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.
Punj Sons Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Municipal Corporation of Delhi
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-13-1996
Reported in: 1997IAD(Delhi)654; 65(1997)DLT473; 1997(40)DRJ256
R.C. Lahoti, J. (1) The petitioner is aggrieved by an order of assessment dated 28.7.95 assessing the property No.17- 18, Nehru Place to property tax for the period commencing 1.4.88. (2) The relevant part of the order assessing the rateable value of the property is extracted and reproduced as under :- 'Rateavle Value is fixed as under :- Ff has been let out to M/s.Modi Rubber Ltd. at the monthly rent of Rs.71,139.00 w.e.f. 12.12.89. Besides Rs.28,445.60 monthly charge for air conditioning equipment hire Rs.14,227.80 on a/c of maintenance of open area. These are considered to be the rent. Apart from above the tenant has given a sum of Rs.6,82,934.40, as security deposit. Interest on security is considered as rent thus the total rent including interest on security comes to Rs.1,22,359.00 . Sf is let out to M/s.Bombay Types International Ltd. on the same conditions as aforesaid. The rent including interest on security of Rs.8,94,614.00 comes to Rs.1,60,285.00 . Gf was let out to M/s.Modi...
Jagdish Prasad Agarwal Vs. Brij Bhushan
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-13-1996
Reported in: 1997IAD(Delhi)181; 65(1997)DLT111; 1997(40)DRJ376
Usha Mehra, J. (1) Appellants Sh.J.P.Aggarwal and another felt aggrieved by the order of the learned Additional District Judge, Delhi dated 20th October,1995 whereby he vacated the injunction granted ex parte in favor of the appellants. (2) To appreciate the challenge of the appellants to the impugned order, we must have a quick look at the relevant facts of this case. Appellants (plaintiff before the Trial Court) filed a suit for permanent and mandatory injunction against respondents (defendants before the Trial Court). Grievance of the plaintiff was that the defendants were creating obstructions in the egress and ingress of his vehicles from the main entrance gate opening on the Loni Road. In order to reach his industrial unit as shown red in the site plan filed with the plaint, the trucks and other vehicles have to enter through the main gate. But the defendants with a malafide intention were trying to stop by creating a wall in front of the gates. (3) That the respondents 1 to 4 ar...
Union of India Vs. Paxma Axle and Springs (P) Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-13-1996
Reported in: 1997IAD(Delhi)128; 1997(40)DRJ126
M.K. Sharma, J. (1) In pursuance of the tender invited by the petitioner for supply of 4,94,000 Nos. M.S. Cotters Side Split for C.I. Sleepers, the respondent submitted its tender which was accepted by the petitioner. However, since the respondent failed to make supply and honour its commitment, the said contract entered into between the petitioner and the respondent was terminated by the petitioner at the risk and cost of the respondent.(2) Disputes and differences having arisen between the parties in respect of the aforesaid contract, the said disputes were referred to the arbitration of Shri Shyamji Singhal, Controller of Stores, Northern Railway. The parties to the proceeding filed their statement of facts and the counter claim statement of facts. After hearing, the parties, the arbitrator passed an award on 24.5.1985. The aforesaid award passed by the arbitrator ex-facie is a non-speaking award.(3) The arbitrator after making and publication of the award submitted the same in this...
Akash Builders Vs. Union of India
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-13-1996
Reported in: 1997IAD(Delhi)126; 65(1997)DLT739; 1997(40)DRJ129
M.K. Sharma, J.(1) A Contract Agreement came to be executed between the petitioner and the respondent on 17th February, 1981. The aforesaid contract, however, came to be cancelled by the respondent on the allegation that the petitioner could not complete the entire work. Accordingly disputes and differences having arisen between the parties, Lt. Col. Y.P.Adlakha, was appointed as the sole arbitrator by the Chief Engineer (W.A.C.) Af, Jalandhar Cantt on 24th June,1994 to adjudicate upon the dispute between the parties. The arbitrator entered upon the reference on 25th July, 1994 and after examining the claims of the parties and the documentary and oral evidence produced before him made and published his award on 24.3.1995. The aforesaid award is admittedly a non-speaking award. The petitioner through the present petition has sought for making the award a Rule of the Court whereas the respondent has filed the objection. Accordingly, the matter was taken up for consideration and final dis...
Collector of Central Excise Vs. Colour Chem. Limited
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Dec-12-1996
Reported in: (1997)(90)ELT514TriDel
1. These are two appeals filed by the Collector of Central Excise, Bombay against two orders-in-appeal passed by the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), Bombay whereby he had allowed two appeals filed before him by the present respondents holding that the products in question were classifiable under TI-68 of the erstwhile tariff and not 15A ibid. The respondents had paid Central Excise duty under Item 15A and recovered the same from their customers. Subsequently, as a result of the reclassification of the product under Tariff Item 68, they had claimed refund of Central Excise duty amount to Rs. 6,39,495.10 and Rs. 10,44,777.33. The Assistant Collector while sanctioning the refund took note of the fact that the refund that was becoming payable to the claimants as a result of the reclassification was of duty paid by them but recovered from their clients and consequently the amount of refund would add to the assessable value of the goods. In addition, in the former case where the refu...
