Delhi Court March 1995 Judgments
M/S. Kirpal Singh Khurana and Sons Vs. Union of India and Others
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-27-1995
Reported in: 59(1995)DLT259
Usha Mehra, J.1. M/s. Kirpal Singh khurana & Sons entered into a contract with Union of India through the Executive Engineer, P.W.D. for execution of the work of construction of Government Senior Secondary School at Andha Mugal, Delhi including the inter water supply and sanitary installations, the said agreement contained an arbitration clause. Disputes arose between the parties in respect of the contract which were referred to Shri V. Nainani, respondent No. 2 herein for adjudication in terms of the Arbitration clause. 2. The sole arbitrator made and published his award dated 30th June, 1992. 3. On an application moved under Section 14 the Arbitrator Act (in short 'Act') by the petitioner herein, directions were given to the arbitrator to file the award in court. Against claim No. 1 of the said award, the petitioner filed objections under Section 30 and 33 of the Act. The respondent/Union of India did not file any objection, on the contrary deposited an amount of Rs. 25,061.42. This ...
Tag this Judgment!Phool Pati Vs. Chotu Ram and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-27-1995
Reported in: I(1996)ACC130; 1995ACJ632; 1995(33)DRJ117; (1996)112PLR52
C.M. Nayar, J.(1) The present First Appeal arises out of the award dated August 13, 1984, passed by Shri Kuldip Singh, Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Delhi. (2) The brief facts of the case, as alleged are that the appellant was sitting under the tree near Kothi No.35, Sukhdev Vihar at about 4.35 P.M.on July 3, 1981 when a milk van bearing No. DHG-5783 being driven by respondent no.1 came in a rash and negligent manner at a very high speed and hit the appellant with the result that she sustained serious injuries on her person. It is further alleged that the front wheel of the said milk van ran over her. The van was driven by respondent no.1 and he did not blow any horn nor he gave any signal and he was driving the same in rash and negligent manner and, as such, lost control of the vehicle which caused the injuries. The appellant sustained fracture on the left leg above the knee as well as below the knee. She also sustained grievous injuries on her left arm which was fractured as...
Tag this Judgment!Chetan C. Bijlani Vs. L.C. Bijlani
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-27-1995
Reported in: 1995IAD(Delhi)1432; 1995(33)DRJ231
Jaspal Singh, J. (1) In the year 1977 the plaintiff instituted this suit for partition and accounts. Issues were framed in December, 1979. In 1990, the plaintiff moved an application for amendment of the plaint. It is seeing its disposal by this order. (2) What is the amendment sought? I will venture to answer it a little later. First, let us see the claim of the plaintiff as originally laid. He claimed that the policy of the Ministry of Rehabilitation being to allot one room set to a person having a family of not exceeding five members and two room set to a person having a family exceeding that number, the suit property (a two room set) was allotted to the defendant on rental basis. In 1959 defendant No.1 purchased it from the said Ministry in his own name but agreed that it shall belong 'equally' to himself and the plaintiff and that the plaintiff had contributed 'one-half money towards the sale consideration.' and that later in the year 1967 when a new construction was raised, at th...
Tag this Judgment!Kans Kumari Vs. Beli Ram Mehra and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-27-1995
Reported in: 58(1995)DLT171
Usha Mehra, J. 1. Smt. Kans Kumari, wife of Sh. K.C. Khanna, filed a suit for declaration, possession and for recovery of Rs. 35,750/- against Sh. Beli Ram Mehra and Ors. Suit is based primarily on the facts that the plaintiff and late Smt. Leela Wati were the daughters of late Smt. Dhan Devi, wife of Sh. Karam Chand Kapur. Smt. Dhan Devi purchased, in public auction, a property No. XI/ 3874-75 and 1453-54 (New) Gali Nimwaji, Darya Gang, New Delhi. This property was purchased by Smt. Dhan Devi against the compensation payable to her in lieu of properties left in Pakistan. Smt. Dhan Devi had also been allotted a flat No. A-IV/97(Part-I), Lajpat Nagar, under the Displaced Persons (Compensation & Rehabilitation) Act (In short the 'Act'). Smt.Dhan Devi was the sole owner of both these properties. Smt. Kans Kumari and late Smt. Leela Wati were the only legal heirs of Smt. Dhan Devi and late K.C. Kapur. Thus after the death of Smt. Dhan Devi, the plaintiff and Leela Wati acquired as equal sh...
Tag this Judgment!Vora Enterprises Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Mar-24-1995
Reported in: (1995)(80)ELT557TriDel
1. M/s. Vora Enterprises, 12 Pollock Street, 2nd floor, Calcutta-700 001 have filed an appeal being aggrieved from the order passed by the Collector of Central Excise & Customs, Calcutta. The said appeal was received in the Registry on 15th of February, 1995. Notices of hearing were issued for the hearing of the appeal for 23rd March, 1995 and the matter was adjourned matter. When the matter was called, Shri N.Ramanathan, the learned Consultant appeared on behalf of the appellants. Shri B.K. Singh, the learned SDR is present on behalf of the respondent. We were about to proceed with the hearing of the matter when Shri B.K. Singh, learned SDR pleaded that the appeal filed by the appellants is an invalid appeal in the eyes of law as the same has not been signed and verified by an authorised signatory. He pleaded that the appeal has been signed by Shri Mitesh Sheth whereas in the verification and below the signatures, the signatory has not mentioned his status.2. Shri N. Ramanathan, ...
Tag this Judgment!Collector of C Ex. Vs. Kedia Agglomerated Marbles Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Mar-24-1995
Reported in: (1995)(77)ELT710TriDel
1. The above-captioned appeal and cross-objection arise out of the order dated 23-6-1993 passed by the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), Ahmedabad. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the respondents who are engaged in the manufacture of agglomerated marble filed a Classification List No. 73/89-90 effective from 20-3-1990 claiming classification of 'agglomerated marble' in slab under sub-heading 2504.21 and 'agglomerated marble tiles' tinder sub-heading 2504.31 of the Central Excise Tariff, The Department was of the view that the respondents' products not being mineral products but being mainly manufactured products made by mixing crushed marble in the form of chips, cement/resin and other additives and setting the mixture in moulds for formation of blocks, usable for cutting into tiles, they were correctly classifiable under Heading 6807 of the Central Excise Tariff. The respondents were therefore served with a show cause notice requiring them to show cause as to why t...
Tag this Judgment!Amar Machine Tools (P) Ltd. Vs. Collctor of C. Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Mar-24-1995
Reported in: (1995)(80)ELT595TriDel
1. The matter was initially mentioned by the Learned Counsel, Mrs.Archana Wadhwa saying that this matter was originally listed for 22nd March, 1995 and had been got adjourned on her request to 30th March, 1995. The Learned Counsel submitted that on 30th March, 1995, she may not be in a position to appear before the Tribunal. The Learned Counsel pleaded that the matter lies in a short compass and could be disposed of on the basis of precedent order and the Bench if so inclined it could be taken up today itself.3. With the consent of the parties, we have taken up the stay as well as the appeal. We find on hearing both the sides that the issue in this appeal is relating to the availment of MOD VAT Credit Facility as well as the concessional rate of duty by a small scale unit under Notification No. 175/86. As has been submitted by both the sides before us, we find that this issue is covered by a precedent decision of the Tribunal in his Order No. E/03/94-B1, dated 28-12-1993 in the case o...
Tag this Judgment!Paramount Centrispun Castings Vs. Collector of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Mar-24-1995
Reported in: (1995)LC260Tri(Delhi)
1. These appeals arise out of order, dated 29-10-1993 passed by the Collector (Appeals), Central Excise, Indore confirming the order passed by the Assistant Collector holding that - (i) ROT (Run out Table Rolls); (ii) Roll ring segments (assembly) and (iii) Upper & Lower Skirts (skirts assembly) declared by the appellants in their Classification List Nos. 206/88 and 52/88 as cast articles of iron and steel falling under Heading 73.25 as unmachined casting were classifiable as identifiable machine parts falling under Chapter 84 and attracting Central Excise duty at 15% ad valorem.2. Appearing on behalf of the appellants, Shri R. Nambirajan, learned Advocate submitted that the disputed items being castings which had not been machined beyond the stage of fettling for the removal of surface defects were correctly classifiable under sub-heading 7325 as claimed by the appellants in the relevant Classification Lists. He contended that the Collector (Appeals) had erred in holding that rou...
Tag this Judgment!Rameshwar Dass Bishan Dyal Vs. M/S. Steel Authority of India Ltd. and ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-24-1995
Reported in: 1995IIAD(Delhi)117; AIR1995Delhi263; 58(1995)DLT255
ORDER1. Defendants advertised for invitation of quotations for appointment of handling contractor at their stock yard at Allahabad. The plaintiff in response to the said advertisement submitted his tender in time. According to the terms of the tender, the same was to be submitted up to 18th August, 1994. The tenders were to he valid for a period of 90 days from the date of opening of the tender. Part I of the tender was opened on 18th August, 1994. Accordingly, the validity of the tender was to expire on 16th Nov. 1994. It is further the case of the plaintiff that he was eligible for being considered for appointment as handling contractor. He had submitted complete documents as per the terms of the tender notice and also deposited the demand draft of Rs. 25,000/- being the earnest money for the tender. Plaintiff's allegations are that the defendants, deliberately with an ulterior motive knowing that the plaintiff's quotation was lowest against the tenders quoted by others, did not open...
Tag this Judgment!Union of India Vs. Central Cables (Pvt.) Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-24-1995
Reported in: 59(1995)DLT256; 1995(33)DRJ250
N.G. Nandi, J. (1) The award filed by the sole arbitrator Shri Shiv Prakash has been admitted and numbered as suit. Thereafter notices under Sections 14 and 17 of the Arbitration Act appears to have been issued to the parties. Objections have been filed under Sections 30 and 33 of the Arbitration Act on behalf of the claimant-Union of India against the award dated 22.3.1990 which have been numbered as I.A. No.9717 of 1991. (2) It is stated in the objections by the claimant that the award is for an amount of Rs.75,000.00 in favor of the respondent. It disallows the entire claim of Rs.6,95,014.00 made by the claimant on patently false basis. It is stated that the award is liable to be set aside because there are patent errors on the face of record. The arbitrator has misconducted the proceedings and misconstrued the evidence by disallowing claim of the claimant for Rs.6,95,014.00 and by allowing the claim of Rs.75,000.00 of the respondent-Central Cables (Pvt.) Ltd. in a highly arbitrary ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »