630/94. The suit was filed for specific performance of the agreement of sale dated 30.9.1986 executed by Mrs. Kaula (predecessor in title of defendants 1 to 4) in favor of the appellants for sale of property. In the Ia, the appellants prayed for a restraint order against the defendants 1 to 4 from parting with possession or encumbering the property in any manner. When the is came up before the learned trial Judge, the said defendants who had filed caveat took notice and it was ordered 'Notice for 4th January,1995'. It is against this order that this appeal has been preferred. The defendants 1 to 4 have again appeared through counsel and opposed the grant of any order. They have contended that the appeal is n...
Tag this Judgment!R.B. Jodhamal and Co. Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Delhi Development Authority
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 58(1995)DLT315
R.C. Lahoti, J. 1. An award is not required to be supported by reasons given by the Arbitrator. If the contract or the Court requires the award to be supported by reasons, the absence of reasons would vitiate the award. 2. What are the reasons? 3. Reason is a faculty of mind by which it distinguishes truth from falsehood, good from evil and which enable the possessor to deduce inferences from facts or from propositions (Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition, p.1265). 4. In Gujarat Water Supply and Sewerage Board v. Unique Rector Gujarat(P) Ltd., : [1989]1SCR318 , their Lordships of the Supreme Court have held reasons does not mean detailed judgment. Reasons in the context of arbitration award are short intelligible indications of the grounds discernible to find out the mind of the Arbitrator for his action.' Even if, when the award is reasoned, the Court would not sit in appeal over the award and review the reasons. The Court can set aside the award only if it is apparent from the awar...
Tag this Judgment!Central India Tobacco Products Vs. Collr. of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1995)(75)ELT555TriDel
1. The appeal by M/s. Central India Tobacco Products Pvt. Ltd. is directed against the Order-in-Appeal No. 81/CE/IND/86, dated 30-7-1986/4-8-1986 passed by Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), New Delhi rejecting their appeal before him against the Order-in-Original dated 7-5-1985 whereby he had rejected their refund claim for a sum of Rs. 1064.26 paid by them as cess on Biris cleared by them after 1-1-1982. They had claimed the refund on the ground that cess became leviable on Biris manufactured after 1-1-1982 under the Biri Workers' Welfare Cess Act whereas the Biris in question had already been manufactured before the said date. The Assistant Collector had held that some of the Biris were labelled only after 31-12-1981 and the others, even if labelled, were not packed. The Biris became fully manufactured only after such processes when they attained the marketable stage on or after 1-1-1982. The appeal was rejected by Collector (Appeals) who upheld the order of the Assistant Colle...
Tag this Judgment!Punjab State Electricity Board Vs. Collector of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1995)(76)ELT313TriDel
1. The issue involved in these eight appeals of which seven have been filed by the Collector of Central Excise, Chandigarh and one by the Punjab State Electricity Board, is the classification of coils manufactured by the Electricity Board. These appeals are therefore, being disposed of by this order.2. The Punjab State Electricity Board is engaged, among other activities, in the manufacture of electrical transformers. For this purpose, some units are engaged in the conversion of copper and aluminium wires into transformer coils. One such unit is the Sub-Divisional Officer Coil Fabrication, Amritsar. The coils fabricated by this unit of the Board were subject to Central Excise duty by the orders of the Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Amritsar. In coming to his conclusion, the Assistant Collector held that the conversion of electric wires into transformer coils is a process of manufacture, and that the transformer coils are new products which are different from the raw materials....
Tag this Judgment!Sudershan Plywood Industries Vs. Collector of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1995)LC689Tri(Delhi)
1. This is an appeal against the order dated 29-7-1986 passed by the Collector (Appeals) Central Excise, Calcutta. The appellants are engaged in the manufacture of different varieties of Plywood including Marine Plywood falling under erstwhile Item 16D of the Central Excise Tariff. They filed a classification list claiming therein the effective rate of duty of 10% ad valorem under Notification No. 55/79, dated 1-3-1979 on Chemically Treated Marine Plywood. The appellants' case was that the variety of Marine Plywood in question was simply treaded with Copper Crome and Arsenic which had the effect of somewhat retarding the rate of burning but did not make it fireproof and after coating of chemical no new different product other than Marine Plywood emerge.However, by his order dated 26-2-1986 the Assistant Collector held that Marine Plywood in question after being treated with Copper Crome and Arsenic was rendered fireproof. He also held that the higher price of such treated plywood was ...
Tag this Judgment!Collector of C. Excise Vs. S.D.O. Coils Fabrication
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1995)LC52Tri(Delhi)
1. The issue involved in these eight appeals of which seven have been filed by the Collector of Central Excise, Chandigarh and one by the Punjab State Electricity Board, is the classification of coils manufactured by the Electricity Board. These appeals are therefore, being disposed of by this order.2. The Punjab State Electricity Board is engaged, among other activities, in the manufacture of electrical transformers. For this purpose, some units are engaged in the conversion of copper and aluminium wires into transformer coils, one such unit is the Sub-Divisional Officer Coil Fabrication, Amritsar. The coils fabricated by this unit of the Board were subject to Central Excise duty by the orders of the Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Amritsar. In coming to his conclusion, the Assistant Collector held that the conversion of electric wires into transformer coils is a process of manufacture, and that the transformer coils are new products which are different from the raw materials....
Tag this Judgment!Ghatampur Sugar Co. Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1996)(85)ELT69TriDel
1. The appellants are aggrieved by Order-in-Original No. 4/Add1.Collr./MP/91, dated 11-4-1991 of Additional Collector of Central Excise, Kanpur. Based on the dip reading in molasses it has been alleged that there was an excess quantity involving 4668.12 quintals of molasses.2. The learned Advocate for the appellants submits that actual weight cannot be determined with absolute accuracy through dip reading in case of molasses which is subject to volumetric changes because of a number of factors. Duty is determined on the basis of actual weight at the time of clearance. He draws attention to Hand-Book of Cane Sugar Engineering by E. Hugot placed at page 13 of the Paper Book and submits that because of Density changes and viscosity the molasses undergo changes and because of foaming substantial various can be found through volumetric method. As a bona fide of their accounting he submits that in previous years when they actually drained out all tanks completely they put down the actual we...
Tag this Judgment!indo Asahi Glass Co. Ltd. Vs. Jai Mala Roller Glass Ltd. and Another
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1995IAD(Delhi)110; 1995(1)ARBLR289(Delhi); 57(1995)DLT72; 1995(33)DRJ317
Mr. P. K. Bahri, J.1. In this suit seeking various reliefs on the averments that defendant has and ins continued to infringe the plaintiffs copyright in the registered design 'KONOHA', the plaintiff has moved the present application seeking interim relief of appointment of receiver, attachment before judgment and temporary injunction restraining defendant No. 1, its servants and agents and any other person on its behalf from using the impugned design in any way for manufacturing of figured glasses and/or any design which infringes the registered design in whole or in part of the plaintiff till the final disposal of the suit. In the arguments only relief of temporary injunction, as mentioned above, has been passed. 2. The case of the plaintiff, in brief, is that the plaintiff is a company incorporated under the Indian Companies Act, 1956 and is carrying on its business, inter alia, of manufacturing, selling and dealing with sheet glass, figured glass, and other sorts of flat glass and d...
Tag this Judgment!Raj Kishan and Co. Vs. Chairman and Managing Director, National therma ...
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1995(32)DRJ303
R.C. Lahoti, J. (1) Ntpc is a public sector undertaking. It is a Corporation with its head office at Delhi and its General Manager Super-thermal Power Station situated at Shakti Nagar, Sonbhadra, U.P. The petitioner entered into a contract with the respondent for the construction of General Civil works Stage Ii at Sonbhadra, U.P. Respondent No.2 is seized of the arbitration proceedings at Sonbhadra, U.P. (2) Vide para 19 of the main petition, it is stated that because the principal place of business in the form of ahead office of the respondent is situated in New Delhi and the respondents are carrying on their business at New Delhi, thereforee, this Court has territory jurisdiction to try the present petition. Reliance is placed on a Full Bench decision of this Court in Sri Rain Rattan Bhartiya vs Food Corporation of India : AIR1978Delhi183 wherein by reference to clauses (a) and (b) of Section 20 Cpc, the view taken by the Full Bench is as under :- 'APART from a Court having jurisdict...
Tag this Judgment!