Delhi Court July 1995 Judgments

NitIn Transport Co. (P). (Ltd.) Vs. International Airport Authority of ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 1995IIIAD(Delhi)249; 59(1995)DLT172; 1995(34)DRJ419

Manmohan Sarin, J.(1) The petitioner by this petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution-of India assails the order dated 23.5.1995 passed by Shri Ajit Bharihoke, Senior Civil Judge, by which he condoned the delay in filing of the appeal and the certified copy of the order impugned before him in appeal.(2) The facts in brief leading to the filing of this petition are:- (I)That the petitioner had filed a suit for prohibitory injunction accompanied with an application under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 read with Section 151 of Civil Procedure Code The trial court allowed the application under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 Civil Procedure Code vide its order dated 9.11.1993. The respondents thereupon preferred an appeal against the said order on 16.12.1993 without annexing a certified copy of the impugned order dated 9.11.1993. The certified copy of the order dated 9.11.1993 was filed on 11.2.1994, accompanied with an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condoning the delay in ...

Union of India Vs. Pratap Singh and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 1995IIIAD(Delhi)269; 59(1995)DLT179; 1995(34)DRJ270

Manmohan Sarin, J. (1) The petitioners by this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India . are assailing the orders dated 28th Janury, 1985 (annexure 'C') passed by the Additional Collector, Delhi and order dated 2nd August, 1985 (annexure 'D') passed by the Financial Commissioner, whereby the appeals preferred by the Union of India against the order dated 28th May, 1984 passed by the S.D.M., Delhi declaring the respondents. as Bhoomidars under Section 85 of the Delhi Land Reforms Act, were dismissed on the ground that there was a delay of 18 days in filing the first appeal.(2) The facts leading to the' filing of the petition may be briefly stated. (I)The respondents had moved an application under Section 85 of the Land Reforms Act seeking to be declared Bhumidars in respect of khasra No.1147 min.half (part) and 1194 (84 Bigh.05Bis) half part of which new khasra No.43/7(4Bigh-16 Biswas), 43/8 (4-16), 43/9(4-16), 43/12(4-16), 43/13(4-16), 43/14(3-8), 43/17(4-00), 43/18(4-1...

Engineers Pre-stressed Vs. Collr. of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1995)LC78Tri(Delhi)

1. The above application has been filed in terms of Section 35G(1) of Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944' by the Revenue for reference of the following question of law purported to have arisen out of Final Order No. A7565-566/94-NRB dated 14-6-1994 :- "Whether the party is entitled for modvat credit on duty paid inputs in terms of Rule 57H(1) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, as contended by the department or Rule 57H(1)(ii) as contended by the Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi".2. The facts leading up to the filing of the Reference Application are as follows :- The issue in both the appeals involves interpretation of Rule 57H of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 namely, whether credit of duty paid on inputs lying in stock as part of finished products as on 1-3-1987, is admissible in terms of Rule 57H(1). The lower Appellate authority had held that the benefit would be available only to inputs lying in stock or received on or after 1-3-1987 and then subsequently used in the manufacture of f...

Dharambir Singh Vs. Shanti Devi and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: II(1995)ACC359; 1995ACJ1178

C.M. Nayar, J.1. The present appeal is directed against the award dated May 23,1980 of Mr. R.C. Chopra, Judge Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Delhi. The respondents-claimants have also filed their cross-objections (C.M. No. 2158/82) claiming enhancement of compensation.2. The respondents-claimants filed an application under Section 110-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 on the averments that one Khem Karan Lal died in a road accident on January 12,1971 in an accident at about 8 p.m. The deceased was traveling in the offending vehicle No. DLP-4240 which was being driven by respondent No. 5. The present appellant-Dharambir Singh was the conductor of the bus. It was alleged that the deceased boarded the bus and had not even entered the same when the bus was started and when it reached Kishmere Gate in front of Ritz Cinema, respondent No. 5 took a sharp turn as a result of which the wall of Kashmere Gate struck against the body of the deceased who fell down and received multiple injuries on...

Fredrick Mecrahan Vs. Director of Enforcement

Court: Appellate Tribunal for foreign Exchange New Delhi

1. Appeal No. 607 of 1992 is directed against Adjudication Order No. 314/92/AD, dated 30-10-1992 (despatched on 11-11-1992) where-under a penalty of Rs. 20,000 has been imposed on the appellant, the first appellant herein, for contravention of section 9(1)(a) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973. The allegation against the appellant is that he made payment of an amount of Rs. 50,000 to the credit of one Edwin Fredrick who was, during the relevant period, a person resident outside India, after his migration from India to Australia for permanent settlement there. Appeal No. 24 of 1993 is against Adjudication Order No. 316/92/AD, dated 30-10-1992 (despatched on 18-11-1992) under which a penalty of Rs. 18,900 has been imposed on the appellant, the second appellant herein, for contravention of the provisions of section 9(1)(d) and a further penalty of Rs. 12,500 has been for contravention of section 9(1)(b). The allegation on which the contravention is founded is that the appellant ...

