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.
K. Balakrishna Rao Vs. M/S. Volga Restaurant
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-18-1994
Reported in: AIR1995Delhi40
1. This is a suit under Order xxxvII, C.P.C. seeking recovery of Rupees 8,00,000/- plus interest deposited with the defendants in connection with franchise agreement dated 09-03-1989. The amount was deposited as a security. The franchise agreement was between the plaintiff and Volga Restaurant for the purposes of enabling the plaintiff to serve South Indian dishes.2. The franchise agreement could not be given effect to and parties agreed to rescind the agreement for supplying South Indian dishes at Volga Restaurant.3. Accordingly, parties entered into a rescission agreement which is dated 16-08-1989.4. In the leave to defend which has been filed by the defendant, it is pleaded that in terms of the rescission agreement between the parties dated 16-08-1989, by virtue of Clause 2 of the same, which was in the following term :--'Volga Restaurant will make payment of Rs. 5,00,000/- (Rupees five lakhs only) as and when their account is refrozen out of the said amount of Rs. 8,00,000/-.5. The...
Collector of Customs Vs. Prashant Glass Works
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-18-1994
Reported in: 1995(78)ELT12(Del)
CM 988/94 1. We have heard learned counsel for both the parties. We are satisfied that there is sufficient Explanationn given for not filing the appeal within limitation. Delay in filing the appeal is condoned. CM stands disposed of. CM 23/94 2. The matter arose under the relevant provisions of the Import & Export Policy of the Union of India. As we are affirming the judgment of the learned Single Judge, we shall be brief in our order. 3. The appellant contends that inasmuch as the licenses do not refer to any specific item but use the word Unil, it is permissible to issue restrictions later and that does not amount to taking away vested rights. On the other hand, respondent (writ petitioner) contends that the license refers to the current policy and the items mentioned in the policy must be deemed, in law, to have been incorporated in the licenses. 4. So far as the contention of the appellant with regard to licenses issued in October, 1991 and December, 1992 is concerned, no doubt, we...
Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Ltd. Vs. Cegat
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-18-1994
Reported in: 1994(73)ELT776(Del)
M. Jagannadha Rao, C.J.1. The Writ Petition is filed by the O.N.G.C. (Oil & Natural Gas Corporation Ltd.) for the issue of a Writ of Certiorari, quashing the orders of the Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi (herein under called CEGAT) dated 27-9-1993. There is also an order dated 31-1-1994 by which the CEGAT refused to review the order. 2. The O.N.G.C. was issued a show cause notice under Section 11A of the Central Excises and Salt Act on 25-1-1991 after 3 years from the date of clearance. It gave a reply dated 21-3-1991 and on that basis the Collector passed an order on 17-12-1991 demanding Central Excise duty in a sum of Rs. 4,46,99,520.40 from the O.N.G.C., Hazira, Surat under Rule 9(2) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 read with Section 11A(1) proviso. He also imposed a penalty of Rs. 75 lakhs under Rule 173Q(1) of Central Excise Rules. Against the said order of the Collector, the O.N.G.C. filed an appeal to the CEGAT and sought for stay of pre-deposit...
Ram Chander Aggarwal Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-18-1994
Reported in: 1994IIIAD(Delhi)291; 55(1994)DLT119
D. K. Jain, J. 1. The following question has been referred to this court for opinion, at the instance of the assessed, under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short, 'the Act') :'Whether the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the transfer of capital asset takes place when the property or asset, belonging to the assessed (partner) is brought in or introduced by the partner into a firm?' 2. It may be stated that keeping in view the factual background of the case, the question referred does not clearly bring out the controversy and, thereforee, requires to be reframed as under : 'Whether the Tribunal was right in law in holding that contribution in the form of plot of land by the assessed to the partnership firm amounted to a transfer within the meaning of section 2(47) of the Act, resulting in capital gains chargeable to tax?' 3. At the outset, Mr. Anoop Sharma, learned counsel for the assessed, pointed out that the answer to the question stands concluded by the deci...
Anju Devi Vs. Commissioner of Police and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-18-1994
Reported in: 1994IIIAD(Delhi)53; 1994(2)Crimes691; 55(1994)DLT167
Y.K. Sabharwal, J.(1) Petitioner is wife of Ved Prakash, Respondent No.4.Respondent No.3 - Smt.Mohini Devi is mother of Ved Prakash, Commissioner of Police and Station House Officer, Police Station Jahangirpuri are respondents land 2 respectively. The petitioner, inter-alia, seeks issue of writ of mandamusdirectingrespondentsland2to put her back in possession of premises No.1731-K-Block, Jahangirpuri, Delhi, claiming that she has been residing in the said premises since November, 1989 and was illegally dispossessed on 30/08/1993 as a result of connivance and collusion between respondents 3 and 4 and the Police. She also seeks registration of First Information Report against the culprits and enquiry/action against the Police officials who colluded and connived with respondents 3 and 4 in dispossessing her.(2) Petitioner and respondent No.4 were married on 13/05/1989. It is not disputed that since about November, 1989 petitioner has been living in the premises in question and also that m...
Puran Chand Vs. Commissioner of Police and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-18-1994
Reported in: 54(1994)DLT573; 1994(30)DRJ13
K. Shivashankarbhat, J.(1) In view of the difference of opinion between the two learned Judges of this court the writ petition has been placed before me for disposal. Earlier a Bench of this court heard the matter. While Y.K.Sabharwal,J.tookoneview,S.C.Jain,J. took another view. (2) The petitioner seeks a writ in the nature of Habeas Corpus for the production of his two sons-Gian Chand and Bharat Bhushan. However, the prayer relating to Gian Chand does not survive because admittedly he has returned to the petitioner on 6.8.1993. The writ petition was filed on 21.7.1993. Petitioner, his wife, his two sons, his father and 4 brothers and the wife of a brother were living together in GeetaColony,Delhi. lt is stated that on 27.4.1993 petitioner's wife was murdered and the allegation is that a brother of the petitioner committed this murder. According to the petitioner, be was busy in connection with the funeral ceremony of his wife and at that time his two sons were removed from his custody...
N.K. Sareen Vs. Punjab National Bank and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-18-1994
Reported in: 1994IIIAD(Delhi)166; 55(1994)DLT300; 1994(30)DRJ231; (1995)IILLJ41Del
K. Shivashankar Bhat, J. (1) Mr. N.K. Sareen, the petitioner questions the order of dismissing him from service after holding a disciplinary enquiry against him. An appeal was filed by the petitioner which was rejected by the Appellate Authority. The order of dismissal is dated 12th November, 1987 while the order of the Appellate Authority is dated 5th January, 1990. (2) The petitioner joined the respondent-bank as a clerk on 10th October, 1965. He was promoted as an Officer in the year 1972. Petitioner also states that he was appointed as Trustee on the Board of the New Bank of India Employees Provident Fund, and New Bank of India Employees Gratuity Trust by virtue of the resolution passed by the Board of Directors of the said Bank. (3) Petitioner was quite active in the trade union activities. According to the petitioner he lodged complaints against one Shri S.D. Nayyar General Manager of the Bank between February 1983 and January 1984. In February 1984 the petitioner was appointed a...
S. Ourbachan Singh and anr. Vs. Delhi Development Authority and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-18-1994
Reported in: 1994IIIAD(Delhi)157; 1994(30)DRJ56
D.P. Wadhwa, J.(1) Rule D.B.(2) The two petitioners, by this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution, seek to have the notice dated 11 February 1993 issued by the respondents cancelling the perpetual lease in respect of an industrial plot of which they are the lessees quashed. Then they are seeking consequential reliefs. There are three respondents. First respondent is the Delhi Development Authority (D.D.A.), a body constituted under the Delhi Development Act, 1957; the second is the Lt. Governor of delhi; and the third Union of India through the Secretary, Ministry of Urban Development, New Delhi. A perpetual lease deed dated 20 July 1974 respecting industrial plot bearing No. B-62, Wazirpur Industrial Area, was executed in favor of the petitioner by the President of India. All the powers exercisable by the Lesser, the President of India, under this lease could be exercised by the Chief Commissioner.Delhi, by what ever name called. Now his designation is Lt. Governor. Th...
National Federation of Railway Porters and Bearers Vs. Union of India ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-18-1994
Reported in: 1994IIIAD(Delhi)270; 55(1994)DLT199; 1994(29)DRJ451
K. Shivashankar Bhat, J.(1) Petitioners seek the quashing of an order dated 12.2.1993 issued by the Divisional Railway Manager (Northern Railway); further, they seek an appropriate writ directing the respondents not to interfere with the working of the petitioners as regularly employed persons on the post of salaried vendors etc. Petitioners allege that the impugned order is contrary to the judgment of the Supreme Court governing the very subject matter, between the parties. (2) In the year 1976, the Railway Board issued a notification providing for the absorption of the Commission Vendors and bearers in the regular employment of the Railway. Subsequently, in the year 1978, it was notified that initially the 'bearers' would be absorbed and thereafter, the 'vendors' would be absorbed. In Sital Singh and others v. Union of India ( Writ Petition No-6804/1982) it was ordered by the Supreme Court on 13.8.1983, that in view of the notification of the year 1976, the Railway Board would first ...
S.R.F. Industrial Fabrics Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: May-17-1994
Reported in: (1994)(73)ELT146TriDel
1. This is an appeal against the order dated 22-2-1988 passed by the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), Madras. The respondents have also filed cross-objections. The appellants are engaged in the manufacture of dipped man-made fabrics which are produced by dipping Nylon or Rayon Cord fabrics in a solution of Resorcinol Fomaldehyde and Latex. The solution that is used for this purpose is generally known as Resourcinol Formaldehyde Latex mix or 'dip solution' (hereinafter called RFL Solution). The RFL solution is manufactured by the appellants in cheir factory and captively consumed for the purpose of dipping. The appellants filed a classification list classifying RFL solution under sub-heading No. 4002.00 as "Synthetic Rubber in Primary Form". The Assistant Collector after hearing the appellants passed an order approving the Classification of the product under sub-heading 4002.00. The appellants filed an appeal before the Collector, Central Excise (Appeals), Madrasion the grounds t...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- Next ›
- Last »