Delhi Court April 1994 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
Tosh Apartments Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Pradeep Kumar Khanna and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-05-1994
Reported in: 1994IIAD(Delhi)136; 54(1994)DLT318; 1994(29)DRJ75
Sat Pal, J.(1) This is an application filed on behalf of the defendant No. 1 under Order 7 Rule 11 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter referred to as the Code) and in this application it has been prayed that the plaint be rejected under Order 7 Rule 11 (d) of the Code. Notice of this application was issued to the plaintiff and the plaintiff in its reply has controverter the averments made in the application. Thereafter defendant No. 1 has also filed the rejoinder to the reply filed on behalf of the plaintiff. (2) Briefly, the facts of the case as stated in the plaint are that the defendant No.1 who is the owner of the property bearing No.21, Aurangzeb Road, New Delhi Along with defendant No. 3 approached the plaintiff-company and offered to sell the aforesaid property for a consideration of Rs.2.5 crores exclusive of unearned increase, if any, liability to be paid to L & D.O.. Thereafter the defendant No. 1 entered into agreement for sale of the aforesaid ...
Banaras Manufacturers Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Ltd. and ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-05-1994
Reported in: 1994IIAD(Delhi)133; 1994(29)DRJ85
P.N. Nag, J. (1) RULE. D.B. (2) By this petition the petitioner has challenged the Award dated 8.9.1993 (Annexure-18) given by respondent No. 3 as an Arbitrator appointed under Section 7-B of the Indian Telegraph Act. 1885 (as amended) hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') by respondent No. 1 vide letter No. MTNL/SECTT/ARB/731 dated 17.6.1992 to adjudicate the dispute arisen in respect of telephone hilling cycle 1.1.1990 for an amount of Rs. 72,426.00 concerning the telephone No. 5732519. (3) The main grounds of challenge in this writ petition are that the arbitrator has been appointed by M.T.N.L., respondent No. I under Section 7B of the Act and not by the Central Government Secondly Section 7B under which the arbitrator is appointed is itself ultravires of the Constitution. (4) We have heard the learned counsel for the parties. We are of opinion that it is not necessary to decide the question whether Section 7B of the Act is ultra virus of Constitution as the petitioner succeeds on t...
Moti Lal Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-05-1994
Reported in: 1994IIAD(Delhi)674; 1994(2)Crimes1009; 55(1994)DLT375; 1994RLR286
Jaspal Singh, J. (1) On an application for grant of anticipatory bail, the learned Additional Sessions Judge passed the following order: 'HEARD:Considering the facts and circumstances of the case no ground for anticipatory bail. Hence dismissed.'The order has left the petitioner dissatisfied and .this Court unhappy. (2) Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is a salutary provision enshring the intention of the legislature that liberty of the subject is not put in jeopardy on frivolous grounds. The provision is thus no plaything inviting casual handling or perfunctory treatment. It is a solemn provision which mandates due judicial care and circumspection without being taken in by equivocatory quibblings. In dealing with it no lexical dexterity is needed. Even the truth, veracity and effect of the evidence is not to be meticulously judged. What, however, is expected is a speaking order furnishing salient features of the case, and the factors which weighed with the Court while fin...
Collector of Central Excise Vs. Ramchand Choithram Sons
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Apr-04-1994
Reported in: (1994)(71)ELT832TriDel
1. The issue in this appeal filed by the Department against the order of the Collector of Central Excise, Bombay-I No. V-Adj (23A) 15-1/81, is of classification of moulded optical lenses. The assessee claimed their classification under Item 68 as goods not elsewhere specified in the tariff. The Department however has opted to classify the goods as article of glass and glassware under Item 28A(4) of Central Excise Tariff.2. On hearing the learned Senior Departmental Representative Shri M.K.Jain and on perusal of the written submissions of the respondents, we find that their claim that the issue is already settled in their favour by the Tribunal's order No. E/522/90-D, dated 12-7-1990, is correct.The Tribunal's order disposes of the appeal by the respondents herein against the very same order of the Collector. In that order, the Tribunal has held that the goods in question, is correctly classifiable under Tariff Item 68 and not under Tariff Item 23A(4). In view of this position, nothing...
South India Carbonic Gas Vs. Collr. of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Apr-04-1994
Reported in: (1994)(71)ELT368TriDel
1. This is an application proposing certain alleged question of law said to have been arisen out of Final Order No. 340/93-C, dated 28-10-1993 passed by this Tribunal for referring to the concerned Hon'ble High Court.2. When the application was taken up for hearing none appeared on behalf of the appellants/applicant. However, they vide their letter dated 2-3-1994 have requested that it be decided on merits in their absence. Accordingly we perused the application along with the record and heard Shri Bhansali, Ld. SDR.3. From the said order of the Tribunal No. 340/93-C it is clear that the question of the rate of duty and the interpretation of two Notifications, namely, No. 235/85-C.E., and No. 40/85-C.E., dated 17-3-1985 are involved in the present appeal and under Sub-section (1) of Section 35G of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 it is not maintainable since the said order has relation amongst other things to the rate of duty of excise as well as the interpretation of the said t...
M/S. Fly Wings Travels (P) Ltd. Vs. Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Ltd. and ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-04-1994
Reported in: AIR1995Delhi71
ORDERP. N. Nag, J.1. (Oral) Rule. D.B.2. By this petition the petitioner has challenged the Award dated 13-2-1993 (Annexure-21) given by respondent No. 2 as an Arbitrator appointed under S. 7-B of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 (as amended) (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') by respondent No. 1 vide letter No. MTNL/ SECTT/793 dated 14-10-1992 to adjudicate the dispute arisen in respect of telephone bill dated 1-3-1990 for an amount of Rs. 61,788/-concerning the telephone No. 5732519, subsequently changed into 5752807.3. The main grounds of challenge in this writ petition are that the arbitrator has beenappointed by M.T.N.L., respondent No. 1 under S. 7-B of the Act and not by the Central Government. Secondly S. 7-B under which the arbitrator is appointed is itself ultra virus of the Constitution.4. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties. We are of opinion that it is not necessary to decide the question whether Sec. 7-B of the Act is ultra virus of Constitution as the pet...
Sanjay Kumar Talwar Vs. Varsha Promoters and Developers and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-04-1994
Reported in: 1994IIAD(Delhi)187; II(1994)BC266; 1994(29)DRJ101
Sat Pal, J. (1) On 10th February, 1994 when this suit came up for hearing, the learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the suit itself was not maintainable in view of the bar under Sub-sections (2) and (3) of Section 69 of the Indian Partnership Act, 1932 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). Accordingly the following preliminary issue was framed:- 'WHETHER the suit filed on behalf of the petitioner is maintainable?'On that day the learned counsel for the parties also submitted that the said preliminary issue did not require any evidence and accordingly the case was listed for arguments on the said preliminary issue for 18th March, 1994, the date on which the arguments. (2) Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the petitioner entered into partnership with respondents 2 and 3 by way of partnership deed dated 22nd December, 1988 and the said partnership firm functioned in the name and style of M/s. Varsha Promoters & Developers (hereinafter referred to as 'the firm)...
Geep Industrial Syndicate Ltd. Vs. Collector of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Apr-01-1994
Reported in: (1996)(85)ELT290TriDel
1. M/s. Geep Industrial Syndicate Ltd., Allahabad, had filed an appeal (listed as Appeal No. E/409/94-A), being aggrieved with the Order-in-Appeal No. 1-C.E.-ALLD/94, dated 7-1-1994, passed by the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), Allahabad. Along with the appeal they also filed stay application under Section 35F of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'), praying for dispensing with the pre-deposit of Rs. 8,91,022.93, demanded under the above mentioned order-in-appeal. The goods involved in the case are the torches and the dry cell batteries. The ground on which the dispensation of pre-deposit has been pleaded is that "the applicants have a prima facie strong case on merits".2. The stay application was heard on 24-3-1994, when Shri V.Lakshmikumaran, Advocate appeared for the applicants. The respondents were represented by Smt. C.G. Lal, S.D.R.3. Shri V. Lakshmikumaran, the learned Advocate stated that the assessee's earlier stay application ...
Ramesh Kumar Vs. State (Central Bureau of Investigation)
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-01-1994
Reported in: 1994IIAD(Delhi)485; 54(1994)DLT393
V.B. Bansal, J.(1) Ramesh Kumar has moved this application for bail for the offences punishable under Sections 120B, 420, 468 and 471 Indian Penal Code and Section 5 of Imports and Exports (Control) Act, 1947, read with Section 20 of the Foreign Trade (Development and Regulation) Act, 1992. A complaint dated 8th of October,1993 has since been filed in Court against the petitioner and two others, by which,the State through Shri Mahesh Chandra, Deputy Director General of ForeignTrade.(2) Briefly stated, the averments made against the petitioner have been that as per the import policy for the year 1988 to 1991, the registered exporters could get advance import license under the duty exemption scheme for which, detailed procedure for issue of license has been prescribed in Chapter Xix Paras 347 to 358of Hand Book of Procedure. Further averments made are that M/s. Creative India,through its proprietor Ramesh Kumar submitted an application to the Office of the Joint Chief Controller of Impor...
inder Singh Vs. Shakuntla Devi
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-01-1994
Reported in: 1994(29)DRJ386
V.B. Bansal, J.(1) Inder Singh has filed this revision petition against the judgment dated 5.12.1990 of Shri Rakesh Kapur, Additional Rent Controller, Delhi, vide which the learned Additional Rent Controller came to the conclusion that Smt.Shakuntia, the landlady, was in bona fide requirement of the premises in question and, thus, passed the decree for eviction under Section . 14(l)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') in her favor and against the petitioner tenant. There was a further direction that this order of eviction would be effective after a lapse of six months from the date of this order.(2) SMT.SHAKUNTLA Devi(hereinafter referred to as the landlady') filed a petition under Section 14(l)(e) read with Section 25-B of the Act against Inder singh for his eviction from the portions shown red in the plan attached with the petition in premises bearing No-2193, Kucha Akil Khan, Bazar Sita Ram, Delhi.(3) Briefly stated, the averments made in the peti...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- Next ›