Delhi Court March 1994 Judgments

Ammonia Supplies Corporation (P) Ltd. (In Liquidation) Vs. Modern Plas ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 1994IAD(Delhi)1049; 54(1994)DLT8; 1994(29)DRJ13; (1994)107PLR73

P.K. Bahri, J.(1) Originally this petition was filed undcr Sections 397 & 398 read with Section 155 of the Indian Companies Act, but under (he orders of the Court the petition was allowed to be confined to the reliefs which may be available to the petitioner under Section 155 of the said Act. (2) The petitioner-company is in liquidation since December2.1,1962.1 would refer to only such pleadings which are necessary pertaining to the provisions of Section -155 of the Companies Act. It was averred in the petition that the petitioner-company vide letter dated January 3. 1977. had sent a sum of Rs.l.20,500.00 to Sh. Vipan Kumar Bhargava (since died), the director of the respondent-company and this money was sent for purchasing shares of the respondent-company and similar letter dated January 3, 1977. was also issued and so also letter dated February 21. 1977. It was averred that Sh. O.P. Bhargava s/o Sh. Murari Lal Bhargava was closely related to Sh.V.K. Bhargava as their wives were real s...

Harwinder Singh Vs. Union of India and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 55(1994)DLT187; 1994(29)DRJ535

Bhat, J.(1) The appeal is against an order dismissing the writ petition of the appellant (referred as the petitioner hereinafter) seeking his release from detention.(2) The petitioner was detained by virtue of an order dated 23/4/1993 made under Section 3(1) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act (here in after called the Act). It was alleged against the petitioner that on 8/1/1993 he was carrying two pieces of pure gold weighing in all 2913.500 gms.valuedatRs.11,53,746.00 . Petitioner had arrived at the Indira Gandhi International Airport, New Delhi from Dubai by a flight. He was detained on the date of the impugned order. According to him he sent two representations on 28/4/1993, one addressed to the Detaining Authority (the Govt. of the National Capital Territory of Delhi), and another to the 1st respondent. He had also sent another representation on 13/5/1993. On 19/5/1993, the petitioner filed the writ petition challenging the detention ...

Technical Works and Industrial Link Ltd. and anr. Vs. Rajeshwari Hooja ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 54(1994)DLT148

Sunanda Bhandare, J.(1) This revision petition under Section 25-B(8) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, hereinafter referred to as the Act is filed against the order of the Additional Rent Controller, Delhi dated 11.5.1993 whereby the application for leave to defend filed by the petitioners herein was rejected and a decree for eviction was passed in favor of respondent No. 1 under Section 14D read with Section 25B of the Act.(2) The brief facts relevant for the decision of this petition are as follows:Property bearing No. D-10 (Front Portion) Vasant Vihar, New Delhi was let out to the petitioners herein by respondent No. 1 and her late husband ShriM.M.L. Hooja on 8.10.1992 vide lease dead dated 31.10.1972. The lease was subsequently renewed on 13/05/1975, 29/12/1978, 8/10/1979,23rd, December, 198 1/11/1984, 6/06/1988 and lastly on 6/07/1987. The husband of respondent No. 1 after his retirement from Government service had moved to Calcutta where he got employment as Director in M/s. B.N. El...

Golden Hosiery Mills Vs. Delhi Development Authority and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 1994IAD(Delhi)1001; 1994(29)DRJ36

K. Shivashankar Bhat, J.(1) The petitioner is aggrieved by the cancellation of the allotment of a site made in his favor by the respondent. According to the petitioner he is carrying on business of running an industrial unit of hosiery at Nicholson Road, Kashmere Gate, Delhi. He further states that the respondent decided to shift the said industry from the walled city to different industrial areas, and in these circumstances the petitioner applied to the respondents for an alternative industrial plot. The application was made in October. 1966. The petitioner also deposited a sum of Rs. 1,250.00 towards premium for the industrial plot. It is further stated that in January, 1969 the Land Sales Officer of the first respondent informed the petitioner that there has been a decision to allot a plot in favor of the petitioner in Block D of the Okhla Industrial area and that the exact plot to be allotted will be decided by draw of lots. The petitioner was further informed that the draw of lots...

Shyama Gupta Vs. Collector of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2005)(71)ELT838TriDel

1 When the matter was called, Shri K.K. Anand, Advocate appearing for the appellant submitted that the revolver in the instant case was booked before the imposition of ban on import of fire arms but when the revolver landed iri the country, the ban on import was in force.Accordingly the revolver was confiscated absolutely by the Adjudicating Officer and absolute confiscation was sustained by the Collector (Appeals). He submitted that the Tribunal in a number of cases has allowed redemption of fire arms on payment of redemption fine and duty.He therefore prayed that in the instant case also the revolver may be allowed to be redeemed.2 Shri B.D. Bhagat, the ld. JDR appearing for the respondent submitted that the revolver was confiscated absolutely and that there has been no relaxation of the ban imposed on import of fire arms. He reiterated the findings of the lower authorities.3. Heard the submissions of both sides and considered them. I find that there has been a number of cases where...

