Delhi Court July 1995 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
New Bank of India Vs. Malhotra Stationary Mart and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-20-1995
Reported in: 59(1995)DLT329
S.K. Mahajan, J.(1) This is a suit for recovery of Rs. 3,99,438.25 paise, filed by the plaintiff-Bank against the defendants on the allegations that defendant No.1, the sole proprietory concern of defendant No. 2, requested the Bank for the grant of financial assistance and agreed to hypothecate the entire raw material/stock in trade and machinery as security. On the request of the defendants, the plaintiff Bank sanctioned a cash credit hypothecation limit to defendants on 16th February, 1985. The defendants executed a deed of hypothecation dated 16th February, 1985 and also furnished a personal guarantee of defendant No. 3 vide a deed of guarantee dated 16th February, 1985 and also agreed to pay interest at the rate of 6.5 per cent per annum over the Reserve Bank of India rate of minimum of 16.5 per cent per annum with quarterly rest. The defendants I and 2 executed also demand promissory note for Rs. 3,00,000.00 . Guarantee for repayment of the aforesaid sum Along with same rate of i...
State Bank of India Vs. United Tent Company and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-20-1995
Reported in: 59(1995)DLT423
Devinder Gupta, J. (1) In addition to a decree for Rs. 1,95,024.70 claimed by the plaintiff with costs of the suit and future interest at 16% p.a. decree has also been prayed for the sale of the property situated at C-40/l,Nai Basti, Seelampur, Delhi and at No.3/28, Punjabi Bagh Extension, Delhi. (2) PLAINTIFF'S case is that defendant No.1 is a partnership firm carrying on business of manufacture,, sale and supply of tents to Government departments. defendants 2,3 and 4 are its partners. Late Shri Panna Lal Suri was also one of the partners, who has since died and has left behind defendants 2 to 5 as his heirs, who have also inherited the estate of Panna Lal. On 22nd September, 1989, on request of Shri Panna Lal Suri, a loan with limit of Rs.15,000.00 against bills was sanctioned by the plaintiff-Bank. A cash credit limit of Rs. 15,000.00 was also sanctioned on 17th December, 1969 and the limit of Over-Draft against bills was increased to Rs. 35,000.00 from 8th January, 1971. Previous ...
Sajjan Kumar Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-20-1995
Reported in: 1996CriLJ623; 59(1995)DLT271
A.K. Srivastava, J.(1) This is an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. in Crl.R. No.80/94, Sajjan Kumar v. State. By this application the revisionist prays that he may be permitted to withdraw the revision petition with liberty to take all the pleas as raised in the present revision petition before the Trial Court at the appropriate stage. The facts of the case are that' the Trial Court by its order dated 1.3.94 summoned the revisionist along with one Ishwar Singh as accused in a case under Sections 147/148/149/436/307/395 IPC. Feeling aggrieved by that order this Crl. R. No. 80/94 was filed in this Court oh 5.4.1994. After hearing was made notice was issued to the respondents to show cause as to why the revision petition be not admitted fixing 22.4.94. On that date the revision petition was heard in part by V.B. Bansal, J. Further arguments were heard in part on 25.4.1994. On 26.4.94, on some preliminary point, arguments were heard and orders were reserved. But on May 2,1994, V.B. Ba...
Balvinder Kaur Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-20-1995
Reported in: ILR1997Delhi134
Usha Mehra, J.(1) The petitioner, Smt. Balwinder Kaur was commissioned in the Military Nursing Services (in short MNS) as Lieutenant on 1 June 1988. She was on probation for a period of two years. During this probation period she got married to one Capt. Y.K. Joseph on 31st December, 1988. Her services were terminated on the 'marriage ground' vide order dated 23rd October, 1989. It is against this termination that the present writ petition was filed challenging the impugned order, inter alia, being discriminatory on account of sex prejudice. (2) The respondent in its counter affidavit did not deny the factum of termination of the services of the petitioner on 'marriage ground'. respondent however, took the plea that since the petitioner got married within two years of her commissioning in the Mns, the same was in violation of Clause 'A' of Criteria dated 6th March, 1987. The said circular lays down the criteria according to which an Officer who marries during probation period will not ...
Happy Steels Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jul-19-1995
Reported in: (1996)(81)ELT405TriDel
1. This is an appeal against the order of the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), Chandigarh confirming the demand for duty.2. I have heard Shri Gopal Prasad, advocate for the appellant and Shri Sanjeev Sachdeva Departmental Representative for the department.3. The appellant was a manufacturer of forged products. For this purpose it received as inputs steel ingots and billets which were sent to the job worker for conversion into bars and rounds. It was found that the appellant had not taken permission of the Assistant Collector to remove the inputs tinder the provisions of Rule 57F(2) of the Central Excise Rules. Therefore the Assistant Collector after adjudication proceedings held that credit was not available on the ingots and billets which were converted into bars and rounds and confirmed the duty equal to the credit which had been taken. This order has been confirmed by the Collector (Appeals) 4. Shri Gopal Prasad points out that the appellant had declared the ingots and billet...
Collector of Cus. Vs. Tea Trading Corporation of India
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jul-19-1995
Reported in: (1996)(81)ELT219TriDel
1. In all these appeals common question of law and fact arises, hence they are taken up together for disposal as per law. The Revenue is appellant in this case. They are aggrieved with the order passed by the Collector (Appeals), Bombay. The importer had imported thinwalled bearings not specified in ISI Specification 4774/1968. The customs authorities had charged C.V. Duty under Item 68 against Item 34A of erstwhile CET. Therefore, the importer filed the refund claim seeking reassessment of the said item under Tariff Item 68 for the purpose of C.V. Duty. It had been pleaded by the importer that the dimension of the item are within the range of said ISI Specification, then they are to be treated as thinwalled bearing for the purpose of levy of C.V.Duty under Item 34A. Otherwise, they were treated as thick-walled bearings falling outside the scope of Item 34A.2. The Assistant Collector while dealing with the said refund claim held that the classification of thinwalled bearing is to be g...
Kanoria Inustries Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jul-19-1995
Reported in: (1995)(79)ELT672TriDel
1. These are two separate appeals which have been filed by M/s Kanoria Industries Ltd., against the common order-in-appeal No. 39/91, dated 27-3-1991, passed by the Collector of Customs and Central Excise, (Appeals), Bangalore, who had disposed of two appeals by a single order. As both the appeals arise out of a common order, and relate to similar facts, although for two different periods, they were heard together and are being disposed of by this common order.2. The appellants were engaged in the manufacture of cement under the name and style of Bagalkot Udyog Ltd. Their factory had been in existence since the year 1957 - their excise licence No. being 4/l/cement/57-Bagalkot. Cement was an essential commodity for the purposes of the Essential Commodities Act, and the cement industry was regulated by the provisions of the Cement Control Order, 1967. The Government had contemplated various measures to encourage setting up new cement units and to augment the supplies of the cement in th...
Bennett, Coleman and Co. Ltd. and Others Vs. Appellate Authority for I ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-19-1995
Reported in: AIR1996Delhi172; [1996]85CompCas230(Delhi)
ORDERD. P. Wadhwa, J. 1. These two petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution have been filed chfallenging the order dated 19th December, 1994 of the Appellate Authority for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction, New Delhi (for short the Appellate Authority) dismissing the two separate appeals of the petitioners by a common judgment; substantially confirming the order dated 6/16 June, 1994 passed by the Board forIndustrial and Financial Reconstruction 'BIFR' for short). Both the authorities, namely, the BIFR and the Appellate Authority, have been constituted under the provisions of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 ('SICA' or 'Act', for short) under which proceedings had been held and impugned orders made. The sick industrial company, as defined under clause (o) of Section 3 of the SICA, in the present case is Andhra Cement Limited (ACL). Petition bearing No. 5184/94 has been filed by Bennett, Coleman and Co. Ltd. and five other petitioners constitutin...
S.C. Chhabra Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-19-1995
Reported in: 60(1995)DLT537; 1995RLR519
J.K. Mehra, J. (1) I have been taken through the petition. Paragraph 6 of the said petition sets out the following conclusions arrived at by the Sho from the report of investigation and on the basis whereof he had moved the Court for discharge of the petitioner and Shri Virender Kumar after completing the investigation:- (a) No. oral or documentary evidence came on file to establish that Complainant was provided with smack before or after removal of kidney; (b) The prison of Complainant that kidney was removed against his Will and consent was obtained by deception could not be corroborated by any oral, documentary or circumstantial evidence; (e) That it had rather been established during investigation that Complainant wanted to secure more money and that is why he lodged the complaint; (d) The Complainant reported the matter to press only after coming in contact with Shri P.K. Chanalla, a political leader, to pressurise the doctors and recipient in order to extract more money from them...
Gurbachan Singh and anr. Vs. State and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-19-1995
Reported in: 59(1995)DLT621
A.K. Srivastava, J.(1) This petition has been moved under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing the order dated 11.1.95 passed by the Metropolitan Magistrate in the proceedings relating to Fir 481 /92, Ps Hari Nagar u/Section 498A/406/34 IPC.(2) On perusal of the impugned order it transpires that the case against the petitioner was under Sections 498A and 406 IPC. But the petitioner Gurbachan Singh and one Pritam Kaur have been charged under Section 406 Indian Penal Code and have been discharged for offences under Section 498A.(3) The complainant is daughter-in-law of the petitioner. The facts in brief appear to be that the complainant was married to B.S. Kohli who died in the night of 22/23.6.1992. The complainant had two children from him, one daughter and one son. The marriage had taken place on 22.11.81. It appears that the complainant left the company of her husband in the year 1990 and came to live with her parents. The husband and the children continued to stay with the petitioner (f...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »