Delhi Court August 1996 Judgments

Hans Raj Vs. V.M.R. James

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 1996IVAD(Delhi)318; 64(1996)DLT92; 1996(38)DRJ642

J.K. Mehra, J. (1) This is a petition filed by the landlords/petitioners against the order dated 2.9.9- passed by the Additional Rent Controller, Delhi upholding the objection of the tenant filed after the expiry of the term of limited tenancy granted by the Additional Ren Controller under Section 21 of the Delhi Rent Control Act and dismissing the petition of the petitioners for the recovery of possession by holding that the permission grantee under Section 21 of the Delhi Rent Control Act as void. (2) The facts of the case, in brief, are as under:- (3) It is alleged by the petitioners that the petitioners are the owners of the property bearing No.C-204A Greater Kailash Part I, New Delhi. The petitioners have bee) staying at Thailand for the last few years. The elder brother of the petitioners, who otherwise attorney of the petitioners, had been living in the said house and on account of his having built his own house, he shifted to his house in Malviya Nagar, New Delhi making the dem...

Graham Satyam Shankaranarayna Jv Partnership Vs. National Highways Aut ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 1996VAD(Delhi)117; AIR1997Delhi122; 1997(1)ARBLR59(Delhi); 70(1997)DLT161; 1996(39)DRJ309

C.M. Nayar, J.(1) The present petition is directed against respondent No.1 for setting aside the decision to reject the petitioner's bid and award of contract in favor of respondent No.2 in respect of tender for National Highways Project under loan assistance from the Asian Development Bank (for short ADB). The petitioner company is part of a Joint Venture set up by Memorandum of Understanding entered into between M/s Graham Construction Ltd. ( an English Company), Satyam Constructions Ltd. and Shankamarayana Construction Company. Respondent No.1, The National Highways Authority of India, (for short NHAI) is constituted under the provisions of The National Highways Authority of India Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act) and is an instrumentality of the State and a State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India. Respondent No.2 is a Joint Venture between a Malaysian and an Indian company and is a competing bidder. Ministry of Surface Transport on behalf o...

Delhi Development Authority Vs. Kedar Nath Parashar

Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi

A.P. Chowdhri, President: 1. Brief facts of the case are that Mr. Kedar Nath Parashar, complainant for short, was allotted a MIG flat in Jhilmil Colony. He deposited the disposal price and completed formalities within the prescribed period. The flat was found to have already been allotted to another person. On this being brought to the notice of the DDA, another flat No. 12-B in the same colony was allotted to the complainant and the complainant was asked to meet the Jr. Engineer at site. The complainant found the door of the flat cracked, seepage on the outer wall and that plaster on the wall had peeled off or had not been done on certain portions of the wall. He brought these defects to the notice of the opposite party in writing on 29.5.93. The complainant took possession of the flat on 23.8.93 on the assurance that defects would be removed. The complainant had to run around and only with the intervention of higher officers some action was taken. The defects were not removed all tog...

Kartar Steels (Pvt.) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1997)(93)ELT443TriDel

1. The appellant filed this appeal against the Order-in-Appeal No.322/C.E./CHD/95, dated 31-10-1995 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), Central Excise, Chandigarh.2. The brief facts of the case are that appellants are engaged in the manufacture of steel ingots falling tinder sub-heading No. 7206.90 of the Schedule of Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. On 15-11-1993 the special PBC staff visited business premises of the appellant and on physical verification of stock of finished goods and inputs, found 17.250 MT of steel ingots valued at Rs. 1,46,625/- involving the duty of Rs. 17,250/- in excess of stock of finished goods recorded in RG 1 register and also found shortage of 12 MTS of ferro silicon. The appellants reversed the credit of 9000/- in RG A23 Part II on 15-11-1993 regarding shortage of 12 MTS of Perron silicon: After adjudication the Assistant Commissioner, Central Excise ordered confiscation of the excess steel ingots weighing 17.250 MTS vinder Rule 173Q of Central Excise R...

Jayana Time Industries Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1997)(93)ELT245TriDel

1. The appellants are engaged in the manufacture of clocks and watches and parts there of falling under Chapter 91 of Schedule to Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. The Modvat credit of Rs. 7169.52 was disallowed on the ground that the appellant took the credit on the basis of invoice issued by the unregistered delear. The appellant filed the appeal and the appeal was dismissed.2. Shri O.P. Sharma, ld. consultant appearing on behalf of the appellant submitted that the condition of registration was made mandatory under Notification No. 32/94-(N.T.), dated 4-7-1994. The condition of registration was waived till 31-12-1994 vide Notification No. 64/94-(N.T.), dated 7-11-1994. He submitted that appellant took credit prior to 31-12-1994 in which period the condition of registration was waived. Hence the appellants are entitled for taking the benefit of Modvat credit.3. Shri Nanak Chand, ld. DR appearing on behalf of the department, reiterated the findings of the lower authorities.4. The appel...

Chet Ram Gupta Vs. Motian Devi Lamba

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2003(39)DRJ774

(1) ADMIT. Heard finally. (2) This is an appeal filed by the plaintiff against an order of the learned Single Judge who has rejected the plaintiff's application under orders 4 and 5 C.P.C. for striking out an issue. (3) The Plaintiff has filed a suit for specific performance. One of the pleas taken by one of the defendants is that the suit filed by the plaintiff is barred by law on that plea an issue has been framed. 'WHETHER the suit is barred by Law?'. The issue were framed in the presence of-the parties. The order dated 9.11.1994 of the counsel, framing the issues begins by stating- 'On the pleadings of the parties the following issues are framed' Issue No. 1 is treated to be a preliminary issue. For arguments as preliminary issue to come up on...'(4) Then followed addition and denial of documents when the ease was posted for hearing on the preliminary issue, a few adjournments were taken. On 14.2.1996, it appears that the preliminary issue was taken up or hearing and then it was su...

Indian Council of Agricultural Research Vs. Veterinary Council of Indi ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 1996IVAD(Delhi)67; 63(1996)DLT786; 1996(38)DRJ555

R.C. Lahoti, J. (1) Veterinary Council of India and Indian Council of Agricultural Research, the two 'States' or instrumentalities of the State (within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India) are fighting a legal battle. It is unfortunate to note the failure on the part of the Central Government to intervene and put its foot down effectively and at an appropriate stage so as to hold the two away from legal arena. A public duty to choose and select the best of candidates on the basis of all India merit to occupy 15% seats in veterinary colleges spread through out the country is being mis construed and misunderstood as a power to rule the allotment of 15% all India quota seats. In the power crazy world, the two 'States' are no exception; both are striving to wield the power. (2) The veterinary Council of India (hereinafter Vci, for short) has been established under Section 3 of the Indian Veterinary Council Act, 1984 (hereinafter Vc Act, for short). The Indian Council of ...

SarIn International (P) Ltd. Vs. Appellate Authority for Industrial an ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 1996IVAD(Delhi)646; [1997]89CompCas842(Delhi); 1996(39)DRJ380

Dalveer Bhandari, J. (1) This writ petition has been filed against the order dated 30th April, 1996, passed by the Appellate Authority for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction, (for Short AAIFR) confirming the order dated 22nd/29th December, 1995 passed by the Board of Industrial and Financial Reconstruction sanctioning a rehabilitation scheme for revival of M/s Stallion Shox Limited, for short, S.S.L. with some modification.(2) The Appellate Authority for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction, by its impugned order dated 16.4.96 disposed of Appeal no.23/96 filed by M/s Stallion Shox Ltd. and three others against the said orders of the brif in case No-9/94. The AAIFR also disposed of Appeal no.24/96, filed by the Punjab National Bank, and Appeal No.54/96 by the S.S.L. and two others against the order of the brif in the same case No.9/94. (3) The Stallion Shox Ltd., was promoted by Mr. Ajit Sarin of Sarin International Private Limited and their associates in technical collaboration...

S.A. Builders Vs. Delhi Development Authroity

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 1996VAD(Delhi)153; 63(1996)DLT732; 1996(39)DRJ332

Lokeshwar Prasad, J.(1) This Order will dispose of the application (IA 9643/91), filed by the respondent Delhi Development Authority (hereinafter referred to as 'the respondent DDA') under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Limitation Act') for condoning the delay in filing the objection? on behalf of the respondent Delhi Development Authority under Section 30 & 33 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Arbitration Act).(2) The facts relevant for the disposal of the above mentioned application, briefly stated, are that the arbitrator Shri G.R. Hingorani filed the award Along with the proceedings in the Registry of this Court. On arbitrator's filing the award Along with the proceedings, statutory notice was issued to the parties directing the parties to file objections, if any, within the prescribed time limit. 2.1 The limitation for filing an application for setting aside an award or getting an award remitted for re-considerati...

M.M. Monga Vs. Union of India

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 1996IIIAD(Delhi)915; 63(1996)DLT665; 1996(38)DRJ585

N.G. Nandi, J.(1) In this criminal writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the petitioner prays for quashing of Fir No. 248 dated 8.4,1996, registered under Sections 420 and 120B Indian Penal Code in P.S. Kalkaji, New Delhi. (2) The say of the petitioner is that petitioner company entered into the Lpg marketing business and floated a number of companies with regard to the Lpg in view of liberalization policy of the Government of India; that the companies also started bottling plants at different places in the country and appointed distributors for carrying out its Lpg marketing business;. that the petitioner also acquired approximately 1,30,000 cylinders for Its customers and distributors the connections through out the country for supply of LPG; that respondent No.6 and its company M/s. Sterling Lpg & Fuel Ltd. was appointed as the distributors for Andhra Pradesh and Tamil Nadu by the petitioner's company; ...