Delhi Court November 1995 Judgments

Delhi Development Authority Vs. Ramesh Kumar

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 1996IAD(Delhi)431; 61(1996)DLT99; (1996)112PLR25

Anil Dev Singh, J. (1) This is an application of the Dda under Section 5 of the Limitation Act read with Section 151 Civil Procedure Code for condensation of delay of 182 days in filing an appeal (F.A.O. OS-99/94) from the order of the learned Single Judge dated September 24, 1993 in Suit No. 229A/89, whereby the learned Single Judge made the award a rule of the Court. As already noted, the order of the learned Single Judge is dated September 24, 1993 while the appeal was filed on April 5, 1994. In the application it is stated that Mr. Pradeep Dewan, Advocate who conducted the matter before the learned Single Judge informed the Executive Engineer of the appellant that the objections to the award had been dismissed and consequently the award was made a rule of the Court. It is further averred that the said Advocate had informed the Executive Engineer that a certified cop) of the judgment had been applied for by him and the same would be sent to the department as soon as it was made avai...

Chem-crown India Ltd. Vs. Sports Equipment (P.) Ltd.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: [2001]103CompCas1002(Delhi)

Rao, C.J. 1. Admit.2. This company appeal has been filed by the petitioner in the company petition seeking the winding up of the respondent-company, Sports Equipment (P.) Ltd. By the impugned order the learned Company Judge dismissed company petition No. 219 of 1993 filed under Sections 433, 434 and 439 of the Companies Act, 1956 ('the Act') and refused to admit the petition and order citation. In the appeal the appellant contends that there was deliberate non-payment of the amounts due and no bona fide defense was shown by the respondent and, hence, it is a fit case wherein the winding up petition should have been admitted and citation ordered.3. The facts of the case are as follows :The appellant/petitioner is Chem-Crown India Ltd. and it manufactures and sells adhesives for use in the shoe-making industry. Between April, 1988 and July, 1991, the appellant agreed to supply adhesives and Chemicals to the respondent-company [Sports Equipment (P.) Ltd., New Delhi] and these adhesives an...

Tate Timken Limited Vs. Smt. Veena Gupta

Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi

A.P. Chowdhri, President: 1. This order would dispose of seven appeals being appeals registered as A-70, A-206, A-209, A-210, A-211, A-212 and A-286 of 1995. These are directed against order of the District Forum deciding the preliminary objections regarding maintainability against the opposite party, appellant herein. 2. The appellant is a public limited Company incorporated on 13.6.87 under the Companies Act, 1956. The Company had its registered office at Calcutta. The Company made a public issue of shares and partly convertible debentures in terms of prospectus dated 13.6.91 and also issued advertisement inviting applications for the said public issue. Various applicants sent applications for the allotment of shares/partly convertible debentures (PCD) to the petitioner Company at its registered office at Calcutta. It will be convenient to refer to the facts in the complaint filed by Smt. Veena Gupta. She made an application for allotment of shares/PCD alongwith Rs. 4,000/- as applic...

Amrik Singh Vs. Indian Express Newspaper (Bombay) Ltd.

Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi

A.P. Chowdhri, J: 1. Mr. Amrik Singh gave an advertisement to the Indian Express Newspaper for letting out his house at Chandigarh. The advertisement was required to be published in the issue of the newspaper dated 30.1.93 in the to let classified column. He had paid the necessary charges for the advertisement. Instead of the advertisement appearing on 30.1.93, it actually appeared on 31.1.93. The case of the complainant was that he travelled to Chandigaih in order to let out the house in response to the advertisement given by him. As the advertisement failed to appear on Saturday, 30.1.93, he could not let out the house. He claimed Rs. 560/- on account of railway fare to and from Chadigarh, another Rs. 1,700/- on account of loss of one months rent and Rs. 1,550/- on account of compensation and expenses. The complaint was contested. 2. By order dated 12.9.95 the D.F. pointed out that there was delay in publishing the advertisement by a day. It was observed that there was no certainty t...

Collector of C. Ex. Vs. Sri Ram Chemical Complex

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1996)(85)ELT309TriDel

1. This is an appeal filed by the Revenue against the Order-in-Appeal dated 30-09-1988 passed by the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), Madras. The respondent are M/s. Sri Ram Chemical Complex, Chingleput.Tamil Nadu.2. The matter relates to the classification of animal glue commercially known as technical gelatine and glue flakes manufactured from the tannery waste products-hides and skins. The respondent had classified their product under Item No. 68 of the erstwhile first schedule to the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 (hereinafter referred to as the Tariff). Under show cause notice dated 9-7-1985, the Department sought to classify the said goods under item No. 15 A(l) of the Tariff as high polymer, and demanded Central Excise duty for the proceeding six months. Without going into the question of classification, the Asstt.Collector of Central Excise, Madras under his Order-in-Original dated 31-01-1986 dropped the proceedings on the ground of the eligibility of the manufacture...

G.F. Kellner and Company Ltd. Vs. Director General of Foreign Trade

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 1996(81)ELT437(Del)

ORDERDevinder Gupta, J.Rule D. B. 1. Learned counsel for the parties submit that since pleadings are complete, matter may be heard was disposed of. 2. Petitioner's grievance is that he has not been granted Duplicate of the REP license and has sought quashing of the orders passed by respondents 1 & 2 conveyed to the petitioner through letters dated 9-12-1994 and 7-7-1994 and has prayed for directions against the respondents to issue Duplicate license in regard to his licenses No. P/L/3260040/C and P/L/3260041/C. 3. Petitioner claims that it is one of the leading house engaged in the business of marine products and export of sea products. It has exported sea products worth crores of rupees annually. Export house certificate is granted only if the export is made of a particular target, which at present is to the tune of Rs. 10 crores during the last three years. The import licenses as were being issued during the policy period of 1990-93 are styled as REP license which are issued in lieu ...

Nagina Enterprises Vs. Union of India and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 61(1996)DLT17

Manmohan Sarin, J. (1) The respondent Union of India, has filed its objection under Sections 16,30 and 33 of the Arbitration Act against the award dated 30.3.1990 made and published by Sh. Shiv prakash, sole Arbitrator. It was submitted by the Counsel for the parties that the arbitral proceedings be treated as evidence and apart from that no evidence was required to be led by any of the parties. (2) The objections were thereforee, taken up for hearing at the request of the parties. The facts in brief giving rise to the present objections are as under :- (i) The petitioner had entered into a contract with the Union of India through the Director General Supplies and disposal for supply of five lakhs soap cakes @ Rs. 2.03 per lakh. The supplies were initially to be completed by 31.12.1984. The delivery period was extended at the request of the petitioner up to 12.3.1985.2,10,000 soap cakes were offered for inspection on 11.3.1985, out of the above 1,80,000 soap cakes were accepted and 30,...

Anand Gopal Jhingran and ors. Vs. K.D. Beri

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 1995IVAD(Delhi)689; 61(1996)DLT1; 1995(35)DRJ361; 1996RLR36

Arun Kumar, J. (1) The eviction petition in the present case was filed in November 1973. The petition was filed jointly by four petitioners who are real brothers being sons of Dr.Anand Gopal Jhingran. The petitioners are the owners of property bearing No.5958, Jawahar Nagar, Delhi. The tenancy premises consists of three rooms, one kitchen and a bath room on the first floor of the said property. The petitioners' case was that the premises was let out for residential purpose and was required bona fide by them for occupation as residence for themselves and other members of their family dependent on them for purposes of residence. At the time of institution of the eviction petition the petitioners were in possession of three rooms in the said property. In fact around the same time when the present eviction petition was filed, two other eviction petitions were also filed against two other tenants, namely, Arjun Dev and S.N.Kapoor. The eviction orders were passed in all the three petitions b...

H.S. Nag and Associates (Pvt.) Ltd. Vs. Supreme Cooperative Group Hous ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 1995IVAD(Delhi)977; 60(1995)DLT866

Jaspal Singh, J.(1) The respondent seeks rejection of the plaint and for that has moved this application under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Though the application has within its embryo number of objections, the learned' Counsel for the respondent has chosen to convass only two. His first objection revolves around Section 90 of the Delhi Cooperative Societies Act, 1972. Let us first ' have a look at the section before I proceed further. It is in following terms:- 90.Notice necessary in suits.-No suit shall be instituted against a cooperative society or any of its officers in respect of any act touching the business of the society until the expiration of three months next after notice in writing has been delivered to the Registrar or left at his office, staling the cause of action, the name, description and place of residence of the plaintiff and the relief which he claims, and the plaint shall contain a statement that such notice has been so delivered or left.'(2) Adm...

Senior Postmaster Vs. Sanjay Kumar Gupta

Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi

Justice A.P. Chowdhri, President: 1. The respondent opened NSS account at Parliament Street, Post Office, New Delhi. He deposited Rs. 30,000/- each on 31.3.89 and 30.3.90 respectively. Entries to this effect were made in the pass-book. When he presented the pass-book at the time of making the third deposit on 28.3.92 the dealing hand scored out the entry relating to deposit dated 30.3.90. The complainant pleaded for restoring the entry but to no purpose. He approached the District Forum. During the pendency of the complaint necessary correction was made in the entry. The District Forum, by order dated 19.12.94 held that this was a case of deficiency in service and accordingly saddled the opposite party with costs of Rs. 5,000/-. Aggrieved by the order, the opposite party has preferred this appeal. 2.Mr. M.R. Mehta, Public Relation Inspector, who argued for the appellant, admitted before us that the deposit of Rs. 30,000/- dated 30.3.90 was supported by evidence from the bank. He submit...