Collector of Central Excise Vs. Nabha Solvex (P) Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1996)(81)ELT225TriDel

1. This revenue appeal is directed against Order No. 554/C/CHD/91, dated 19-4-1991.2. Arguing for the Revenue, the ld. D.R. submitted that the Central Excise Officers of Patiala on a visit to the premises of the respondents, who hold L-6 licence for bringing duty free hexane under Chapter X of Central Excise Rules, 1944, under Notification No.75/84-C.E., dated 1-3-1984 as amended, found on actual verification a shortage of 29,595 Litres of hexane. Since no satisfactory explanation except stating that 18000 Litres were in process in Plant and the balance was in Batch Plant, was given, the Dy. Collector rightly confirmed a demand of Rs. 57,488.29 and also imposed a penalty of Rs. 1,000/- Collector (Appeals) has set aside the orders of Dy. Collector in regard to confirmation of the demand on the ground that the Deptt.has failed to produce any evidence regarding clandestine removal of goods. He, therefore, prayed that order of Deputy Collector be restored.4. I have heard the ld. D.R. and ...

M/S. Progressive Constructions Ltd. Vs. Bharat Hydro Power Corporation

Court: Delhi

Reported in: AIR1996Delhi92; 59(1995)DLT290

ORDERR. C. Lahoti, J.1. This is a petition under Section 20 of the Arbitration Act. The petitioner is a construction company having its registered office at Hyderabad, Andhra Pradesh and administrative office at New Delhi. The respondent is a company having its head office at Calcutta. On 27-5-1993, the respondent published a notice inviting tenders for the construction of balance work of concrete gravity dam at Karvi-Langpi for 2 x 50 MW Lower Borpani Project, Assam. The petitioner submitted its tender in the respondent's office at Calcutta accompanied by earnest money of Rs.10 lakhs by way of a bank guarantee. Then commenced an exchange of letters between the parties seekingvariations, negotiations and review of the terms and conditions of the contract. A final discussion was held on 31-3-1994 at Calcutta and the respondent agreed to issue a letter of intent for the construction of the concrete gravity dam and the associated works to the petitioner. Vide this letter of intent dated 6...

Shri Subhash Chander Kathuria Vs. Ashoka Alloys Steels Ltd.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 1995IIIAD(Delhi)316; 1995(2)ARBLR121(Delhi); 1995(34)DRJ608

R.C. Lahoti, J. 1. This is an application under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act filed by the defendants seeking stay of the suit. 2. The suit is filed by one Shri Subhash Chander Kathuria impleading Ashok Alloys Steel Pvt. Ltd. as defended No. 1 and its share holders as other defendant. The company has its factory and principal office at Mashirwala Tehsil Paunta Sahib. Distt. Sirmolur, H.P. Its local office is alleged to be situated at New Delhi. All the other defendants are resident of Chandigarh. The plaintiff is in Delhi. The plaintiff had entered into a contract to purchase all the equity shares of the defendants shareholders so as to transfer the ownership in the company to the plaintiff. 3. The plaintiff alleges breach of contract on the part of the defendants and has sued for recovery of the amount of Rs. 50 lacs paid by the plaintiff to the defendants under the contract and interest thereon. The upon by the defendants. 4. According to the defendants, it is the plaintiff who h...

Subhash Chander Kathuria Vs. Ashoka Alloys Steels Pvt. Ltd. and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 59(1995)DLT355; 1995(35)DRJ319

R.C. Lahoti, J. (1) This is an application under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act filed by the defendants seeking stay of the suit. (2) The suit is filed by one Shri Subhash Chander Kathuria impleading Ashok Alloys Steel Pvt.Ltd. as defendant No.1 and its shareholders as other defendants. The company has its factory and principal office at Mashirwala Tehsil Paunta Sahib, Distt. Sirnolur, H.P. Its local office is alleged to be situated at New Delhi. All the other defendants are resident of Chandigarh. The plaintiff is in Delhi. The plaintiff had entered into a contract to purchase all the equity shares of the defendants shareholders so as to transfer the ownership in the company to the plaintiff. (3) The plaintiff alleges breach of contract on the part of the defendants and has sued for recovery of the amount of Rs.50 lacs paid by the plaintiff to the defendants under the contract and interest thereon. The plaintiff also alleges the agreement to have been vitiated by fraud played upon ...

Unibros Vs. Ah India Radio and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 1995(34)DRJ206

M.K. Sharma, J.(1) The petitioners have preferred this writ petition seeking a writ of mandamus for setting aside/quashing the award of contract on 28.3.1995 itself to respondent No. 4 for the construction of Doordarshan Bhawan, Mandi House, Phase Ii, New Delhi, with a further direction to the respondents to award the work/contract relating to construction of Doordarshan Bhawan, Mandi House, Phase Ii, New Delhi (Superstructure) to the petitioners. In the writ petition the following prayers have been made by the petitioners:- 1.This Hon'ble Court may graciously be pleased to issue a writ/order or direction in the nature of certiorari/mandamus or any other appropriate writ, direction selling aside/quashing the decision of considering again on 28.3.1995 at 4 P.m. the tender for construction of Doordarshan Bhawan - Mandi House, Phase Ii, New Delhi and quash award of contract on 28.3.1995 itself to respondent No.4. 2.Issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondent to award the work/contra...