Delhi Court December 1996 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.
Dabriwala Steel and Engineering Co. Ltd. Vs. Aaifr
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-16-1996
Reported in: 1997IAD(Delhi)248; [1998]91CompCas197(Delhi); 65(1997)DLT48; 1997(40)DRJ415
Manmohan Sarin, J. (1) The petitioner in this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is seeking a writ of certiorari for quashing of orders dated 6.12.1994, Annexure P/10; order dated 25.5.1993, Annexure P/6; Order dated 15.9.1993, Annexure P/8; and order dated 8.2.1995, Annexure P/11. (2) The BIRF in a reference made by the appellant sick company under Section 15 of the Sick Industrial Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'), vide orders dated 25.5.1993, Annexure P/6, formed a prima facie opinion that the appellant company was economically and commercially non-viable on a long term basis and it would be just and equitable to wind it up. The BIRF further vide orders passed in proceedings dated 15.9.1993, Annexure P/8, after publication of general notices in newspapers considered the objections/suggestions of the involved parties. The Haryana Financial Corporation, which had taken possession of the petitioner's fac...
P.S. JaIn Co. Ltd. Vs. Atma Ram Properties (P) Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-16-1996
Reported in: 1997IAD(Delhi)454; 65(1997)DLT308; 1997(40)DRJ220; 1997RLR231
M. Jagannadha Rao, J. (1) This is an appeal by the tenant (1st defendant) questioning the order of the learned Single Judge in is 8220/90 in Suit No. 1288/89 dated 20.11.94 holding on Issue 2 that the above suit for eviction filed by the landlord (plaintiff) against the appellant and the sub- tenants (respondents 2 to 5) is maintainable in the Civil Court. The contention raised by the appellant is that the civil court has no jurisdiction and that the plaintiff has to go before the Rent Controller and that contention has been rejected by the learned Single Judge. (2) The Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958, as amended by Act 57 of 1988 has, by introducing Section (c) exempted w.e.f. 1.12.88 all premises whose rent exceeds Rs. 3500.00 p.m. from the purview of the said Act. The appellant-tenant has been paying Rs. 900/.00 p.m. to his landlord (1st respondent) under a registered deed dated 5.1.1978 but the appellant has admittedly subleased the premises to two tenants, to one at Rs. 40,000.00 p.m...
Naresh Chand JaIn Vs. Union of India
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-16-1996
Reported in: 1997IAD(Delhi)556; 65(1997)DLT249; 1997(40)DRJ623
M. Jagannadha Rao, C.J. (1) This is a writ petition filed by the petitioner questioning the detention order dated 3.4.1996 passed by the respondent under Section 3(1) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act,1974.(2) One of the points urged on behalf of the petitioner is that a representation was addressed by the petitioner to the detaining authority,namely, the Joint Secretary on 15.5.1996 with a request to send a copy of the representation to the Central Government. A perusal of the records produced before us show that the said representation was initially rejected by the detaining authority on 6.6.1996. On the margin of the note an endorsement was made that the representation may be placed before the Central Government for its due consideration.(3) Thereafter, we find a separate file opened which contains the representation dated 15.5.1996 and placed for consideration before the Central Government. There is a noting by the Under Secretary on...
Collector of Central Excise Vs. Fibrotec India
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Dec-13-1996
Reported in: (1997)(90)ELT489TriDel
1. This is a Department's appeal against the order-in-appeal passed by the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals) Bombay dated 28-9-1989.2. A notice for hearing was duly issued to the Respondents. However, neither any appearance has been caused, nor there is any other communication requesting for adjournment or otherwise. Hence, we have gone through the records and heard the Ld. DR.3. Ld. DR stated that the respondents were engaged in the manufacture of (i) Fibre glass Reinforced Polyester Translucent Roofings (ii) Fibre glass Reinforced Polyester wrinkle glass and (iii) Fibre glass Reinforced Polyester Moulded Articles. They had filed a classification list effective from 1st April, 1987, and the dispute relates to the classification of the product at Sr. No. 1 & 2 thereof i.e. whether they were classifiable under Heading 3920.31 as claimed by the Department or under 7014.00 in which the assessee had classified them.4. The A.C. had approved the classification list, and therefore an...
Collector of Central Excise Vs. Elemech Industries
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Dec-13-1996
Reported in: (1998)(101)ELT416TriDel
1. These are two appeals filed by the Revenue being aggrieved with the common order-in-appeal dated 23-6-1987 passed by the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), Bombay. The respondents are M/s. Elemech Industries, Pimpri, Pune. The matter relates to the availment of Small Scale Exemption under Notification No. 77/85-C.E., dated 17-3-1985 as applicable prior to the introduction of the new Central Excise Tariff under Schedule to the CETA, 1985, and Notification No. 213/86-CE., dated 25-3-1986 as applicable after 1-3-1986 on introduction of the new Central Excise Tariff. Under Notification No. 167/79-C.E. the parts and accessories of motor vehicles and tractors including trailers were exempted from the whole of the duty of excise leviable thereon if such parts and accessories were intended for use in further manufacture of excisable goods either in the factory in which they were manufactured or in any other factory of the same manufactures or of another manufacturer subject to certain ...
Bhartiya Construction Company Vs. Delhi Development Authority
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-13-1996
Reported in: 1997IAD(Delhi)145; 1997(1)ARBLR204(Delhi); 1997(40)DRJ131
M.K. Sharma, J.(1) Tenders in respect of construction of some houses at Sarita Vihar, New Delhi, having been invited by the respondent No. 1, the petitioner submitted his tender for the aforesaid work and his tender was accepted on 18.9.1992. In respect of the aforesaid contract, some disputes and differences arose between the parties and accordingly, the petitioner filed the present petition in this Court seeking for filing of the arbitration agreement and for appointment of an independent arbitrator to adjudicate upon the aforesaid disputes arising between the parties. (2) On perusal of the records of the case, it appears that prior to the filing of the suit, the petitioner did not send any notice and/or request to the respondents for appointment of an arbitrator as required. In the present petition, the Chairman, Delhi Development Authority has been made a party, respondent No. 1 and the Engineer Member of the Delhi Development Authority has been made the second respondent i.e. resp...
Basant Kharbanda Vs. Punjab and Sind Bank
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-13-1996
Reported in: 1997IAD(Delhi)398; 65(1997)DLT378; 1997(40)DRJ145
R.C. Lahoti, J.(1) This appeal is by defendant No.3 in the original suit feeling aggrieved by an order dated 7.1.94 whereby the learned Single Judge has rejected an application under Order 47 Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Code filed by the appellant seeking review of the order dated 30.8.90 passed in the suit by the learned Judge earlier. (2) The learned counsel for the plaintiff-respondent has raised an objection to the maintainability of the appeal submitting that the appeal does not lie for two reasons : firstly, Rule 7 of Order 47 of the Civil Procedure Code specifically provides - 'an order of the Court rejecting the application shall not be appealable'; secondly, the order does not amount to a `judgment' within the meaning of Section 10 of the Delhi High Court Act, 1966. (3) Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, we are of the opinion that the objection raised to the maintainability of the appeal has to be allowed and the appeal dismissed as not maintainable. (4) It is...
Classic Motors Ltd. Vs. Maruti Udyog Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-13-1996
Reported in: 1997IAD(Delhi)190; 1(1997)CLT65; 65(1997)DLT166; 1997(40)DRJ462
M.K. Sharma, J. (1) The present suit is instituted by the plaintiff against the defendant praying for declaration and permanent injunction. (2) In 1985, M/s. Maruti Udyog Limited (in short MUL) issued an advertisement in various newspapers inviting applications for appointment of dealers in various cities of India including Union Territory of Delhi for the vehicles manufactured by it. Criteria for selection and appointment of such dealers was mentioned in the said advertisement. In pursuance of the aforesaid advertisement the partnership firm known as M/s. Competent Builders, of which Mr. Raj Chopra and Mr. Narendra Anand were the partners, applied for grant of such dealership. The offer of the said firm was accepted by Mul in pursuance of which the dealership was granted. The automobile business was started in the name of M/s. Competent Motors which was a partnership business between Mr. Raj Chopra and Mr. Narender Anand. M/s. Competent Motors established its show room in Connaught Pl...
G.S. Bhullar Vs. Union of India
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-13-1996
Reported in: 1997IAD(Delhi)48; 65(1997)DLT975; 1997(40)DRJ295
Jaspal Singh, J.(1) The petitioner was an officer holding a permanent commission in the Regular Army and was attached to the Rajputana Rifles Regimental Centre. On August 8, 1988 he was charged as follows: 'DESERTING the service, in that he, at Delhi, on 11 Mar 87, absented himself without leave from his unit until apprehended by the civil police on 1 Jan 88' HEwas, thereupon, tried by General Court Martial which finding him guilty, sentenced him 'a) to be cashiered; and b) to suffer rigorous imprisonment for five years'(2) This was on September 2, 1988. On December 6, 1988 the Chief of the Army Staff confirming the finding and sentence so awarded directed that the sentence of rigorous imprisonment be carried out by confinement in civil prison. (3) From the material on the record, it appears that as far as the sentence in question is concerned, the petitioner was admitted in Jail on December 6, 1988. After his admission in the civil Jail on December 6, 1988, the petitioner was granted ...
Rajesh Batra Vs. Grandlay Electricals (India)
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-13-1996
Reported in: 1997IAD(Delhi)377; 1997(40)DRJ84
R.C. Lahoti, J.(1) The plaintiff-respondents have filed a suit for issuance of perpetual injunction and recovery of damages etc. complaining of infringement of trade mark and passing off. An application under Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 Civil Procedure Code seeking issuance of ad-interim injunction was also filed and an order ex-parte sought for. On 14.10.96, the learned Single Judge directed the plaint to be registered and summons to be issued to the defendant-appellants, returnable on 27th March, 1997.(2) On the same date the following order was also passed which is impugned in this appeal :- 'IANo.9254/96 Notice for 27.3.1997. Heard. In view of the award at page 68 with special reference to its Clauses 6 & 11 and the documents at pages 108 to 110, it would be appropriate to grant an ex-parte stay. In the meantime, the defendants, their servants, proprietors, partners, dealers, stockists, agents, shopkeepers are restrained from manufacturing, selling, offering for sale, advertising directly...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »