Delhi Court September 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.
Sheela Bisht and ors. Vs. Delhi Development Authority
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-02-1994
Reported in: 1994IVAD(Delhi)1; 55(1994)DLT645
D.K. Jain, J. (1) Rule D.B.Since these writ petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution involve very short question and we have heard learned Counsel for the parties at length,with their consent, we propose to dispose of all the petitions at this stage itself by this common judgment.(2) The Delhi Development Authority(for short the DDA) in furtherance of its objective to provide houses for a large number of people for settlement in Delhi,conceived various schemes, one of which was the Self Financing Scheme, which, as the title of the scheme itself suggests, postulated construction of houses by the DDA with the finances to be provided by the intending purchasers. Applications for registration under the scheme were invited from time to time. On proposal forconstruction of flats in a particular area(s) being finalised and announced, the registrants under the scheme had to apply for allocation of flat in a particular area,on the basis whereof draw of lots was held and the success...
Durga Dass Uppal Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-02-1994
Reported in: 1994(30)DRJ692
K. Shivshankar Bhat, J.(1) Whether the person who has entered into an agreement with the owner to purchase the property having paid some amount as earnest money and advance. is a person entitled to be paid a part of the apparent consideration by the Central Government under Chapter XX-C of the Income Tax Act. on the property vesting in the Central Government, has to be considered in this writ petition. This. order has three parts as follows: (i) Facts (paras 1 to 12); (ii) Differing views of two learned Judges on the question (paras 13 to 15); (iii) Discussion (paras 16 onwards)(2) The relevant facts are:- Petitioner is the person who agreed to purchase the property in question from the 4th respondent (referred as the owner) as per an agreement dated 10.9.1988. The petitioner (referred also as 'transferee' and sometimes as 'the agreement holder') agreed to purchase the property for a sum of Rs.28,19,178.00 and as part of the consideration, he paid a sum of Rs-10 lakhs as advance to the...
Motilal Padampat Udyog Ltd. Vs. Collector of C. Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Sep-01-1994
Reported in: (1994)(74)ELT677TriDel
1. This appeal arises out of Order-in-Appeal No. 42/CE/KNP/91, dated 16-4-1991 passed by Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), Allahabad upholding the order of Assistant Collector of Central Excise Kanpur confiscating 12.530 MT of steel ingots but releasing the same on payment of redemption fine of Rs. 1000/- and also imposing penalty of Rs. 500/- on the appellants.2. The appellants are engaged in the manufacture of steel ingots and rolled products in their Steel Foundry at Kanpur. On 30-1-1984 the Central Excise Officers visited the appellants' steel foundry for stock checking of steel ingots and other products. The RG 1 register shows 507.680 MT of steel ingots reflecting an excess of 35.630 MT. Its production of 23.100 MT of steel ingots was yet not entered in the RG 1 register. The officer estimated the stock of steel ingots by taking 50 pieces of steel ingots and weighed them in three lots. On the basis of weight of three lots so ascertained the total weight of stock on an avera...
Parle Biscuits Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Sep-01-1994
Reported in: (1994)(74)ELT603TriDel
1. Both these appeals involving the similar issue were taken up together and are being disposed of through this common order.2. In case of E/166/91-NRB, the appellants have been denied modvat credit on base paper, printing ink and medium used in the manufacture of packing material for the biscuits. Similarly, in case of Appeal No.E/4304/91-NRB, appellants have been denied modvat credit on TDL Poster Paper, Glas-sine paper, printing ink, H.R. Media Ethyl/Butyl Acetate, Wax Poly Granules etc. used for printing and waxing of packing material.3. Being aggrieved with the order of Collector (Appeals), the appellants have came up through these appeals before the Tribunal.4. Ld. Advocate for the appellant Shri Harbans Singh submitted that eligibility of modvat on such inputs has been upheld in a number of decisions. He cited the cases of Britannia Industries Ltd. v. CCE 1993 (67) E.L.T. 980 (Tribunal], East End Paper Industries Ltd. v. Collector 1989 (43) E.L.T. 201 (SC), Parle Products Ltd. ...
Amco Batteries Ltd. Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-01-1994
Reported in: 1994(31)DRJ153
Usha Mehra, J. (1) Parties entered into an agreement. The said Agreement contained an arbitration clause. Pursuance thereto, in case of disputes and difference, the aggrieved party could invoke the provision of arbitration clause. The petitioner herein being aggrieved by the deductions made by the respondent invoked the arbitration clause. The persona designata appointed Shri R.K.Gupta, respondent No.2 as the sole arbitrator. The said arbitrator after hearing the petitioner and respondent No.1 made and published his award dated 6th August,1990. The petitioner filed an application under Section 14 read with Sections 17 and 29 of the Arbitration Act (hereinafter called as 'Act') asking that the said award be filed by respondent No.2 and thereafter be made rule of the Court. (2) Pursuance to the notice issued by this Court, the arbitrator filed his award. Notice of the filing of the award was issued to the parties. Petitioner chose not to file objections. However, respondent/ Uoi has file...
Radhika Woolen and Silk Mills Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Om Prakash and Sons and or ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-01-1994
Reported in: 1994IVAD(Delhi)175; 58(1995)DLT456; (1995)110PLR67
P.K. Bahri, J.(1) This is a suit for recovery of Rs. 1,63,516.92 paise.The plaintiff is engaged in manufacturing of woolen yarn. Defendants 1 & 3 are the partnership concerns and defendant No. 2 is one of the partners. The plaintiffhad appointed the defendants as one of its dealers for the sale of its products. The plaintiff was to supply the raw wool and woolen yarn for sale to the defendants and defendants were to get the commission. A contract was signed between the parties on 30/09/1978 and plaintiff supplied the goods to the defendants on the basis of the said contract of dealership from time to time as per invoices dated 12/10/19 7/11/1978 and December 11, 1978.(2) According to the terms of the agreement, the defendants were to pay the price of the goods to the plaintiff within 15 days of selling the goods. It is the case of the plaintiff that defendants became irregular in making the payments in spite of the repeated demands and plaintiff sent a registered notice dated 7/05/1979...
Raksha Arora Vs. S.D. Technical Services(P) Ltd. and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-01-1994
Reported in: 1994(30)DRJ650
R.C. Lahoti, J.(1) This order disposes of I.A. Nos.ll60/90, 2057/92 and 7672/94. Though the applications are three, in substance, the subject-matter of controversy is supply of electricity to a singular connection installed in the premises. The principal parties, though related closely with each other, are fighting with each other in different legal proceedings before different fora. One suit is before this court. Due reference shall be made to the different proceedings at appropriate places.(2) Let a few facts be summarised in so far as relevant for the purpose of disposal of these applications. They appear to be not in much controversy. Ms. Raksha Arora, the plaintiff and Smt. Sneh Prabha Abalash are real sisters. Kamal Kishore Arora, the defendant no.2, is their real brother. Smt. Phool Wati alias Janak Dulari, the defendant no.4 is their mother. S.D. Technical Services Private Limited, the Defendant No.1 is not related with any of the parties.(3) Late Ram Parkash Arora owned a resi...
Polson Ltd. Vs. Polson Dairy Ltd. and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-01-1994
Reported in: 56(1994)DLT102; 1994(31)DRJ220
P.K. Bahri, J. (1) I have heard arguments for deciding these two applications, one moved by the plaintiff seeking interim injunction till the disposal of the suit and the other moved by the defendants seeking vacation of the exparte interim injunction granted by this Court. (2) Facts leading to the filing of these two applications, in brief, are that in the year 1888, one Seth Pestunji Edulji Poison had started business of selling coffee in Bombay and in 1900, he started using the trade mark 'Polson' which was part of his name for selling coffee. Subsequently, he expanded his business and in about 1915 he had started marketing and selling butter, cheese, flour, etc. besides coffee under the said trade mark 'Polson'. It is the case of the plaintiff that the brand 'Polson' became immensely popular due to its high quality goods. 'Polson' rather became synonymous with quality butter being marketed under the said name in the minds of the people. In about 1930, he had developed a modern dair...
Amar Nath Satya Vs. Union of India
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-01-1994
Reported in: 55(1994)DLT683
R.C. Lahoti, J. (1) The petitioner had entered into a works contract with therespondent. Disputes having arisen between the parties, the same were referred to adjudication by arbitration. The Arbitrator has given his award dated 30.6.1989.On the award having been filed in the Court, proceedings for making it a rule of the Court were initiated. The parties were noticed. The respondent Union of India has filed its objections to the award. The controversy raised is confined to the award made by the Arbitrator under claim No. 4.(2) The petitioner had claimed an amount of Rs. 40,000.00 under Clause 10-C of the Contract on account of increase in labour rates. The Arbitrator has given a reasoned award. The gist of his finding is summarised in the next para.(3) According to the Arbitrator, the document Exhibit C-30, which is a notification dated 25.4.73, proves the statutory increase in wages. Tender was accepted on 23.6.1973. The increase had taken place prior to acceptance of the tender but ...
Kripal Singh Khurana Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-01-1994
Reported in: 1994(30)DRJ687
R. Lahoti, J. (1) This Order dispose of I.A. No.456 of 1993, an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act seeking condensation of delay in filing objections under Section 30 of the Arbitration Act, 1940. The applicant is Union of India, the Respondent No.1.(2) It appears that the petitioners had entered into a contract with the Union of India, Ministry of Urban Development, New Delhi. Some disputes arose between the parties. Consistently with the arbitration clause contained in the contract between the parties, the disputes were referred to the arbitration of Shri H.N. Chandwani. The arbitrator made an award. It has been filed in the Court.(3) Notice of filing of the award was issued by the Court to the Secretary, Ministry of Urban Development. It was served on him on 15.5.91. The objections have been filed on 7.8.91. There is thus a delay of about 53 days in preferring the objections.(4) It is stated in the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act that before the arbi...
- ‹ Prev
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 13
- Next ›
- Last »