Dripless Faucets (India) Vs. Cc
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Dec-12-1996
Reported in: (1997)(69)LC311Tri(Delhi)
1. This appeal is directed against the Order-in-Appeal No. 870 - CFS/90 dated 7.8.1990.2. A demand for differential duty in respect of a consignment declared as "faucet handles" was issued to the appellants on the ground that the goods are classifiable under the then CTH 83.01/15(1) as against CTH 84.61. This classification was confirmed by Asstt. Collector, who also held that demand of duty issued to the appellants was payable.3. The Ld. Consultant, arguing for the appellants, submits that while Collector (Appeals) set aside the order of Asstt. Collector in regard to demand, he has arrived at a different classification by holding that goods are classifiable under CTH 73.33/40(2). They are aggrieved by this classification.4. Ld. D.R. submits that to the extent that demand has been set aside by the Collector (Appeals), they have no grievance about reference to proper classification made by Collector (Appeals). This was only by way of observation, since he too observed that no notice co...
Nissar Alias Pappu and Etc. Vs. the State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-12-1996
Reported in: 1997CriLJ1486
K.S. Gupta, J. 1. Nissar @ Pappu and Ram Kishan @ Rammu have been convicted under Section 302 read with Section 34, IPC vide judgment dated April 29, 1992 by on Additional Sessions Judge and by an order of even date they have been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- each, in default of payment of fine they are further to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one month each. Nissar @ Pappu has challenged his conviction and sentence by filing criminal appeal No. 72/92. Ram Kishan @ Rammu too has challenged his conviction and sentence by filing Criminal Appeal No. 163/92. As both these appeals arise out of the same judgment/order, we propose to dispose them of by this common judgment. 2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that while working as Duty Officer, P.S. Gandhi Nagar on February 14, 1989 SI Satya Singh PW 8 at about 8.30 a.m. received information on telephone from Lady Constable Rekha Rani of PCR in regard to a dead body kept in gunny ...
M/S. Colcom Plastic Ltd. and Others Vs. Union of India and Others
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-12-1996
Reported in: (1997)ILLJ1230Del
ORDERY.K. Sabharwal, J. 1. These writ petitions raise common question of law regarding construction of Section 33-C(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short 'the Act') and scope of power of the appropriate Government under this provision. 2. The challenge in all the writ petitions is to the action taken by the Government under Section 33-C(1) of the Act. The employers (hereinafter described as 'Management') are writ petitioners. The workmen are the respondents besides the Government and officers of Labour Department (hereinafter described as 'Government'). 3. With a view to appreciate how the controversy has arisen we may notice facts of one of the writ petitions (C.W.P. 4669/94 M/s. Weston Electronics Ltd. v. Union of India and others). The case of this company in brief is as under :- 4. The Company is engaged in manufacture of electronic components etc., for the last more than 25 years. The registered office and corporate office of the company is at 43-A, Okhla Industrial E...
Weston Electroniks Ltd Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-12-1996
Reported in: 1997IAD(Delhi)538; 65(1997)DLT587; (1997)ILLJ1230Del
Y.K. Sabharwal, J.(1) These writ petitions raise common question of low regarding construction of Section 33-C(1) of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (for short 'the Act') and scope of power of the appropriate government under this provision.(2) The challenge in all the writ petitions is to the action taken by the government under Section 33-C(1) of the Act. The employers (hereinafter described as 'Management') are writ petitioners. The workmen are the respondents besides the Government and Officers of Labour department (hereinafter described as. 'Government').(3) With a view to appreciate how the controversy has arisen we may notice facts of one of the writ petition (C.W.P. 4669194 M/s. Weston Electronics Ltd. v. Union of India and others). The case of this company in brief is as under:-- (4) The Company is engaged in manufacture of electronic components etc., for the last more than 25 years. The registered office and corporate office of the company is at 43-A, Okhla Industrial Estate...
Maina Sundri JaIn Vs. Hari Chand
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-12-1996
Reported in: I(1997)ACC104; 1997IAD(Delhi)344; 1997(40)DRJ217
Usha Mehra, J. (1) The appellant Smt.Maina Sundri Jain on account of the accident which took place on 7th December,1971 sustained fracture of Pelvis Ring i.e. hip bone apart from numerous other injuries all over her body. The said accident was caused by the truck owned by the N.D.M.C. Smt.Maina Sundri Jain was traveling in three wheeler scooter Along with her husband and another lady Smt.Sarla Devi. They were returning after attending the funeral of one of their relations. They were proceeding from R.K.Puram to Darya Ganj. The scooter in which they were traveling had hardly crossed the Indian Oil Petrol Pump on Willingdon Cresent near Talkatora Garden when the truck driven by Hari Chand (respondent No.2) in rash and negligent manner came from the opposite side and struck against their three wheeler scooter. Because of this accident, the husband of Smt.Maina Sundri Jain died. Smt.Maina Sundri Jain remained in the hospital for two days and for about four months she remained confined to b...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- Next ›
- Last »