Delhi Court May 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.
N.S. Yadav Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-27-1994
Reported in: 54(1994)DLT677; 1994(29)DRJ446
K. Shivashankar Bhat, J. (1) In these two writ petitions, petitioners seek the quashing of the proceedings of the Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC for short) held in August, 1982 and for a further direction to accept the recommendations of the Review Dpc held in the year 1991 and to issue a revised Seniority List of DIGs; they also seek a direction to consider their case for promotion as I.G. on the basis of the revised Seniority list as aforesaid; other relief sought are only Consequential to these reliefs. (2) To appreciate the case, it is sufficient if reference is made to the facts in N.S. Yadav's writ petition. Petitioner, on release from the Indian Army joined the Border Security Force as an Assistant Commandant. In the year 1971 he was promoted as Deputy Commandant and in the year 1973, he became a Commandant. In the year 1981, petitioner was promoted as Additional Deputy inspector General. In the Seniority List of Add. Deputy I.G., N.S. Yadav was at S.No. 8 and the other p...
Federation of Ashok Vihar Esidents Welfare Association Vs. Union of In ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-27-1994
Reported in: 1994IAD(Delhi)227; 55(1994)DLT62; 1994(29)DRJ473
K. Shivashankar Bhat, J.(1) Civil writ petitions are filed challenging the conversion fee fixed for the purpose of converting the lease hold interest into free hold in Delhi. There is no dispute that all the lands involved in these writ petitions belonged to the President of India and these lands were allotted to several persons either directly or through Group Housing Societies or-Delhi Development Authority. The allottees had to execute lease deeds. The lease period is 99 years. Under the lease deed certain restrictions are imposed about the manner in which the land should be utilised. There is also restriction regarding the alienation of the lease hold property by the lessee. Except in the case of the allottees under the Rehabilitation Scheme, whenever the original allottee alienates his interest 50% of the unearned increase shall have to be paid to the Lesser (Union of India). In respect of subsequent alienations also this requirement continues. In other words, whenever there is al...
Upper India Couper Paper Mills Co. Ltd. Vs. Appellate Authority Indust ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-27-1994
Reported in: 1994IIIAD(Delhi)588; 1994(30)DRJ213
Anil Dev Singh, J.(1) Rule D.B.(2) This writ petition challenges the order of the Appellate Authority for Industrial & Financial Reconstruction (hereinafter refered to an ''the AAIFR') dated August 27,1993 whereby it declined to interfere with the order passed by the Board for Industrial & Financial Reconstruction (hereinafter referred to 'BIFR') dated August 17,1990 holding that the petitioner company was not viable and should be wound up.(3) The writ petition arises in the following circumstances: The petitioner company was registered in the State of U.P. in the year 1879 and has a factory at Lucknow which manufactured paper and pulp etc. It appears that the company fell on bad days and started accumulating losses. The petitioner company applied to the State of U.P. for permission to expand the unit at Lucknow but neither No objection Certificate was granted by the U.P. Pollution Control Board nor any permission was given by the Director General Technical Development for the same. Pu...
Union of India Vs. R.P. Builders
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-27-1994
Reported in: AIR1995Delhi57; 57(1995)DLT337; (1995)110PLR53; 1994RLR460
M.J. Rao, J.(1) This C.M. raises a question which, of late, has been arising day in and day out, in this Court. The matter is in regard to the condensation of delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 filed by the State Public Sector Public Corporations and whether certain factors common to these bodies in their structure and administrative procedures have to be taken into accounts by the Courts while considering applications for condensation of delay. The matter has required review particularly in the light of the recent Judgment of the Supreme Court in Union of India vs. N. Das R. Israni (Civil Appeal No. 2480 of 1993) arising out of Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 417 of 1993 dated 12-4-93)(2) reversing the decision of this Court in Narain Das R. Israni vs. Union of India 1992 (1) Arb. L.R. 405. (1) In that decision this Court had taken the view that 'if the Courts were to accept the mere procedure of working in Government offices as sufficient cause, then delay will have...
Dhan Raj Bagaria Vs. the Lt. Governor, Delhi and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-27-1994
Reported in: 57(1995)DLT346
Usha Mehra, J.(1) Petitioners have challenged the notification under Section 4 read with Section 17(1) of the Land Acquisition Act (in short the Act) issued by Delhi Administration, dated 6th March, 1987, published in the Indian Express on 8th March, 1987. Declaration was made on 10th March. 1987 under Section 6 of the Act. The challenge to the said notification is primarily based on three grounds namely (0 lack of urgency; (ii) fraud on the powers of appropriate Government and lastly (iii) that the acquisition of the property by the respondent for official use is contrary to the approved use of the property i.e. residential. (2) Facts are brief and not in dispute. The property in Question was originally owned and belonged to a partnership firm M/s Partabmull Rameshwar. The firm purchased this property in the name of one of its partners. Shri Rang Lal Bagaria vide sale deed dated 23rd July, 1963. The property tell to the share of petitioner .No. 1, Shri Dhan Raj Bagaria and of Shri Deo...
Jarnail Singh and Jasvinder Singh Alias Toni Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-27-1994
Reported in: 1994(30)DRJ90
Devinder Gupta, J. 1. Both these appeals arise out of the judgment dated 26.5.1988 passed by Shri P.S. Sharma, Additional Sessions Judge, Delhi convicting the appellants Jarnail Singh and Jasvinder Singh for offences under Sections 302 and 392 of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing them to undergo life imprisonment under Section 302I.P.C. and seven years R.I. under Section 392 I.P.C. 2. The facts in brief are that the appellants along with Ms. Daljit Kaur @ Sweety were tried jointly for offences under Section 392 read with Section 34 and Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code on the allegations that one Sudarshan Malhotra was staying with his wife Ms. Anju at House No. 3/115-A, Ramesh Nagar, New Delhi. They had three children who were getting education p53 at Mussoorie. A couple of months prior to the date of occurrence Ms. Daljit Kaur was also brought by Sudarshan Malhotra to the house as his wife-mistress. As Ms. Daljit Kaur was not pulling on well with Ms. Anju, ...
Gautam Cable Industries Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: May-26-1994
Reported in: (1994)(72)ELT286TriDel
1. When the Stay Application No. E/Stay/504/94-NRB and E/Stay/507/94-NRB in Appeals No. E/862/94-NRB and E/864/94-NRB was taken up for consideration, Sh. A.N. Sharma, the ld. Consultant appearing for the applicants submitted that in the declaration filed by the applicant under Sl. No. 7 of the said declaration, the goods were described as wires of iron and non-alloy steel (steel strips or steel wires) showing the classification as 7217.90. Stating that Rule 57A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 specifies this as an input for the finished product which were not cables manufactured by them. Referring to Rule 57G of the Central Excise Rules the ld. Consultant submitted that the Rule prescribes that along with the description of the goods the Tariff sub-heading should also be indicated. Relying on this the ld. Consultant submitted that this aspect has been fully covered in accordance with the declaration filed by them which gives the description of the input as well as the relevant Tariff...
Western Engineering Co. Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: May-26-1994
Reported in: (1994)(73)ELT487TriDel
1. Briefly stated the facts of the case as set out in the order-in-original are as follows :- "An intelligence revealed that the party was inter alia, engaged in the manufacture of Air-conditioning machinery and the parts of such machinery. These goods were classifiable under Item 29 A of the Central Excise Tariff in force till 27-2-1986 and thereafter under Ch. 84 of Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. It was also revealed by the intelligence that the turnover of the party was quite high but the party was not paying any Central Excise duty. Acting upon the intelligence, the officers of this Collectorate visited the factory of the party at the address mentioned above and also head office situated at 3785, Subhash Marg, Daryaganj, Delhi on 18-9-1987. No records were found/recovered in the factory. Sh. Anil Kumar, Supervisor, who was present in the factory, tendering a statement on the spot explained that the records were kept in head office and at the time of clearance, th...
Bhagwan Dass and Another Vs. Municipal Corporation of Delhi
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-26-1994
Reported in: AIR1995Delhi17; 1994(30)DRJ49
ORDERR. C. Lahoti, J. 1. Sugar cane juice, the cold drink of the common man, the cheapest of all the juices, faces the ire ofextinction from availability in Delhi in view of the notice dated 12-4-1994 issued in exercise of power conferred by Section 383 of the Delhi-Municipal Corporation Act, 1957.2. The petitioners extract juice from the sugar cane and offer it for sale at the premises situated at Vijay Chowk, Krishna Nagar, Delhi. They hold a license issued under Section 421 of the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957 (hereinafter the Act, for short). They are aggrieved by the prohibition imposed by the public notice dated 12-4-1994 issued by the Commissioner, Municipal Corporation of Delhi which reads as under:'Whereas the undersigned is satisfied that the area falling within the jurisdiction of Municipal Corporation of Delhi may be threatened by an outbreak of dangerous disease as specified in Section 2(9) of the DMC Act, 1957 (67 of 1993). Now, thereforee, the undersigned, in pur...
Canara Bank Vs. M/S. Studywell and Others
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-26-1994
Reported in: AIR1994Delhi308
ORDER1. This is an application for permission to sell the property which was mortgaged to the plaintiff-Bank. The property mortgaged is D/241, Ashok Vihar, Phase-1, Delhi.2. The applicant by this application seeks permission to sell this property, and undertakes to deposit the amount of suit in this Court.3. Reply to this application has been filed. The objection which has been taken by the plaintiff-Bank/non-applicant is that the property in question is the only property which is the security for repayment of the amount claimed in this suit for recovery.4. In my view, the objection taken by the plaintiff-Bank is not sound inasmuch as the maximum amount which is claimable by the plaintiff-Bank is the amount which it claimed in the suit. The applicant/defendant has also undertaken to deposit that amount in Court. The objections of the plaintiff-Bank have no merit.5. I allow the applicant/defendant to sell the properly bearing No. D/241, Ashok Vihar, Phase-I, Delhi, subject to condition ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »