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.
Pratap Rajasthan Copper Vs. Collector of Central Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Aug-14-1995
Reported in: (1996)(83)ELT181TriDel
1. On hearing the Ld. Counsel, Shri V. Sridharan and the Ld. DR, Shri Mohan Lal on the Misc. application for early hearing, we find that no justifiable ground has been made out for such as early hearing as there could be no recurring effect having revenue implications since the goods currently are exempted. The application is, therefore, rejected....
Ashok Foundry and Metal Works Vs. Union of India and Another
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-14-1995
Reported in: 1995IIIAD(Delhi)629; 1995(2)ARBLR346(Delhi); 59(1995)DLT583
K. Ramamoorthy, J. 1. The matter is very short one and, thereforee, I do not want to deal with the facts in detail. The dispute between Union of India through Controller of Stores, Northern Railway and Ashok Foundry & Metal Works, Calcutta were referred to the sole arbitrator of Shri Vijay Kanwar, Executive Director, Mechanical Engineer, Northern Railway. The claim by the Union of India against the Foundry was to the extent of Rs. 4,72,425,20/-. The Arbitrator passed a non speaking award in the following terms : '(1) The claim of Union of India (Controller of Stores) amounting to Rs. 4,72,425,20/- against M/s. Ashoka Foundry & Metal Works, Calcutta, is rejected. (2) The parties shall bear their own costs'. 2. I have gone through the objections filed by the Union of India and except dealing on the merits of the claim it is not stated as to how the award of the arbitrator is vitiated by any lack of jurisdiction. It is well settled that a non speaking award could be challenged by the par...
Vishal Builders Vs. Union of India
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-14-1995
Reported in: 59(1995)DLT591; 1995(34)DRJ458
K. Ramamoorthy, J.(1) The matter lies in a narrow compass. The petitioner in this suit M/s Vishal Builders made a claim against the respondent Union of India. The claims were referred to Arbitrator. The sole Arbitrator Sh. N.H. Chandwani passed the award on 13.12.90. There are ten claims dealt with by the Arbitrator. The Arbitrator had allowed partly claims No. 1 to 4, 7 and 9 in favor of the claimant-contractor and rejected the rest of the claims. The operative portion of the award reads as under :- 'NOW, thereforee, on consideration of the claims of the claimant I do hereby make this Award that the respondent do pay to the claimant a sum of Rs. 49,328.75 (Forty Nine Thousand Three Hundred Twenty-Eight and Paise Seventy five) only plus simple interest @ 14% on Rs. 49,328.75 from the date of award till the date of decree or actual payment whichever is earlier.'(2) The learned counsel for the contractor fairly submitted that the claim No. 1 ordered by the arbitrator cannot be sustained....
Bhagwan Das and anr. Vs. the Municipal Corporation of Delhi
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-14-1995
Reported in: 1995IIIAD(Delhi)867; 60(1995)DLT46
D.P. Wadhwa, J.(1) By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution the two petitioners having valid license granted under Section 421 of the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957 (for short 'the Act') seek a writ, order or direction quashing the public notice dated 29 May 1995 issued by the Commissioner, Municipal Corporation of Delhi (M.C.D.), in exercise of powers conferred upon him under Section 383 of the Act. By this public notice the Municipal Commissioner prohibited the sale of sugar cane juice in the entire jurisdiction of M.C.D. In this public notice it was also mentioned that any person contravening this order shall be liable to prosecution under the law and that that order was to remain in operation for four months w.e.f. I June 1995. Petitioners say that the impugned order is vocative of their fundamental right to carry on their business of selling sugar cane juice and that the prohibition imposed by the impugned order is illegal and has to be struck down. (2) In sim...
Jaswant Singh Vs. Development of Authority
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-11-1995
Reported in: 1995IIIAD(Delhi)646; 59(1995)DLT612; 1995(34)DRJ423
K. Ramamoorthy, J.(1) An award for Rs. 13.674.00 in favor of the claimant is under challenge by the Delhi Development Authority. An agreement was entered into for the construction of work at Block C, Near District Park Vikaspuri between the petitioner and the respondent DDA. 17.9.1988 was the date fixed as the commencement of the work. The work was to be completed within 9 months. The work was not finished within the time. The petitioner had also to maintain the site for sometime owing to the various acts of omission and commission of the respondent. Shri R.C. Malhotra was pointed as the Arbitrator. On 29.11.1991 the award was passed by the Arbitrator directing the respondent to pay the petitioner the sum of Rs. 13,674.00 with interest at 12% per annum for the period from 14.6.90 to 17.1.91. The counter claim for Rs. 1,82,263.00 was rejected by the Arbitrator. In I.A. 2266/93 the Dda filed its objections. It is stated in the objections that the contractor had committed the breach. He w...
Banwari Lal Radhe Mohan Vs. the Punjab State Co-operative, Supply and ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-11-1995
Reported in: 59(1995)DLT571
K. Ramamoorthy, J.(1) The plaintiff Banwari Lal Radhe Mohan had filed this suit against the three defendants The Punjab State Co-op. Supply & Marketing Federation Ltd. herein called the contesting defendant, second defendant is State Trading Corporation of India, third defendant a person in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. The suit is for the recovery of Rs. 53,19,104.66 against all the defendants. Purposely defendants 2 and 3 have been added as parties while the allegations in the plaint would show the relief is against the contesting defendant alone. (2) In the agreement between the parties, which was for the purpose of export of Basmati Rice outside India there is arbitration clause. The plaintiff in December 1981 invoking the arbitration clause against the contesting defendant filed Suit No. 1392A/81 under Section 20 of the Arbitration Act. This Court by order dated 30.3.1982 appointed the Registrar of Cooperative Societies, Punjab, as the Sole Arbitrator. On 24.5.1982 the claimant fil...
Om Prakash Sharma Vs. Indian Airlines Corporation and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-11-1995
Reported in: 1995IIIAD(Delhi)596; 59(1995)DLT813; 1995(34)DRJ546
Usha Mehra, J. (1) Shri O.P.Sharma, the petitioner, has challenged the with holing of his promotion and at the same time imposition of penalty of reduction of his salary? According to him this withholding of promotion and inflicting of penalty amount to double jeopardy?(2) Supreme Court in the case of Union of India Vs . K.Krishnan, : AIR1992SC1898 observed that denial of promotion during the currency of the penalty is merely a consequential result thereof. A Government servant for the reason that he is suffering a penalty or a disciplinary proceedings cannot at the same time be promoted to a higher cadre is a logical one and no exception can be taken. This does not subject a Government servant concerned to double jeopardy. The reason for arriving at this conclusion is based on sound principles that on one hand, to punish a servant and at the same time to promote him during the currency of the punishment may justifiably be termed as self- contradictory.(3) Applying the above principle ...
Ram Dev Prasad Singh Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-11-1995
Reported in: 1995IIIAD(Delhi)622; 59(1995)DLT693; 1995(34)DRJ552
Usha Mehra, J. (1) The petitioner, Shri Ram Dev Prasad Singh was appointed as Sepoy/ Driver with the respondent on 17th September,1971. In May,1973 he was converted to the post of Electrical Mechanical Engineer (E.M.E.), Secunderabad. The case as set up by the petitioner is, that in 1976 while on duty, he sustained injury effecting his ear and mental state of his mind. On account of certain incidents which took place he was subjected to punishment by his officers from time to time. . These punishments were totally unwarranted as the acts committed by the petitioner were not intentional. In May,1984, on the basis of those punishments inflicted in the past, a show cause notice was served on him asking him as to why action be not taken. In June,1984 petitioner was treated in the Military Hospital for unsoundness of his mind. In September,1984 the petitioner was sent back to a unit in Bhopal from Lucknow retaining his medical category as Standard 'A-l'. Even when he was transferred from Bh...
Collector of Central Excise Vs. Metro Tyers
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Aug-09-1995
Reported in: (1995)(80)ELT79TriDel
1. This appeal by the Revenue is directed against the impugned adjudication order passed by the Collector of Central Excise, Chandigarh.2. Shortly put the facts of the case are that the respondents are engaged in the manufacture of tyres and inner tubes of rubber of a kind used in the animal driven vehicles or hand carts, falling under sub-heading 4011.10 of the CET and availed the benefit of exemption under Notification Nos. 229/82, dated 15-10-1982 as amended, 14/86, dated 7-2-1986 and 188/86, dated 3-3-1986. A show cause notice dated 27-5-1986 demanding duty on clearances of tyres and tubes effected from 17-3-1985 to 31-3-1986 was issued to the respondents on the ground that they irregularly availed the benefit under the said Notification. The respondents contested the show cause notice on the round that they rightly availed the benefit under the said notification and further that the demand was time barred. The Collector who adjudicated the case vacated the said show cause notice ...
Ganga Bai Vs. Union of India
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-09-1995
Reported in: AIR1996Delhi257
ORDERDr. 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 under the 'Freedom Fighters Scheme, 1972' renamed as 'Swatantrata Sainik Samman Pension Scheme, 1980' (hereinafter called the Scheme).2. The husband of the petitioner, late Shri Wamanrao Ramrao Deshmukh, according to the petitioner took part in the Hyderabad Literature Struggle as a freedom fighter and was arrested under the Hyderabad defense Act under Section 33/37, 34/37 of Nizam Government, and was admitted to Nanded Jail on 30-1-1357 Fasli. It is stated in the writ petition that the husband of the petitioner suffered imprisonment, for a period of 5 months and I day inasmuch as he was put to Nanded Jail and was lodged therein from 30-1-1357 to 13-6-1357 Fasli and also that he remained underground activist up to 1-5-1358 Fasli and in this manner the total period comes to more than 6 months. The petitioner states that in...
- ‹ Prev
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- Next ›
- Last »