Delhi Court September 1994 Judgments
Home Cases Delhi 1994 Page 9 of about 124 results (0.021 seconds)Indian Railway Construction Co. Ltd. Vs. M/S. Guadricon Pvt. Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1994IVAD(Delhi)25; 1994(2)ARBLR332(Delhi); 55(1994)DLT694; 1994(31)DRJ397
R.C. Lahoti, J.1. This order disposes of I.A. 4412/94 and I.A. No. 5240/94, p/2. 2. These proceedings have arisen out of a petition under Section 41 read with Schedule II of the Indian Arbitration Act, 1940. 3. The petitioner is a public sector undertaking. The respondent is a company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956. They are parties to an agreement under which the respondent has availed advances for making tests on portable steel bridges superstructures using patented Quadricori system for procurement of plant, machinery, equipment as also raw material for execution of tendered work of Government of Bangladesh awarded to the respondent. Between the parties there have arisen disputes which form subject matter of arbitration which is pending. The respondent has entered into yet another contract with the Chief Engineer (Purchases) of the Northern Railway, Baroda House, New Delhi. The work under that contract is known as Akbnoor Bridge Project. According to the petitioner, the ...
Tag this Judgment!Phamachim Vs. Curewel (India) Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1994(2)ARBLR340(Delhi); 56(1994)DLT393
Usha Mehra, J.1. M/s. Pharmachim has filed a summary suit under Order xxxvII of the Code of Civil Procedure (in short 'CPC') for recovery of Rs. 63,69,052/- against M/s. Curewel (India) Ltd. The suit is based on three written notes/contracts pursuance to which the plaintiff supplied goods worth US $ 3,53,836.20 which is equivalent to Indian currency of Rs. 63,69,052.20. All these supplies were made on composite request of the defendant made by telex message dated 6th December, 1986. inspire of the supply of goods as per the requirement of the defendant, no payment had been made nor payment due has been denied by the defendant. The amount due and the price of the goods supplied by the plaintiff are admitted. As such, the plaintiff is entitled to interest at the rate of 18% per annum besides the principle amount. Legal notice was served but without any effect. Since, the suit is based on the three invoices which are contract in itself, thereforee, the suit is filed under Order xxxvII of ...
Tag this Judgment!Shri Sunder Lal Khatri Vs. Delhi Development Authority
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1994IVAD(Delhi)105; 1994(2)ARBLR479(Delhi); 56(1994)DLT21
Vijender Jain, J.1. This is an objection application filed on behalf of the respondent under Sections 30 and 33 of the Indian Arbitration Act, 1940. The award is in relation to an Agreement entered into between the petitioner and the respondent-DDA for construction of 88 L.I.G. and 144 M.I.G. houses at Shalimar Bagh, New Delhi. The estimated cost of work was Rs. 1,01,84,875/-. Pursuant to Clause 25 of the Agreement Arbitration was appointed, the award is dated 11.10.1991. Ms. Ansuya Salwan, learned counsel for the respondent-DDA, has argued that the award is a non-reasoned award and the Arbitrator has not given reasons for allowing certain claims of the petitioner, in alternative, she has argued that if this court comes to a conclusion that reasons are given, the same are perverse. Assailing the award under claims No. 3 and 4, Ms. Salwan has argued that the Arbitrator cannot in law award any claim under Clause 10C of the Agreement as that would be squarely hit by Clause 2 of the Agreem...
Tag this Judgment!Ahmad Salim Vs. Lt. Governor, Nct of Delhi
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1995CriLJ1814; 1995(1)Crimes41; ILR1995Delhi12; 1995RLR97
M. Jagannadha Rao, C.J. 1. Question is whether in a preventive detention matter, we can permit filing of an additional affidavit by the respondents. 2. When the respondent filed an additional affidavit, learned counsel for the petitioner has objected to the same. He has brought to our notice a decision of this Court reported as Lalit Pataudi v. Union of India, : 41(1990)DLT8 . All that is said in that judgment is that if an additional affidavit is permitted to be filed by the respondent the petitioner must be given an opportunity to rebut, and this Court must also take care to see that documents are not concocted by the respondent between the date of original application and the date of the additional affidavit. 3. The decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Kirit Kumar Chamanlal Kundaliya v. Union of India, : [1981]2SCR718 , wherein it has been observed that the High Court should not have waded through the confidential files to fish out a point against the detenu is distinguishab...
Tag this Judgment!Standard Chartered Bank Vs. M.S. Handa and ors.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1994IVAD(Delhi)43; 55(1994)DLT674; 1994(31)DRJ32; 1994RLR511
R.C. Lahoti, J.(1) This order disposes of is 7907/94 and is 7548/94. is 7907/94 This calls for an interpretation of the term 'Security'. Whether a person or institution can himself provide a 'security' in response to a call of the Court or should a 'security' to be so must necessarily emanate from a surety i.e. a third person. (2) It would be useful to notice briefly the facts in the background. The plaintiff bank filed a suit under Order 37 Civil Procedure Code against the three defendants namely, Mr M.S. Handa, Mr Ashwani Kapoor and Indian Overseas Bank. The plaintiff is a banking company incorporated in England but is having its branch offices at several places in India including one at 17, Sansad Marg, New Delhi. Vide order dated 143.93, this Court had allowed unconditional leave to defend to all the three defendants. There was an appeal preferred to the Division Bench being Fao 56/93. It was dismissed by the Division Bench on 17.8.93. The plaintiff had also filed a Special Leave P...
Tag this Judgment!Harish JaIn and ors. Vs. State and ors.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1994IIIAD(Delhi)1525; 1994(3)Crimes339; 55(1994)DLT631; 1994(31)DRJ292
Arun Kumar, J. (1) This is a petition tinder Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for grant of bail to the petitioners in anticipation of arrest. According to the first information report the petitioners Along with some senior officers of the erstwhile New Bank of India,Tolstoy Marg, New Delhi (now merged with the Punjab National Bank) and the Corporation Bank, Connaught Circus, New Delhi entered into criminal conspiracy to cheat New Bank of India. The incident relates to the year 1983. Some of the relevant portions of the Fir run as under:- (2) In pursuance of the aforesaid criminal conspiracy ten bills of exchange for Rs-26,83,206.80 were drawn on a fictitious firm M/s Pneumatic Hydraulic Industries, 11 Jaya Mahal, A Road, Churchgate, Bombay which was concern of S/Shri A.C. Jain, S.C.Jain and Harish Jain. In all these bills of exchange with dishonest intention after the word Churchgate, Bombay the words 'a Unit of Hindustan Monark Pvt. .Ltd.' was added which was dishonestly ...
Tag this Judgment!Trishul Construction Co. Vs. Delhi Development Authority
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1994(2)ARBLR303(Delhi); 1994(31)DRJ37
R.C. Lahoti, J. (1) By this petition under Sections 8,11 and 12 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 the plaintiff a contractor seeks removal of defendant No.3 as an arbitrator and further seeks a substituted appointment in his place by the Court. (2) The petitioner entered into a contract with the Dda defendant No.1 for carrying out the work of construction of 312 DUs comprising of 156 category Iii, 156 category Ii flats and 234 scooter garages at Vikas Kunj Sector B, pocket 9, etc. Formal contract was entered into between the parties on 19.12.1984. The work could be commenced in March, 1986 and was ultimately completed on 19.10.89. Final bill was paid to the plaintiff on 20.12.91. Certain disputes arose out of the bill. In accordance with clause 25 of the contract which incorporates an Arbitration clause the plaintiff sought for appointment of an arbitrator and reference of disputes to adjudication by the arbitrator. The Engineer Member of the Dda who is authorised by the arbitration clause ...
Tag this Judgment!Eastern International Vs. Collector of C. Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1994)(74)ELT609TriDel
1. The above appeal arises out of the order of Additional Collector and Customs of Central Excise, Chandigarh. The brief facts of the case are that on 11-10-1984, the Central Excise staff, Ludhiana, visited the factory premises of the appellants herein and found the factory engaged in the manufacture of woollen knitted hosiery cloth in tubular form from woollen yarn with circular knitting machines. The Excise Officers also found some woollen yarn and woollen jerseys in semi-finished condition. On visual examination, the woollen yarn appeared to be containing more than one sixth by weight of nylon contents, classifiable under Tariff Item 18-B(ii). Sh. Jagdish Rai, proprietor of the factory, stated that the yarn was a blended yarn but he did not know its composition. He was not able to produce any bill/ voucher or Central Excise gate pass covering the yam in question. The woollen yarn/woollen jerseys in semi-finished condition and woollen knitted hosiery cloth were seized in the reasona...
Tag this Judgment!Mullard Tubes Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1994)(74)ELT342TriDel
1. This appeal arises out of the Order No. 13/CE/ADC/92, dated 28-2-1991 passed by Additional Collector of Central Excise, Chandigarh.2. The facts in brief are that the appellants received 39178 Electron guns between 28-2-1990 to 5-3-1990. Out of which 16378 electron guns were found unfit for use in the factory and these were cleared as such on reversal of Modvat credit vide GP I No. 0016 dated 17-4-1990 and GP I No. 0018 dated 23-4-1990. Out of these 16378 electron guns returned to the supplier, the appellants received 7600 electron guns after reprocessing on gate pass which did not show payment of duty but contained reference to the original duty paid gate pass. The appellants took Modvat credit on the basis of this endorsement. Proceedings were initiated against the appellants for disallowance of this Modvat. The Additional Collector confirmed the demand of Rs. 66,900/- as BED + Rs. 3345/- as SED on such electron guns andimposed penalty of Rs. 15000/- on the ground that no permissi...
Tag this Judgment!Anil Kumar Modi Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1994)(74)ELT244TriDel
1. The above appeals arise out of the order of the Additional Collector of Central Excise, Allahabad by which he has confiscated 4752 Kgs. of synthetic polyester texturised yarn of foreign origin, 156 bundles of old ply-wood rejections, 24 dibbies of Chinese balms and Indian currency of Rs. 23,500/- recovered on 16-4-1989 from truck No. KRF 6285 at Hanuman Ganj, Allahabad, confiscated the truck with option to redeem and imposed penalties on Sh. Satya Narain Modi and two others.The Preventive Officers of the Central Excise, Allahabad intercepted the truck No. RRF 6285 on 16-4-1989 and recovered 4752 Kgs. of polyester texturised yarn of foreign origin contained in 132 gunny bags, concealed under bundles of old rejected ply-wood. Besides 24 dibbies of Chinese balms were also recovered which were owned by Shri Satya Narain Modi and were stated to have been purchased by him from Siliguri. Indian currency of Rs. 23,500 /-was also recovered from him.The occupants of the truck were S/Shri Sat...
Tag this Judgment!