itc Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1994)(71)ELT547TriDel

2. Question involved in these cases is whether the printed paper board articles described as follows :- (iii) Hinge-lids cut out and inner frames, are printed cartons which include within their scope folded and flattened containers of paper and paper board within the description of erstwhile Tariff Item 17(4) (as it stood before 1-3-1986) read with Notification No. 66/82-C.E., dt. 28-2-1982.3. Learned Advocate Shri Ravinder Narain for some of the appellants herein has urged that the question of durability of cigarette packets/outer shells/outer-shells with inner slides under erstwhile Tariff Item 17(4) read with Notification 66/82-C.E., dt. 28-2-1982 has already been gone into by the High Courts of Delhi and Madras in the cases (i) Zupiter Printery and another v. UOI [1991 (34) ECR 7 (Delhi)] and (ii) Asia Tobacco Co. Ltd. v. UOI [1992 (58) E.L.T. 418 (Mad.)] respectively.4. On the analogy of reasoning in the aforesaid two judgments of the High Courts, he submits that hinge lids cut o...

Saphire Steels (P) Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1995)LC267Tri(Delhi)

1. We have also taken up on the oral request of the ld. Advocate, Shri Rajesh Chhibber, Stay Petition No. 261/94-B1 in Appeal No. E/511/94-B1 in the case of M/s. Durga Ispat (P) Ltd. inasmuch as issue involved in this matter is identical to the ones already listed on board today.2. Shri Rajesh Chhibber, ld. Advocate, in support of the applications praying for waiver of pre-deposit and stay of recovery of demands of duty from various applicants herein, submits that a common issue is involved in all these matters and, therefore, they can be dealt with by a common order. We agree with him and proceed to pass common order for all these applications.3. Following amounts of duty have been prayed for waiver of pre-deposit and stay of recovery in respect of various appellants as mentioned below :________________________________________________________________________S. A. No. NAME OF THE APPLICANTS DEMAND________________________________________________________________________No. CONFIRMED2. 1...

Hoshiar Singh Vs. the Management of Delhi Transport Corporation and or ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 1994IIAD(Delhi)112; 54(1994)DLT56; [1995(70)FLR80]; (1995)ILLJ504Del

P.N. Nag, J. (1) Petitioner has challenged the order passed by Depot Manager, Delhi transport Corporation dated 31.7.1991, Annexure P-l whereby he has been declared unfit for the post of Driver on account of medical report of Medical Board,DTC as per provision of Clause 10 of Data (Conditions of Appointment andService) Regulations,1952.The petitioner was asked to appear before the Medical Board for eye test. the medical Board not only conducted eye test of the petitioner who was working as Driver but also declared him unfit for the post of Driver and on that basis the impugned order has been passed. On the last date of hearing Mr. Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner cited a judgment of two Honourable Judges of the supreme Court arising out of Special Leave Petition (C) No-1575/90, Ved PrakashSingh (Conductor) v. Delhi Transport Corporation and Others whereby he pointed out the policy being adopted by the Supreme Court of taking recourse to rehabilitate handicapped persons and su...

Gian Chand Vs. Secretary (Labour) Delhi Administration

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 1994(28)DRJ691; [1995(70)FLR880]; (1995)ILLJ384Del

P.N. Nag and R.L. Gupta, JJ.(1) By this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the impugned Order dated 10.3.1993 passed by the Appropriate Govt. whereby the appropriate Govt. has refused to accept the prayer of the petitioner for referring the matter, regarding the termination of the petitioner's services for adjudication to the Labour Court. (2) In the Counter Affidavit filed by Respondent No.1, it has been stated that the Appropriate Govt. has carefully considered the rival contentions of the parties and their respective documents produced on record and there is no error of jurisdiction in passing the impugned order. It has further been stated there in that after consideration of these documents the appropriate Govt. has come to the conclusion that the petitioner No. 1's termination, as alleged by him, is not a termination but. in fact, an abandonment of service by the petitioner himself. The petitioner has been transferred in Delhi itself and admittedly he has not joined his ...

Bhartiya Commercial and Industrial Resources India Ltd. Vs. Sanjay Kum ...

Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi

R.N. Mittal, President: 1. The allegations of the complainant in the complaint are that they appointed Shri Sanjay Kumar Saxena (respondent No. 1) as a Clerk in their company. He cheated the company as he recovered amounts from 36 persons and mis-appropriated the same. It is further alleged that they made a report to the S.H.O., Police Station Dausa, Rajasthan, Respondent No. 6, but he did not investigate the matter. 2. It is further pleaded by the complainant that opposite parties Nos. 2 and 3 furnished surety for respondent No. 1 and therefore, they are also liable to pay the amount. They have filed the complaint praying, that the respondents be directed to pay the mis-appropriated amount to them. 3. From the perusal of the complaint it is evident that they have made allegations of cheating against their employee and sought to recover the mis-appropriated amount from him. 4. The word service has been defined in the Section 2(1)(o) of the Consumer Protection Act. It is provided therei...