Delhi Court August 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.
Ashok Kumar Chhabra Vs. Urban Improvement Co. Pvt. Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-08-1995
Reported in: 59(1995)DLT531
Devinder Gupta, J. (1) On 6th October, 1989 Shri M.L.Anand, Chief Engineer (Retired) New Delhi Municipal Committee, New Delhi, made and published his award, which was filed in this Court and is registered as Suit No. 2740/91. Notice of the filing of the award was directed to be issued to the parties. Claimant did not chose to file any objection to the award. Objections, however, have been filed by the respondent which are registered as I.A.3929/92. Despite number of opportunities allowed to the claimant, reply to the objections was not filed. Final opportunity to file reply was allowed on 18th May, 1993 but no appearance has been put in on behalf of the petitioner/claimant. Accordingly, I have heard learned Counsel for the respondent/Objector who has taken me through the entire record in support of the objections. Suit No. 2966/89 is an application by claimant seeking direction to file award and to make the same a rule of Court. This suit was also directed to be taken up with the objec...
ital India Vs. Manshah Travels Pvt. Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-08-1995
Reported in: 59(1995)DLT528; 1995(34)DRJ376; (1995)111PLR50
Devinder Gupta, J.(1) This is defendants' application under Order xxxvII Rule 4 read with Order 9 Rule 13 and Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure praying for setting aside the judgment and decree dated 19th April, 1991.(2) On 26th September, 1989, suit for recovery of Rs.4,39,000.00 was filed by the plaintiff against the defendants under Order xxxvII Civil Procedure Code . Summons were directed to be issued to the defendants in Form 4 of Schedule B of Order xxxvII C.P.C., returnable 20th November, 1989. Appearance on behalf of the defendants was put in on 24th October, 1989. Plaintiff applied for summons for judgment by moving application (I.A.8551/89). Summons for judgment were directed to be issued to the defendants through registered post for 1st February,1990. Summons issued under registered cover were received back undelivered with the remarks that the defendants were not found at the given address. Fresh summons for judgment were directed to be issued for 17th April, 1990....
New Bank of India Vs. Master Steel Marketing Co.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-08-1995
Reported in: 59(1995)DLT521; (1995)111PLR45
Devinder Gupta, J.(1) This is defendant's application under Section xxxvII Rule 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short 'C.P.C.') for setting aside the decree passed on 22nd August, 1991 and for grant of leave to defend the suit. (2) Plaintiff filed the suit for recovery of Rs. 2,68,791.77 against the defendants under Order xxxvII Civil Procedure Code . It is not in dispute that defendants were served with the summons in the suit by publication in 'The Statesman' in its issue dated 28th July, 1988 and that the defendants had put in appearance on 17th August, 1988. After the defendants had put in appearance, plaintiff moved an application (I.A.2241/89) for judgment alleging that appearance had not been put in by the defendants within the statutory period of limitation. The said application of the plaintiff was dismissed on 23rd October, 1989 when the Court condoned the delay for entering appearance. While deciding the application, it was held that the defendants had been served thro...
Ram Dass Narang Vs. Attar Singh
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-08-1995
Reported in: 59(1995)DLT534; 1995(34)DRJ353
Devinder Gupta, J.(1) This is defendant's application for staying the suit under Section 10 of the Code Civil Procedure on the ground of pendency of a previously instituted suit between same parties in which it is alleged that issues and controversies are substantially same between the parties.(2) I have heard learned counsel for the parties, who have taken me through the tire record.(3) Plaintiffs are the son of Jai Ram Narang and have claimed a decree of declaration that judgment and decree passed in suit No.63/76 by the court of Shri P.L.Singla, then Sub Judge 1st Class, Delhi is null and void and is not binding on them. They have also prayed for declaration that defendant has no right, title or interest in shop 10.39, Edward Lines, Kingsway Camp, Delhi or any part thereof and that plaintiffs re the exclusive owners of shop No.39, Kingsway Camp, Delhi and that no partition shop No.39 had ever taken place between late Jai Ram Narang and the defendant. Decree for injunction has also b...
Ganga Bishan JaIn Vs. Union of India
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-08-1995
Reported in: 1995IIIAD(Delhi)779; 59(1995)DLT556
M.K. Sharma, J.(1) By this writ petition the petitioner has sought for a direction to the respondents for grant of freedom fighters pension to the petitioner w.e.f. 1.8.1980 or in the alternative from the date of the application under the provisions of the Freedom Fighters Pension Scheme (hereinafter called the Scheme). (2) The petitioner in his writ petition has stated that he participated in the freedom struggle for the independence of the country and on account of his patriotic activities he was arrested in pursuance of a criminal case which was registered against him by Nasik Police and he underwent imprisonment from 12.10.1943 to 19.2.1944 at Nanded Jail and subsequently from 20.2.1944 to 25.5.1944 at Nasik Jail. According to the petitioner, the total period of imprisonment underwent by him thus was 7 months and 14 days and in terms of the provisions of the Pension Scheme the petitioner is entitled to receive such pension having fulfillled the eligibility criteria of having underg...
Manoj Kumar Gupta Vs. Rakesh Kumar Jindal and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-08-1995
Reported in: 59(1995)DLT536
Devinder Gupta, J. (1) This is plaintiff's application under Order 39 Rules I and 2 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short 'C.P.C.') seeking directing against the defendants for demolition of the portion, alleged to have been constructed after the passing of the order of status quo. (2) On 26th August, 1993, the plaintiff filed suit seeking injunction against Rakesh Jindal, defendant No. 1 not to construct the first and second floor of the rear portions of premises House No. W-106, Greater Kailash-1, New Delhi without mutation or probate and without proper sanction of site plan and except with due process of law. Plaintiff also prayed injunction against defendant No. 1 not to break/damage the stair case. No relief was claimed against the second defendant, namely, Vinay Kumar Jindal. Other two defendants imploded in the suit are, Commissioner, and Zonal Engineer, Municipal Corporation of Delhi. (3) It was alleged that plot bearing No. W-10 was purchased by Om Pr...
Green Carriers and Contractors Delhi Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Sal ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-08-1995
Reported in: 1995IIIAD(Delhi)765; 59(1995)DLT562
M.K. Sharma, J.(1) In this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India the petition has challenged the order dated 24-3-1994 detaining 2 trucks hired by the petitioner namely :-truck No. DL-IG-5605 and truck No. RNY-715 and also the order dated 5-4-1994 passed by the Sales Tax Officer (Enforcement), respondent No. 2 imposing sales tax amounting to Rs. 55,839.00 and also for a direction to the respondents to refund the aforesaid sales tax amount recovered from petitioner along with interest and to pay damages/compensation for illegally detaining the said two trucks for 12 days.(2) The petitioner carries on the business of. transporting goods in trucks on hire basis to various places in: India. On 22-3-1994 the pettioner booked goods of various consignors for transportation from Surat to Delhi and for the said purpose hired two trucks from other transporters being truck No. DL-IG-5605 and truck No. RNY-715 in which goods were brought from Surat to Delhi comprising about ...
D.C.M. Ltd. Vs. Delhi Development Authority
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-08-1995
Reported in: 1995IIIAD(Delhi)952; 59(1995)DLT625
Devinder Gupta, J. (1) The defendant in this application has prayed torn rejection of the plaint on a number of grounds.(2) The plaintiff is a public limited company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1913 and has filed the suit for grant of decree for declaration with consequential relief of injunction pertaining to property comprised in Khasra Nos-1613/153, 1614/152 and 1615/153, situated in Baghraoji, Delhi. In nutshell plaintiff's case is that in lieu of land comprised in Khasra Nos. 487 and 488 (part), owned by it, which was taken over by the Delhi Improvement Trust for public purposes for re-alignment of the Daryai Nala, plaintiff-company was allotted in exchange the suit land. Actual physical possession of the suit land was given to the plaintiff by the Delhi Improvement Trust on 4th February, 1942 and 15th March, 1943 and ever since the plaintiff-company has been in continuous, exclusive, uninterrupted possession and enjoyment of the suit land in exercise of its right as the...
Viral Laminates Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Collector of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Aug-07-1995
Reported in: (1996)(85)ELT191TriDel
1. This is an appeal filed by the Department against the order-in-appeal dated 27-9-1985 passed by the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), Bombay.2. The point to be considered in this case is whether phenol formaldehyde and melamine formaldehyde manufactured and cleared for captive consumption in the manufacture of laminated sheets are classifiable under Tariff Item 15A(1) as excisable goods. The appellants are manufacturers of decorative laminated plastic sheets falling under Tariff Iteml5A(2) and during the process of finished product plastic decorative laminated sheets at first stage, synthetic resins were formed. They also manufacture mixtures of chemicals viz.(i) phenol formaldehyde and (ii) melamine formaldehyde. The said mixtures of chemicals are being captively used in the manufacture of decorative plastic sheets. The party had also filed a classification list for the said mixture under Tariff Item 15A(1), which was duly approved. Show cause notice was issued to the party o...
Collector of Central Excise Vs. Sidha Syntex Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Aug-07-1995
Reported in: (1996)(85)ELT45TriDel
1. The Appeal No. E/2844/84-D was filed by the appellant on 1st December, 1984. The order-in-appeal against which this Appeal was filed was communicated to the appellant on 21-9-1984. Thus, the Appeal was within time. However, three Appeals arose out of the impugned order and therefore, the appellant filed supplementary Appeal No. E/A/3366/90D along with COD No. E/COD/300/90-D and supplementary Appeal No.E3378/90-D alongwith COD No. E/COD/702/90-D with the request for condonation of delay. As the main Appeal was filed in time, therefore, the delay in filing the supplementary Appeals as mentioned above is condoned. As the Appeals arose out of the same order, they are being disposed of by this common order.2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the respondents herein are engaged in the manufacture of cotton yarn. They were clearing the cotton yarn after doubling the same and were paying duty only at the doubled stage. During the process of doubling of yarn, certain losses occu...
- ‹ Prev
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 16
- Next ›
- Last »