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.
The Motor and General Finance Ltd. Vs. Radha Mohan Singh and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-22-1994
Reported in: 55(1994)DLT455
J.K. Mehra, J.(1) This is a petition under Section 20 of the Arbitration Act,1940 filed the petitioner company against the respondents who had entered into a hire purchase agreement with the petitioner company. Respondent No. 1 is the principal lessee and respondents No.2 and 3 are the guarantors for the payment of the hire-purchase installments.(2) On filing of the petition, notices were issued to the respondents. Despiteservice, no one appeared on behalf of the respondents except on 14.5.1992 whenMr.Jeetesh Vikram appeared for Mr. H.P. Singh and stated that the power of attorney and reply would be filed within six weeks. Thereafter neither any reply has been filed nor any one appeared on behalf of the respondents and consequently on 3.11.1993, they were proceeded against ex-parte. The petitioner was directed to lead ex-parte evidence by way of affidavit.(3) Pursuant to the said directions, the petitioner has filed an affidavits ofMr.A.K. Ahluwalia and Mr.K,L. Gosai, General Attorney ...
Vandana Shiva and ors. Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-22-1994
Reported in: 1995(32)DRJ447
M.J. Rao, C.J. (1) The first petitioner Dr. Vandana Shiva, is a Director of Research and Foundation for Science, Technology and Natural Resource Policy, Second petitioner is Shri N.D. Jayal, Director General (Natural Heritage), Indian National Trust for Art and Cultural Heritage, the third petitioner is Prof. M.D. Nanjundaswamy, President, Karnataka Rajya Ryota Sangha and the fourth petitioner is Srilata Swaminathan, State Secretary, Rajasthan Kisan Sangathana. These four petitioner have filed this writ petition on the 7th April, 1994 seeking a writ of mandamus restraining the. Union of India from signing/ratifying the existing version of Gatt Treaty,' or to restrained the Union of India from, agreeing to sign and signing Art. 27.5.3(b) of the TRIPs Agreement. They also seek a direction for exclusion of patents on life-forms including plants, animals, human beings produced through biological or microbiological processes, whether natural or modified on grounds of public morality and pub...
WaisuddIn Vs. State and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-22-1994
Reported in: 1994(2)Crimes490; 54(1994)DLT365; 1994(29)DRJ253
Y.K. Sabharwal, J.(1) In Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short 'the Act') as originally enacted there was no provision prohibiting grant of suspension, remission or commotion p73of sentences. By Act No.2 of 1989, Section 32-A was inserted in the Act,inter-alia, providing that no sentence awarded under the Act (other than Section 27) shall be suspended or remitted or commuted. Section 32-A came into force with effect from 29th May, 1989. It reads as under:- '32-A.No suspension, remission or commutation in any sentence awarded under this Act.- Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974) or any other law for the time being in force but subject to the provisions of Section 33, no sentence awarded under this Act (other than Section 27) shall be suspended or remitted or commuted.'(2) The question for determination is whether Section 32-A would apply to a case where offence has been committed before 29th May, 1989. (3) The p...
Daulat Ram Vs. Kalavati Devi and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-22-1994
Reported in: 54(1994)DLT472; 1994RLR288
Ms. Usha Mehra, J.1. This second appeal has arisen from the judgmentpassed by the Additional District Judge, Delhi, thereby reversing the judgment anddecree of the Trial Court and directing the appellant to vacate the shop under his occupation. The appellant Shri Daulat Ram (defendant No. 2 before the Trial Court) has challenged the judgment of the first Appellate Court on the grounds that respondent No. 1 herein (plaintiff before the Trial Court) was not the owner of the shop in question, in fact her husband, respondent No. 2 herein (defendant No. 1 before the Trial Court) was the actual owner. The respondent No. 1 was only Benami and that these two respondents in collusion with each other in order to evict the appellant from the shop in question filed the suit. That the partnership between him and the respondent No. 2 was never acted upon. He was in fact inducted as a tenant by respondent No. 2 and being a tenant he was protected by the provisions of Delhi Rent Control Act. Civil Sui...
Hindustan Sanitaryware and Vs. Collr. of Cus.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Apr-21-1994
Reported in: (1994)(71)ELT865TriDel
1. This is an appeal filed by the assessee against an Order-in-Appeal dated 5-7-1989 passed by the Collector of Customs (Appeals), Calcutta.2. The appellants imported Recrystallined Silicon Carbide refractory bricks (beams) as component parts. The goods were assessed under Tariff Heading 6902.90 as claimed by the party but benefit of exemption of Notification No. 242/76-Cus., dated 2-8-1976 was not extended on the ground that the beams are different from bricks and the Notification exempts only refractory bricks. They have become unsuccessful on this issue before both the authorities below. Hence this appeal.3. Shri B. Saha learned Advocate appearing for the appellants submitted that the item imported by the appellants is nothing but a brick but it is called as beam since it is of long shape. He said that this brick is not used in construction of buildings and should not be understood in that sense but nevertheless it is a brick used in the furnace as a component part and it is design...
Nestle India Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Apr-21-1994
Reported in: (1994)(71)ELT850TriDel
1. These are two appeals involving common issues and therefore they are clubbed together and are being disposed of by this common order.2. The dispute relates to classification of the product viz. instant coffee chicory blend manufactured and cleared by the appellants. The appellants had claimed the classification of the instant soluble coffee chicory blend under sub-heading No. 0901.20 of Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. According to the Department these goods are classifiable under sub-heading 2101.10. Different Collectors (Appeals) have taken the similar view and since the appellants have become unsuccessful before the lower authorities, they have come before us, by way of these two appeals.3. The ingredients and the process of manufacture of the product in question is as follows :- (v) blending of ground coffee beans with roasted chicory cubes in desired proportion; (vi) extraction of the liquor from the coffee chicory mixture using water; (viii) spray drying the concentrated liqu...
In Re: Mohan Exports India Ltd. Vs. Tarun Overseas Pvt. Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-21-1994
Reported in: 54(1994)DLT513; 1994(29)DRJ312
P.K. Bahri, J.(1) This petition has been filed under Section 391 & 394 of the Indian Companies Act praying that the scheme of arrangement comprised in annexure A to the petition may be approved by this court so that the same becomes binding on all the shareholders and the creditors of the transferor and the transferee companies and necessary directions be also issued for implementation of the said scheme.(2) On notice being issued under Section 394A of the Act to the Central Government, an opposition has been filed by the Regional Director, Northern Region, Department of Company Affairs. Before I deal with the petition, on merits I may (3) One of the pleas raised is that a notice was required to be served on the Central Government in the proceedings initiated initially in C.A. 753/91 when 'Judges Summons' had been taken out for holding the meetings of the creditors and the shareholders of the two companies and as no such notice was served at that stage the present petition, filed after...
Kailash Kumar and ors. Vs. R.L. Kapur
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-21-1994
Reported in: 1994IIAD(Delhi)416; 54(1994)DLT342; 1994(29)DRJ234; 1994RLR387
P.K. Bahri, J. (1) These two appeals are directed against the judgment and order dated September 30, 1991, of the Rent Control Tribunal by which he had dismissed the appeals filed by the appellants and also another appeal filed by alleged sub-tenant Raja Ram against the eviction order passed by the Additional Rent Controller dated May 15, 1989, on the ground of eviction covered by clause (b) of proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 14 of the Delhi Rent Control Act. (2) Facts, in brief, are that Sh.R.L. Kapur, landlord, had filed an eviction petition on the grounds of subletting, assignment and parting with possession of the different portions of the demised premises and on the ground of substantial damage. The ground of substantial damage was negatived by the Additional Rent Controller as well as by the Tribunal and no longer survives for consideration in these appeals. (3) Admittedly, shopNo.21,Jangpura Extension, New Delhi, which consists of two shop rooms, store, shaft, Wc godown, f...
Collector of Central Excise Vs. Mahabir Export and Import Co. Pvt.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Apr-19-1994
Reported in: (1994)(53)LC318Tri(Delhi)
1. In these three appeals since the issue involved is the same, they are disposed of by this common order.2. The question that arises for consideration in these cases is whether the Non-clog pumps and Coolant pumps manufactured by the respondents were correctly classifiable under Item 30-A of the erstwhile Central Excise Tariff or under Tariff Item 68 of the Central Excise Tariff. By the impugned order dated 1.10.1984 the Collector (Appeals) Central Excise, New Delhi, held that non-clog pump even though capable of pumping water mixed with mud and Coolant pump meant essentially for circulating oil in machine for keeping them cool were covered by Tariff Item 30-A since lubricating oil and muddy water (water mixed with mud) were covered by the term 'liquid' occurring in Tariff Item 30-A of the CET.3. Appearing on behalf of the appellants, Shri Sharad Bhansali, SDR referred to the literature in respect of 'Jyoti' Non-clog Centrifugal Pump filed by the appellants and stated that the respon...
Eureka Forbes Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Apr-19-1994
Reported in: (1994)LC384Tri(Delhi)
1. Eureka Forbes Ltd. have filed an appeal being aggrieved from the order passed by the Collector of Central Excise, Meerut. The said appeal was received in the Registry on 21st March, 1994. A stay application duly supported with an Affidavit was also presented on the same date. Shri D.B. Shroff, learned Advocate has appeared on behalf of the appellants. He pleaded that the duty amount involved is at Rs. 7,31,700/-but it was paid and there is a penalty of Rs. 10 lakhs. The period involved is August, 1992 to January, 1993 and the show cause notice is dated 2nd March, 1993. He argued that imposition of penalty is ab initio illegal as there is no mention in the show cause notice as to the imposition of penalty. He pleaded that penalty proceedings are Quasi criminal proceedings and as such when there is no mention of the leviability of the penalty in the show cause notice, the penalty cannot be imposed. Now coming to the levy of duty the learned Advocate argued that the adjudicating autho...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »