Delhi Court January 1995 Judgments

Gurdeep Singh Uua and ors. Vs. Delhi Sikh Gurdwara Prabandhak Committe ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 59(1995)DLT115

P. Wadhwa, J. (1) This, it would appear, is the second round of litigation. The first (CWP No. 2630194) was dismissed on 26 July 1994 principally on the ground that the court was not satisfied about the bona fides of the petitioners therein in filing the petition. The challenge in both these petitions is the same. The petitioners seek a writ in the nature of certiorari or any ether appropriate writ, order or direction quashing the proceedings of the meetings held on 10 May 1994 and 21 May 1994 and also Resolution No. 9 dated 26 May 1994 of the Delhi Sikh Gurdwara Management Committee, established under section 3 of the Delhi Sikh Gurdwaras Act, 1971 (for short 'the Act'). The petitioners also seek a restraint on the respondent to take any further action pursuant to the minutes of the two meetings dated 10 May 1994 and 21 May 1994 and the Resolution No. '9 dated 26 May 1994. Yet another prayer is that the respondent be commanded to restore the Committees and the Governing Bodies of coll...

Nupur Professionals Pvt. Ltd. and anr. Vs. Presteege Fibres Ltd. and o ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: AIR1995Delhi237a; 58(1995)DLT849

D.P. Wadhwa, J. (1) The petitioners in this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution seek a writ of mandamus quashing the Letter of Intent dated 31/03/1994 issued to the first respondent by the Central Government in theMinistry of Industry, Department of Industrial Development, for establishing a sugar factory at Dhaulana, District Ghaziabad in the State of Uttar Pradesh for the manufacture of sugar with daily cane crushing capacity of 2500 TCD. They also seek a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction direction the Central Government to consider the application of the petitioners forgrant to the first petitioner a license for setting up of the sugar mill at Dhaulana on the basis of the recommendation of the Screening Committee and the Administrative Ministry being the Ministry of Food in view of the provisions of Article 77 of the Constitution read with Government of India (Allocation ofBusiness) Rules, 1961. Second petitioner is the Director of the fir...

Mool Shankar Gandhi Vs. Union of India and ors

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 1995(32)DRJ542; 1995RLR147

M. Jagannatha Rao, C.J.(1) This writ petition was filed on 12th May, 1994, for issue of a direction that the respondents may be directed to place on record the impugned order of detention, the grounds of detention, list of documents and the documents which have been relied upon by the detaining authority for the purpose of passing the order of detention and also for the issue of a writ of mandamus or direction in the nature thereof to quash the impugned order of detention(2) The writ petition was filed.at the pre-detention stage. The law in relation to pre-detention case is well settled and has been explained by the Supreme Court in Alka Subhash Gadia -JT 1991 (1) S.C.C. 549 Thereafter, there have been five or six other cases decided by the Supreme Court in relation to pre-detention cases. These judgments of the Supreme Court were considered in a 'recent Full Bench of this Court in Mansukh Chhagan Lal Bhatt v. Uoi & Ors. in Criminal Writ Petition No.222/1994 decided on 20th October, 19...

Mahinder Singh Vs. Union of India and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 1995IAD(Delhi)493; 1995(32)DRJ472; 1995RLR312

M. Jagannatha Rao, J.(1) This is an appeal by the detenu against the judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 18th May, 1994 in the Cr.W. 445 of 1991. By that judgment, the writ petition was dismissed. (2) The writ petition was filed at the pre-detention stage for the issue of a writ of certiorari calling for the record and quashing the order of detention dated 12th July, 1990 issued under Section 3(1) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974. (3) So far as the point relating to the delay in service of the order of detention dated the 12th July, 1990 is concerned, the said question is now covered, by several decisions of the Supreme Court starting from Alka Subhash Gadia : 1991(53)ELT481(SC) . There have been around five judgments of the Supreme Court subsequently and they have all been considered elaborately by a recent Full Bench of this Court in Mansukh Chhagan Lal Bhatt Vs . Union of India & Ors. : 56(1994)DLT561 , decided on 20th O...

Sawhney Export House Vs. Air France, Indira Gandhi International Cargo ...

Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi

R.N. Mittal, President: 1. Briefly, the facts are that the complainant sent 24 boxes of textile products to St. Thomas, South America on 30th April, 1992, through the opposite party (O.P.). The consignee of the goods according to the airway bill was Barclays Bank. The airway bill and other documents were sent by the complainant through Rajasthan Bank to the Barclays Bank and those were to be delivered to M/s. Redfort, Trompeter Gade, St. Thomas, Usvi-00802, South America. It is pleaded by the complainant that the documents were not got released by M/s. Redfort from Barclays Bank. The Barclays Bank sent a telex to the complainant claiming $ 85.60 as handling charges, which amount was paid by the complainant to them. The complainant has claimed the following amounts from the opposite party (O.P.).1Value of the consignment:US $ 7910.052Interest @ 24% p.a. from 30.4.92 to 10.11.1992:US $ 1055.533Foreign Bank Handling charges:US $ 85.60US $ 9051.184Compensation On US $: @ 36.13% based on G....

Perfect Industrial Corporation Vs. Collector of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1995)(77)ELT558TriDel

1. The appellants are ag-grived by the Order-in-Appeal No.364-CE/DLH/91, dated 3-4-1994 under which through common Order Collector (Appeals) has unheld Asstt. Collector's Orders disallowing Modvat credit on account of inputs not having been declared.2. The appellants are engaged in manufacture of Auto-components for two wheelers and Electric Apparatus components falling under Chapter subheading 8714.00 and 8538.00 respectively.3. The learned Advocate for the appellants submitted that they had filed a declaration in 1986 and declared their inputs among others as pipes. They have been denied Modvat credit on the ground that they actually brought Cold Rolled Steel Tubes. The learned Advocate submitted that at the time they filed the declaration such pipes were classifiable under heading 73.03 and their declaration was for steel rods and pipes, bars classifiable under 72.09 and 73.03. Citing from Collins English New Dictionary, he said that Pipes and tubes are interchangeable words and pi...

Jagatram Trehan and Sons Vs. Union of India and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 57(1995)DLT438; (1995)110PLR23

Usha Mehra, J. (1) Let the application be numbered. In order to appreciate the objections raised against the decree passed by this Court dated 3rd August,1993, the facts leading to the passing of the decree were that respondent-Union of India appointed Shri N.H.Chandwani as the sole arbitrator to decide the disputes/claims between the parties arisen from Agreement No. 6/EE/CD-IV/ 81-82relatingto450Type'C'QuartersatLodiRoadGroup-IV. The said arbitrator made and published his award on 5th December,1990. The Union of India in Suit No. 2106/91 filed an application under Sections 14 and 17 of the Arbitration Act ( hereinafter called the 'Act') seeking direction to the said arbitrator to file his award. Similarly, petitioner filed a suit bearing No. 305/91 under Sections 14 and 17 of the Arbitration Act seeking same directions. (2) Pursuance to the direction given in Suit No. 305A/91, the arbitrator filed his award along with the proceedings. Notice of filing of the award was issued to both ...

Naresh Kumar Vs. State

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 1995CriLJ1256; 57(1995)DLT399

P.K. Bahri, J.(1) This appeal is directed against the judgment and orderdated 31/03/1990, of an Additional Sessions Judge, Delhi, by which the appellant has been convicted of an offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act and has been sentenced to undergo life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000.00 and in default to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for one year on the first count and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years on the second count with the direction that the substantive sentences shall run concurrently.(2) The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that the appellant's brother Jai Bhagwan had been stabbed by Tek Chand-deceased and a case was registered against Tek Chand for an offence punishable under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code on 13/06/1987, vide copy of the F.I.R. Ex.PW9/A. Tek Chand was having an electric shop bearing No.WZ-297/C, JJ.Colony, Madipur, Delhi. On 13/05/1988,it is alleged ...

Sheila Lall and ors. Vs. Rent Control Tribunal

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 1995IAD(Delhi)353; 57(1995)DLT141; 1995(32)DRJ168

Devinder Gupta, J.(1) Order passed by Shri K.S. Gupta, Rent Control Tribunal, Delhi on 17.8.1992 allowing the appeal of the respondent thereby setting aside an order passed on 30.1.1992 by Shri K.S. Khurana, Additional Rent Controller, Delhi rejecting respondents' application for interior relief is under challenge in this petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution. (2) A petition under Section 45 of the Delhi Rent Control Act (hereafter referred to as 'the Act') was filed by respondent No.2 for restoration of electricity and water supply to Qtr. No.2, Kothi No.19, Amrita Sher Gill Marg, New Delhi. It was alleged by her that she was a tenant in physical possession of Qtr. No.2 on payment of Rs. 150.00 as rent inclusive of water and electricity charges. She also alleged that she and her husband Bhirn Singh were in, petitioner's services as his domestic servants on a monthly salary of RS. 800.00 p.m. Her husband Bhirn Singh expired on 14.7.1991 due to negligence on the part of t...

Usha Amorphous Metals Ltd. Vs. Collector of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1995)(76)ELT631TriDel

1. This appeal is preferred against an order-in-original dt. 2-9-1992 passed by the Collector of Customs, New Delhi.2. The appellants M/s. Usha Amorphous Metals Limited filed a Bill of Entry No. 101148, dt. 21-8-1991 for clearance of the goods declared as Amorphous Boron Silicon deetinal strips. The goods are covered by two invoices issued by M/s. Netglass Allied Signal, U.S.A. In the Bill of Entry, the country of origin is declared as U.S.A. and the country of consignment as U.S.A. In the Bill of Entry, the CIF value of 44,061 US $ and 188.08 Kgs. Amorphous Boron Silicon steel strip has been declared as US $ 41,857.95 and US $ 478.4 respectively. The appellants have claimed clearance of the goods under OGL Appendix 6 list 8 Part I 81 No. 818(ii), which is described as Amorphous Silicon electrical steel sheet/wide Coils/Strips for the manufacture of electrical equipment and components thereof. The appellants are actual user of the imported goods for the manufacture of electrical motor...