Delhi Court February 1994 Judgments
Home Cases Delhi 1994 Page 6 of about 140 results (0.015 seconds)Mehta Teja Singh and Co. Vs. Delhi Development Authority and anr.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1994IAD(Delhi)821; 1994(1)ARBLR326(Delhi); 53(1994)DLT650; 1994(28)DRJ568
Sat Pal, J. (1) This is a petition filed on behalf of M/s. Mehta Teja Singh & Company (hereinafter referred to as 'the petitioner') under Sections 14 and 17 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 and in this petition it has been prayed that respondent No.2. learned arbitrator, be directed to file the award dated 7th April, 1989 along with proceedings and thereafter the award be made a rule of the Court. After the receipt of the award from the arbitrator, notice of filing of the award was issued to the petitioner and Delhi Development Authority (for short called 'DDA'). Thereafter the Dda filed objections against the award vide I.A. No.3408/90. The following issues were framed on 23rd February, 1990:-1) Whether the award is liable to be made a rule of the Court? 2) Relief.On the same date the parties were directed to adduce evidence in the form of affidavit. Affidavit by way of evidence on behalf of the petitioner was filed on 11th February, 1991 and counter affidavit on behalf of the Dda was fil...
Tag this Judgment!Mohd. Zamil and ors. and Mohd. Aslam Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1994IAD(Delhi)787; 1994(3)Crimes97; 54(1994)DLT52
V.B. Bansal, J. (1) By this order, I will dispose of Criminal Misc. (Main) No.2067 of 1993 (Mohammed Zamil v. State) and Criminal Misc. (Main) No. 2684 of1993 (Mohammed Aslam v. State) since they arise out of the same incident in F.I.R.No. 141/92 under Section 498A, 406 and 304B Ipc, Police Station Lahori Gate,Delhi.Mohammed Zamil is the son of Mohammed Aslam. Mohammed Zamil was married with Mehnaz Begum according to Nikah ceremonies on 4.11.1989 at Delhi and she, thereafter, was residing with her-in-laws.On 1.5.1992, D.D. No. 19A was recorded at Police Station Lahori Gate at 3.35a.m' on the basis of information from Police Control Room about giving of information by some one from public call office that one woman has set herself on fire in House No. 999, Haveli Hizamuddin, Balli Maran, Delhi. Copy of this D.D.entry was given to S.I. Om Prakash, who, along with Const. Brij Vir Singh went to the spot. S.I.Om Prakash reached the spot and came to know that the injured had' already been ta...
Tag this Judgment!Mohammed Zamil Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1994(28)DRJ642
V.B. Bansal, J. (1) By this order, I will dispose of Criminal Misc. (Main) No. 2067 of 1993 (Mohammed Zamil versus State) andCriminalMisG.(Main)No.2684of 1993 (Mohammed Aslam versus State) since they arise out of the same incident in P.I.R. No. 141/92 under Section 498A, 406 and 304B Ipc, police station Lahori Gate, Delhi. (2) Mohammed Zamil is the son of Mohammed Aslam. MohammedZamil was married with Mehnaz Begum according to Nikah ceremonies on 4.11.1989 at Delhi and she. thereafter, was residing with her-in-laws. (3) On 1.5.1992.D.D.No. 19A was recorded at Police Station Lahori Gate at 3.35a.m.. on the basis of information from Police Control Room about giving of information by someone from public call office that one woman has set herself on Fire in House No. 999, Haveli Hizamuddin.Balli Maran, Delhi. Copy of this D.D. entry was given to S.I. Om Prakash, who, along with Const. Brij Vir Singh went to the spot. (4) S.I. 0m Prakash reached the spot and came to know that the injured ha...
Tag this Judgment!Sushil Kumar @ Sushil Kumar Batra Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1994IAD(Delhi)794; 1994(3)Crimes20; 54(1994)DLT123
V.B. Bansal, J. (1) Sushil Kumar @ Sushil Kumar Batra has filed this application for bail for the offences under Section 304/498A and in the alternative Section 306 read with Section 34, Indian Penal Code in case Fir No. 536/92, Police Station Paschim Bihar.(2) According to the prosecution story the petitioner, Sushil Kumar @ Sushil Kumar Batra, was married to Seema on 7.3.1991 and out of this wedlock one female child was born on 31.1.1992. Seema died on 1.11.1992 and the post-mortem examination was conducted on 2.11.1992. After the receipt of report of Cfsl the doctor gave his opinion that death was due to Baigon poisoning. Case was registered on the basis of the statement of Vipin Babbar, brother of the deceased,recorded by the S.D.M. It was inter alias stated by the complainant, Vipin Babbar,that his sister Seema was married to Sushil Kumar @ Sushil Kumar Batra on7.3.1991 as per Hindu rites and for about one month everything was normal but,thereafter, her in-laws started taunting he...
Tag this Judgment!Devi Saran Laxmi Saruf Vs. Municipal Corporation of Delhi
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 53(1994)DLT833
Arun B. Saharya, J.(1) The petitioner is a registered consumer of energy for industrial purposes at A-100 / 3, Okhla Industrial Estate, Phase Ii, New Delhi. In the very same premises, the petitioner has allowed three different companies, namely, M/s. Muko Plast Pvt. Ltd., M/s. Yogi Trading Company (P) Ltd., and M/s. Welcome India, to carry on their own and independent industrial business with the aid of electric energy which is supplied in his name. The respondent is claiming misuse charges from the petitioner, on the ground that the petitioner has sublet the facility to the said three different industrial units without permission. The respondent has raised bills for recovery of misuse charges on the basis of Subclause (v) of Clause (xxiv) of Tariff Rules, which is sought to be stayed. (2) We may note here that in some similar matters, being Cwp Nos. 22/92 and 52/92, where Rule Nisi has been issued, recovery of misuse charges has been stayed. Those are non-speaking orders. We are devia...
Tag this Judgment!P.M. Diesels Vs. S.M. Diesels
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1994IAD(Delhi)825; AIR1994Delhi264; 1994(1)ARBLR330(Delhi); 53(1994)DLT742; 1994(28)DRJ574
P.N. Nag, J. (1) By this application filed under Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the plaintiff has sought an injunction restraining the defendant, during. pendency of the suit, from manufacturing, selling, offering for sale or otherwise dealing in Diesel Oil Engines and parts thereof under the trade mark 'SONAMARSHAL' and/or any other trade mark identical and/or deceplively similar to the registered trade mark and label entitled 'FIELD MARSHAL' of the plaintiff and from passing off its goods as and for those of the plaintiff's goods under the said mark/label 'SONAMARSHAL'and under the trading style of 'S.M. .h1 is 8027/89 in S.2877/89. DIESELS'. (2) This application has been filed along with the suit for perpetual in junction restraining infringement of trade mark, trade name, copyright, passing off and for rendition of accounts etc. (3) The relevant facts set out in the application as well as in the suit are that the plaintiff company since the year 1963 has been ...
Tag this Judgment!E. Padmanabhan Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1994IAD(Delhi)797; 53(1994)DLT823; 1994(28)DRJ571
Y.K. Sabharwal, J.(1) The petitioner, an officer of the Indian Army in the rank of Colonel who was due to retire with effect from 30th September, 1993 on attaining the age of super annuation, was placed under close arrest with immediate effect by an order dated 30th September, 1993 passed by Respondent No.3 in exercise of power under Section 101 of the Army Act (for short the 'Act'). By a separate order passed on the same date under Section 123 of the Act it was directed that in view of disciplinary proceedings pending against him and his retirement from service with effect from 30th September, 1993 the petitioner shall continue to remain subject to the Act. A tentative charge sheet was served on the petitioner on the same day, inter-alia, alleging that the petitioner has committed grave acts of misappropriation of government stores while in service. During the relevant period the petitioner was posted as the Commanding Officer of 32EMEBn. Missamari, Assam. The challenge in this writ p...
Tag this Judgment!P.S. Bedi Vs. the Project and Equipment Corporation of India Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1994IIAD(Delhi)937; AIR1994Delhi255; 1994(28)DRJ680
P.N. Nag, J. (1) The plaintiff has Filed the suit for ejectment against the defendant from property known as flat No.9-B.Hansalaya Building. 1.5, Barakhamba Road, New Delhi-110001 and for recovery of Rs.4,26,560.00 on account of damages & mesne profits for use and occupation of the premises from the date of termination of the tenancy till the date of the suit and for mesne profits. (2) The facts set out in the plaint are that the plaintiff is the owner of the properly knownasflatNo.9-B,Hansalaya Building, 15,BarakhambaRoad,NewDelhi-l 10001. The aforementioned premises, which has a covered area of 1333 sq. ft. on the 9th floor in Hansalaya Building, as marked 'B' in the plan was let out by the plaintiff to the defendant as monthly tenant initially at the rate of Rs.5.50 per ft. per month i.e. Rs.7331.50 per month from 30.4.1976 on the terms reduced in writing vide registered lease dated 6.6.1977. vide Registered No.2261, book No-3816 on pages 84-87 dated23.6.1977. The said lease deed co...
Tag this Judgment!Lachhman Dass Behari Lal Vs. Collector of C. Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1995)LC168Tri(Delhi)
1. The issue involved in both the appeals is common. The issue of the classification of the goods manufactured by the appellants is covered by the Appeal E/1669/91-D and the other appeal is a related one of demand of duty arising out of that decision on the classification of the product. On hearing both the parties since the former appeal is being taken up on merits, the latter appeal was also taken up alongwith it, granting stay.2. Briefly, the facts are that by a Show Cause Notice issued on 28-6-1990, the Assistant Collector, Central Excise, MOD IV, New Delhi directed the appellants to show cause why duty should not be levied on their products under sub-heaqjing 2404.50 as snuff of tobacco as against the Classification list filed by them with effect from 1-4-1990 claiming classification of the goods under sub-heading 2404.60 as preparations containing snuff of tobacco in any proportion. The appellants' contention was that the new sub-heading 2404.60 was created in the Tariff in 1990...
Tag this Judgment!Modi Alkalies and Chemicals Ltd. Vs. Collector of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1994)(74)ELT924TriDel
1. The only issue involved in the present appeal is as to whether the products quick lime and hydrated lime are excisable goods for the purpose of excise duty.2. Arguing on behalf of the appellants Ld. Sr. Counsel, Shri A.N.Haksar, submitted that the said issue is a covered one by series of decisions of this Tribunal. In the case of Laxmi Chemicals v. Collector of Central Excise, Jaipur (Final Order No. 161/91-C, dated 25-1-1991) wherein it was held that product hydrated lime is not an excisable commodity. The same view was reiterated in the case of Himalaya Chemicals v. Collector of Central Excise, Chandigarh (Final Order No.444 & 445/91-C, dated 16-5-1991). In view of this he did not argue on the other grounds taken up in the Memorandum of Appeal.3. In reply Shri Arora, Ld. JDR faced with the said view of the Tribunal reiterated the submissions which were made on behalf of the Revenue in those cases.4. Considered. Following the ratio of the said decisions we hold that hydrated/s...
Tag this Judgment!