Delhi Court July 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.
HoussIn Khalaj Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-08-1994
Reported in: 1994(3)Crimes196; 1994(30)DRJ416
M. Jagannadha Rao, C.J.(1) In this Writ Petition the petitioner is challenging an order of detention under the Cofeposa dated 10.11.1993. The 'petitioner sent a representation dated 03.12.1993 and the same was rejected on 04.01.1994 by the Central Government. It is contended that there is delay in disposal of representation by 30 days in all at various stages. It is contended that a second representation dated 20.01.94 was made and it took 39 days to be considered and rejected. A contention is raised that the representation dated 03.12.93 is disposed of beyond Ii weeks. It is also argued that the confessional statement is placed before the Central Government, but not the retraction.(2) In our view, none of these contention has any force. Firstly, the representation dated 03.12.93 was received in the Cofeposa Unit on 06.12.93 and on the same day, para wise remarks were called for from the sponsoring authority. The said comments were received from the sponsoring authority on 17.12.93 Eig...
NajmuddIn Vs. Khatija Begum and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-08-1994
Reported in: 55(1994)DLT164; 1994(30)DRJ174
Sat Pal, J. (1) ADMITTED.(2) This is a petition filed on behalf of the tenant Under Section 25B(8) of the Delhi Rent Control Act 1958 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) and in this petition it has been prayed that the impugned order passed by the Additional Rent Controller on 19th August, 1992 be set-aside.(3) Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the respondents/landlords had filed a petition under Section 14(l)(e) of the Act and the notice of this petition was ordered to be issued on 8th October, 1990 to the petitioner/ tenant for 7th January, 1991. It is stated in the impugned order that the petitioner/tenant was served through his wife on 12th October, 1990 and through his brother on 4th November, 1990 by ordinary process. It has also been stated in the impugned order that the registered cover addressed to the tenant was received back with the remarks that the postman had visited the petitioner/tenant many times, but he had refused to take delivery. It has also been state...
Remco Paint-chem Industries Vs. Collector of C. Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jul-07-1994
Reported in: (1994)(73)ELT181TriDel
1. This is an application for restoration of appeal dismissed by Order No. 65/94-C.2. Learned Counsel draw attention to the detailed grounds and reasons for the restoration of application. However, the Bench noted that the observations made on the last occasion raised a question whether the Tribunal can re-call its earlier order dismissing the appeal for non prosecution.Collector of Central Excise v. Jay Engineering Ltd., reported in 1992 (58) E.L.T. 328 the Tribunal had restored the appeal dismissed for non prosecution and this is a settled position that the appeals dismissed for default or non prosecution can be restored by the Tribunal.4. It was also his submission that no question of review arises and the Tribunal can restore the appeal if it is satisfied that sufficient cause is shown.5. He explained that the appellant had come several times from Ahmedabad and brought one register belonging to a third party which had been relied upon but the matter was adjourned for one reason or...
Maruti Udyog Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jul-07-1994
Reported in: (1994)(73)ELT401TriDel
1. The Collector (Appeals); New Delhi by a common order has disposed of appeals filed by Revenue as well as the assessee arising from common point of law. The appellants being aggrieved with the said order, have filed the above appeals. As they relate to same issue, they are taken up together for disposal as per law.2. The appellants filed 18 refund claims during 1989-90 and 1990-91 amounting to Rs. 40,53,773.63 based on the registration certificates issued by the concerned State Transport Authorities to the effect that all these vehicles, which were originally cleared at the normal rate of duty had been subsequently registered as taxis and that they were entitled to the concessional rate of duty as per the Notification No.162/86-C.E., dated 1-3-1986. The Asstt. Collector of Central Excise passed various orders in original starting from 65/90 to 77/91 sanctioning in all Rs. 30,91,402.65 to them. However, he rejected the balance amount on time bar and on the ground that the certificate...
Khalilabad Sugar Mills (P) Ltd. Vs. Collr. of C. Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jul-07-1994
Reported in: (1994)(73)ELT393TriDel
1. M/s. Khalilabad Sugar Mills (P) Ltd. have filed this appeal against the order of the Collector, Central Excise (Appeals). The Collector in his order had held :- "I have carefully considered the facts stated in the appeal and various pleas put forth during personal hearing. I find that permission for storage of molasses in Kachcha pits was withdrawn by the Department during 1988 and as such Kachcha pits were no longer on approved place of storage under Rule 47 of Central Excise Rules, 1944 and any storage of molasses whatsoever, was in unauthorised premises and constituted breach of the provisions of Rules 9 and 49 of Central Excise Rules, 1944 in as much as their movement from the storage tank to Kachcha pit was removal without payment of duty. Further, according to the appellant themselves, they should have given at least 7 days notice to the department under Rule 149 as adopted under Rule 173N for SRP Commodities, but I find that even the requirement of this rule was not complied...
Lalit Madhan Vs. the Building Committee, Council of Institute of Compa ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-07-1994
Reported in: AIR1995Delhi180
ORDER1. This order will dispose of the objections filed by the respondents against the award of sole Arbitrator, Mr. N.N. Goswamy (a former Judge of this Court) dated 7-9-1993. The claim arose out of certain alleged nonpayment's to the contractor, claimant for the work of construction of institutional building under agreement dated 7-9-1989. During the course of the work certain disputes arose between the parties which were referred, to the sole arbitration of the said Arbitrator by the order dated 12-6-1991 passed in Suit No. 1821/91 on the petition under Section 20 of the Arbitration Act. As the work was not completed within the stipulated time, the Architect of the employer-respondents recommended extension of time for completion of the work up to 30th Sept. 1991. Such extension was recommended in the light of various facts which have been detailed in the award. The respondents instead of extending the time, terminated the contract by issue of15 days notice vide letter dated 8-4-199...
Kuldip Kumar Suri Vs. Delhi Development Authority
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-07-1994
Reported in: AIR1995Delhi82; 1994(2)ARBLR235(Delhi); 55(1994)DLT258; 1994(30)DRJ343; 1994RLR518
Mr. J. K. Mehra, J.1. By this order, I am disposing of the objections of the plaintiff as well as the defendant to the award dated 17.6.1988 and supplementary award dated 22.7.1988 made and published by Mr. M. C. Bahl, Sole Arbitrator, being I.As. No. 3665/89 and 3666/89 respectively in respect of the work of construction of 152 Three-bed, 76 Two-bed, 64 Servant Quarters and 32 garages at Siddhartha Enclave (Sunlight Colony), near Asharm (SFS) Building work including general water supply, sanitary installation and external development. 2. The defendant has raised objection only to claim No. 20 relating to the award of pendente lite interest @ 12% p.a. The defendant has relied upon the cases of Food Corporation of India v. M/s. Surendra, Devendra and Mohendra Transport Co. : [1988]2SCR329 , Executive Engineer, Irrigation, Galimala and others v. Abhaduta Jena : [1988]1SCR253 , & State of Orissa and others v. Construction India : [1988]2SCR145 . I am not in agreement with the Counsel for ...
Gujral Construction Co. Vs. Central Warehousing Corporation and Anothe ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-07-1994
Reported in: 1994IIIAD(Delhi)696; 1994(2)ARBLR132(Delhi); 1994(30)DRJ164
J. K. Mehra, J.1. This order will dispose of the objections to the award dated 4.2.1988 of Mr. Guru Dayal, sole Arbitrator. On the disputes arising between the parties, the same were referred to the sole arbitration of the Arbitrator before whom the claimants filed their claim, while the respondents also filed their counter-claim. The claim of the claimants arose out of the construction of 10,000 M.T.C. godown at Central Ware House, Morena (Madhya Pradesh). The Arbitrator entered upon the reference on 17.4.1985 and time for making and publishing the award was extended from time to time. According to the award of the Arbitrator, the respondent has to pay to the claimant-petitioner a sum of Rs. 5,31,923.97 paise in full and final settlement of the claim. The Arbitrator also awarded interest @ 18% p.a. from the date of the award till the date of payment. The award has been challenged on various grounds on different claims. 2. Under claim No. 1, the only objection raised is with regard to ...
Standard Chartered Bank Vs. M.S. Handa and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-07-1994
Reported in: 1994IIIAD(Delhi)585; AIR1995Delhi252; 55(1994)DLT338; 1994(30)DRJ172
J.K. Mehra, J. (1) This is an application filed on behalf of the plaintiff seeking a decree against defendant No.2 upon the said defendant failing to comply with the condition of the leave to defend imposed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court.(2) In the present case, there were three separate applications for leave to defend, one each by the three defend.ints being I.As.Nos. 6035 90, 5777 90 and 5778/90 were filed. This Court had granted unconditional leave we to defend to all the three defendants. Feel ing aggrieved by the said order dated 11th March 1993 whereby the said' applications for leave to defend were disposed of by this,Court, the plaintiff moved the Hon'ble Supreme Court vide Special Leave Petitions Nos. 16044, 16046 and 16047 of 1993. The Hon'ble Supreme Court vide its order dated November26, 1993 passed in the aforesaid Special Leave petitions was pleased to grant special leave granting conditional leave to the defendants 2 and 3 subject to their depositing Rs.l Crore each in th...
T.A. George and anr. Vs. Delhi Development Authority and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-07-1994
Reported in: 1994IIIAD(Delhi)494; AIR1995Delhi131; 55(1994)DLT151; 1994(30)DRJ153; (1994)108PLR11
Jaspal Singh, J. (1) The appeal calls for no judicial heroics to cope with the issues involved. it so happened that St. Sophias' Christian Education Society (here inafter called the Society) which was running a school in Kirti Nagar in the early seventies inducted in December 1983one Mr. M.M. Samuel as its member and within a few days of having done so, made him the Chairman of the School Managing Committee. However, before that the Society had been allotted four acres of and at Paschim Vihar for constructing and running a school thereon. No doubt a school duly recognised by the competent authorities is now running On that land but not perhaps without ripples. The reason is the legal battles being fought in the name of the Society in the corridors of the law courts. Fissures appeared in the year 1984 when Mr. Samuel was allegedly removed from the Chairmanship of the Managing Committee. Admittedly, despite this so-called removal, Mr. Samuel continued running and managing the school as i...
- ‹ Prev
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- Next ›
- Last »