Delhi Court July 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.
Wings Wear (P) Limited Vs. Workmen as Represented by Wings Wear Worker ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-04-1996
Reported in: ILR1996Delhi597
J.K .Mehra, J.(1) By this decision I will be disposing of two writ petitions being C.W.P. No. 22/95 and C.W.P. No. 115/95, both challenging different findings of the impugned award.On writ has been filed by the Management challenging findings on the first and second term of reference and the other filed by the workmen challenging the findings on the third term of reference.(2) This writ petition, i.e., C.P.W. No. 115/95 arose out of the decision of Industrial Tribunal-II, Delhi relating to a disptue referred to the said Tribunal by the appropriate Government for adjudication seeking quashing of the impugned Award dated 17/11/1994 pertaining to terms of reference Nos. 1and 2. The petitioner has also challenged the terms of reference covered by the order of reference vide notification No. F. 24(1558)/94-Lab./29734-39 dated 3/06/1994. The terms of reference in the present case are as under :'(1) Whether the workmen are entitled to increase in wages (a). Rs. 263 P.M. in terms of the settle...
Collector of C. Ex. Vs. Raghuvir Texturizer (P) Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jul-03-1996
Reported in: (1996)(86)ELT647TriDel
1. This is an appeal filed by the Revenue against the Order-in-appeal dated 5-9-1986 passed by the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), Bombay.2. The appeal was posted for regular hearing on 3-7-1996 and the respondents remained absent in spite of the fact that notice of hearing for today has been issued to them well in time. On going through the issue involved in this case and on perusal of the record, we find that the matter can be disposed of in the absence of the respondents.3. Shri M. Haja Mohideen, learned JDR submitted that department has got strong case in view of the fact that date of clearance is relevant for date of payment and in the instant case, the respondents have taken proforma credit and the Collector (Appeals) erred in taking the date of proforma credit as relevant date for the purpose of payment of appropriate rate of duty. On going through the impugned order, we find that the respondents have also taken a plea that demand was barred by time inasmuch as show caus...
M/S. Skylark Motors (India) and Others Vs. Lakshim Commercial Bank Ltd ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-03-1996
Reported in: AIR1997Delhi46
ORDER1. In this revision petition directed against a composite order rejecting application for leave to defend and decreeing the suit under O. 37, Code of Civil Procedure, twofollowing questions arise for decision:(a) Whether the defendant (i) who claimed set off/adjustment before filing the suit by making a request-to sell goods pledged with the plaintiff-respondent; and (ii) who claimed adjustment of the amount of the value of the goods pledged, insured and kept under lock and key of the plaintiff-bank, which were subsequently burnt, is entitled to get leave to defend the suit? (b) Whether revision petition itself is not maintainable in view of the composite order of rejection of application for leave to defend, followed by passing of decree, as an appeal could be filed ?2. Relevant facts are as under:Laxmi Commercial Bank Ltd., plaintiff/ respondent filed a suit for recovery of Rs. 17,0001- under Order 37, C.P.C. According to the Bank's case, on the request of defendant/revision pet...
R.C. Chaudhary Vs. M/S. Prestige Finance and Chit Fund Co. Pvt. Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-03-1996
Reported in: AIR1996Delhi382
ORDER1. A question: 'whether for condensation of delay in filing an appeal, any application in writing accompanied by affidavit is essential?', is required to be answered in these five revision petitions relating to the above said same parties.2. These five revisions arose out of a common judgment dt. 4th Aug., 1984 dismissing five appeals on the ground that the appeals were barred by time in view of the provisions of 0.41, R. 3-A, C.F.C. '3. First the facts in brief giving rise to the present revision petitions which are as under: Five petitions under Ss. 14 and 17, Arbitration Act were instituted on 20th Nov., 1979. Objections were filed. After hearing the parties, objections filed by the petitioner were dismissed and awards were made rule of the Court by five judgments dt. 7th Jan., 1984.4. The appellant applied for certified copies of judgments in five cases on 13th Jan., 1984. The copies in appeals Nos. 25,26 and 28 of 84 were delivered on 19th Mar., 1984, copy in appeal No. 24/84...
Sukhwinder Singh Vs. Union of India and Another
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-03-1996
Reported in: 1996CriLJ3892
A.K. Srivastava, J. 1.This writ under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed by one Sukhwinder Kumar, a Constable in Border Security Force, with a prayer that a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorary be issued quashing all the proceedings of a trial against him with all the consequential benefits. 2. The facts leading to the filing of this writ petition are as under :- The petitioner was employed as Constable in the Border Security Force in the year 1986. He was transferred as Constable Driver in the Boarder Security Force Workshop at Baramulla in the State of Jammu and Kashmir in the year 1991. Thereafter one Subedar (Inspector) Ganga Ram Dogra joined as in charge of that workshop. In the night of 13th December, 1991 the said Inspector Ganga Ram Dogra was fatally shot at in the premises of that workshop. Fact finding Court of Enquiry was conducted and thereafter a General Security Force Court was convened at Baramulla to try the petitioner for allegedly ...
Patsons Packing and Shipping Company Vs. Central Cottage Industries Co ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-03-1996
Reported in: 1996IIIAD(Delhi)845; 1996(38)DRJ440
K. Ramamoorthy, J. (1) The plaintiff has filed the suit for the recovery of Rs. 1,03,008.40. The details given by the plaintiff in para 16 is as follows: I)The amount due on account of Bills submitted for work done up to 10th February, 1982. Rs. 49,458.40 ii) The amount representing the work which the Plaintiff firm would have completed and for which was entitled to claim packing charges, etc. during the notice period of one month beginning from 10th February. 1982 Rs. 35,000.00 iii) Value of tools, equipments, raw materials, etc., taken over/lost by the Defendant Corporation Rs. 18,550.00 Total Rs.1,03,008.40 (2) The first defendant is M/s Central Cottage Industries Corporation of India, Ltd. and second and third defendants are officers of the first defendant in view of the fact that the point lies in a very narrow compass and it is not necessary to rely on the pleadings of the parties. There was a contract between the parties evidenced by Exhibit D-1/1 dated 23rd July 1981 with effec...
Hari Parkash Vs. Dental Council of India
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-03-1996
Reported in: 1996IIIAD(Delhi)533; 1996(38)DRJ177
D.K. Jain, J. (1) The petitioner, a Professor and Head of the Department of Dental Surgery in the All India Institute of Medical Sciences, New Delhi, (for short the AIIMS) assails in this petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the communication dated 8 July 1995 issued by the Acting President, Dental Council of India (hereinafter referred to as the Council), whereby the Aiims was informed that as the petitioner had not been elected by the members of the Senate or the Court and the Aiims has no Senate or Court, his membership to the Council as representative of Aiims was being terminated with immediate effect and his name had been deleted in accordance with the letter of the Government of India, Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, dated 8 May 1995. Aiims was also told that it was not eligible to send its elected representative to the Council.(2) On this, the petitioner, vide his letter dated 19 July 1995, protested to the Council against the deletion of his name fr...
S.K. Malik Vs. Nandita Singh
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-03-1996
Reported in: 73(1998)DLT273; 1996RLR445
A.K. Srivastava, J.(1) This civil revision under Section 115 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure has been filed by one S.K. Malik against impugned order dated 25.8.1995 passed by Shri Dhasrmesh Sharma, Civil Judge, Delhi in Contempt Case No. M-16/93 titled Mrs. Nandita Singh v. S.K. Malik. (2) The revisionist is respondent in the aforesaid case. (3) The impugned order has been passed by the Court below on an application under Order 1, Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure moved by Mrs. Nandita Singh in the aforesaid contempt case. (4) The facts appear to be that a Suit No. 1681/94 was instituted by Mrs. Nandita Singh against the revisionist for permanent injunction with a prayer that the revisionist be restrained from carrying out the demolition of his old structure bearing No. 1422 in Block-G, Chitterlings Park, New Delhi and from constructing his new structure in such a manner which may materially affect her interest and may impinges upon her rights. That civil suit...
Baluserry Benefit Chit Vs. Bhanu Prasad
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-03-1996
Reported in: [1997]88CompCas62(Delhi); 1996RLR461
S.N. Kapoor, J.(1) In this revision, a short question relating to limitation is involved. It is ; When does limitation start in case of failure to pay the Installment of chit fund under Madras Chit Fund Act (2) The plaintiff started a chit Regd. No. 7 of 1974-75 known as class C series 74 with 30 subscribers running for 30 months. Each subscriber was to contribute Rs. 50.00 p.m., thus each contributing Rs. 1500.00. It commenced on 30,5.74 and was to terminate in October 1976. The monthly subscription due in each month was to be paid by non-prized members on or before the date of draw or auction and by prized subscribers on or before 10th of that month. Deft No. 1 Mr. Bhanu Prasad applied and entered into a chit agreement and was given ticket No. 21 He was a successful bidder at auction held on 21.7.74 having bid at a discount of Rs. 525.00 and the prize amount of Rs. 979.00 was paid to him. Defts. Kirpal Singh and Bhagwati Prasad offered security for due payment of future installments ...
K.L. Batra Vs. Ambey Enterprises
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-03-1996
Reported in: 64(1996)DLT483; 1996(38)DRJ575
K. Ramamoorthy, J. 1. The State Bank of India has filed a suit for the recovery of Rs. 1,80,527.96 from the defendant. The case of the plaintiff briefly stated is thus:2. The defendant is a proprietorship concern maintaining a Current Account with the plaintiff requested for opening a letter of Credit for the sum of Rs. 76,500/- equivalent to Singapore dollars 20119.50 in favor of M/s Pratic his International, 121, Market Street, Singapore-I, against 10% margin on the 4the November 1978 for import of 15 metric tons of Copra.3. The plaintiff opened the said letter of Credit No. FED/ND/78/638 dated 6th of November 1978 through Bank of India, Singapore, valid up to 5th of January 1979.4. The letter of Credit was available by exporters draft drawn on the importers at 60 days after sight drawn for 100 per cent of the invoice value.5. The defendant acknowledged on 16th of January 1979, the letter of the plaintiff Bank dated 13th of January 1979 regarding receipt of documents and accepted the...
- ‹ Prev
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 17
- 18
- 19
- 20
- 21
- Next ›
- Last »