Delhi Court March 1997 Judgments

Goodwill India Ltd. Vs. M.G. Vijaya Kumar and anr.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 1997IIIAD(Delhi)281; 1997(1)ARBLR628(Delhi); 66(1997)DLT501

M.K. Sharma, J.(1) The present petition under Section 20 of the Arbitration Act has been filed by the petitioner praying for a direction for filing the arbitration agreement in Court and for reference of the disputes to the named Arbitrator in terms of the arbitration agreement between the parties. The petitioner is a duly incorporated company under the Indian Companies Act and carries on the business, amongst others, hire-purchase of motor vehicles. In the course of its business the petitioner purchased a motor vehicle bearing Engine No. 692.D03.1.89700 and Chasis No. 344.050.1.81920 from M/s. M.G.F. India Limited, Cochin and hired out the same to respondent No. 1 under Hire Purchase agreement dated 27.10.1984, as the hirer. The respondent No. 2 signed the said agreement of Hire-Purchase as guarantor for and on behalf of the respondent. (2) The said Hire-Purchase agreement contained a clause being clause No. V - which states amongst others that the 'guarantor further agrees that any t...

United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Escptrac Finance and Investment Co ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 1997IIIAD(Delhi)875; AIR1998Delhi34; 67(1997)DLT93

M.S.A. Siddiqui, J.(1) By this writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution, the petitioner seeks quashing of the judgment and decree dated 28.10.93passed by the Additional District Judge, Delhi in Civil Suit No. 28/1993, directing the respondent No. 2 to issue duplicate share certificates in favor of the respondent No. I in respect of the shares bearing Nos. .10302198-247, 10551148-197, 10551148-197, 10653698-747, 10840898-947, 11372198-247,12148598-647, 12594748-497, 13742568- 617, 14177942-991, 10644548-597, 10653948-997, 10669448-497, 10805698-747, 10969798-847,10995448-497,111163448-497,11174698-747,11249248-297,11293698- 747, 12574148-197, 12310348-397, 13436773-822, 13300420-469, 13300470-519, 13300520-569,13300570-619 & 10716298-347 and further restraining the respondent No. 2 from paying the dividends/ bonus in respect of the said shares to any person other than the respondent No. 1. (2) An expose of the facts may be given to the extent necessary for deciding the object...

Ansal Properties and Industries (P) Ltd. Vs. Engineering Projects (Ind ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 1997IIIAD(Delhi)1003; AIR1998Delhi176; 67(1997)DLT231; 1997(41)DRJ618

J.B. Goel, J. (1) This is a petition under Section 41(b) read with Second Schedule to the Arbitration Act, Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 and Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure seeking injunction against the respondent from claiming, demanding or encashing the Bank guarantees No. 27/78 of Rs. 5.45 Lacs and No. 36/78 for Rs. 22.59 Lacs issued by the New Bank of India, Haus Khas Branch, New Delhi on behalf of the petitioner in favor of the respondent. (2) Briefly, the facts are that the respondent is engaged in the business of execution of turnkey projects of different nature in India and abroad and had been awarded the work by the State Organisation of Grain of the Ministry of Internal Trade of the Republic of Iraq for construction of Iraq Grain Storage Projects at Talafar, Sinjar and Shirkat Sites in Iraq. (3) The respondent by means of an agreement dated 5th July, 1978 associated the petitioner and gave part of the said project in respect of the work pertaining to Shirkat site to the ...

Dharam Pal Vs. Delhi Development Authority

Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi

A.P. Chowdhri, President: 1. The complainant was registered under the New Pattern Scheme for allotment of a Janta category flat to him in the reserved category of scheduled caste. In the draw of lots held on 15.3 1984, flat No. 223-C, Pocket BC (SF), Shalimar Bagh was allotted to him. The flat was, however, not allotted to him on the ground that at the time of making the application the said applicant was a minor. The applicant filed a complaint before District Forum-II on the ground that several other applicants, who were minors at the time of registration, had been allotted flats under the same scheme. There was no reason to discriminate against the complainant. It was placed that even though in the High School Certificate the complainant's date of birth was entered as 21.1.1964, in fact, he was born on 27.7.1963. The case was contested. The District Forum dismissed the complaint. It was observed that the case of the complainant was distinguishable from those of some other applicants...

Shri Kantilal Fakirchand Medical Vs. C.C.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1997)(93)ELT419TriDel

1. This appeal is directed against order-in-appeal dated 18-5-1990. The appellants imported on CCD colour camera for medical miscroscope with ten wrapped cable adaptor etc. The appellants sought the clearance of the impugned goods by claiming the benefit of exemption Notification No. 144/88 which exempts Surgical Operating Microscope Manual. The claim was rejected by the authorities below. Hence this appeal.2. Arguing for the appellants, the ld. Advocate submits that they had on an earlier occasion imported Surgical Operating Microscope. This camera together with attachment was intended to be fitted into this surgical operating microscope. It is, therefore, clearly a part or accessories of the main equipment mentioned against S.No. 35 of Notification 144/78 and therefore, being a part of accessories, it merited placement under S.No. 35 of Notification No. 144/88 which exempts Surgical Operating Miscroscope Manual.4. Considered. Notification 144/88 exempts sight saving equipments and t...

S.D.O. Coil Fabrication Vs. Collector of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1999)(107)ELT395TriDel

1. Appellants/Applicants are an Undertaking of the Punjab State Electricity Board, engaged in the manufacture of coils of Copper/Aluminium which are captively used in the repair of transformers in various installations. Modvat credit had been taken in respect of duty paid on the material consisting of Copper Coils and Aluminium Coils. The Department had earlier treated such activity as resulting in the manufacture of dutiable products. Subsequently, as stated by the learned Counsel with reference to the submissions in the appeal memorandum, this stand was given up by the Department following a series of decisions holding that the production of transformer coils is not an excisable activity. The Additional Collector passed the impugned order holding the Modvat credit of Rs. 62,041.04 taken in RG 23 Part II was reversible as the inputs in question had been transferred by them.There is also an observation that the proceedings deserved to be dropped. While so dropping the proceedings in v...

Jagat Talkies Distributors and ors. Vs. Union of India and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: (1997)IILLJ133Del

1. The present petition is directed against the respondents impugning the order dated July 24, 1984 passed by the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner which directed the petitioner establishment to produce the record as mentioned in the summons for determination of dues in respect of the provident fund. Similarly the Order dated February 18, 1985 is also challenged asking the petitioners to deposit provident fund dues on the assessment made by the Assistant Regional Provident Fund Commissioner. The amount which the petitioners were directed to deposit is referred to in the second impugned order. Rule was issued in the writ petition and on May 27, 1985 in an interim application of stay the following order was passed :- 'Present : Mr. D. R. Thadani for the petitioner. Mr. Atul Kumar for counsel for respondents 1 and 2. C.M. 767/85 On the last date it was wrongly reported that respondent No. 4, Shri Harjit Singh is dead. Shri Harjit Singh, respondent No. 4 is present in person. This pet...

K.R. Anand Vs. Delhi Development Authority

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 1997IVAD(Delhi)1006; 1997(2)ARBLR109(Delhi); 68(1997)DLT143

M.K. Sharma, J.(1) This is a petition under Sections 14,17 and 29 of the Arbitration Act filed by the petitioner praying for making the award a Rule of the Court. Subsequent to the tiling of this petition, notice was issued by this Court to the Arbitrator directing him to file the award Along with the records of tile arbitration proceedings. In terms of the said order passed by this Court, the Arbitrator filed the award in this Court Along with the records of the arbitration proceedings, on receipt of which, notices were issued to the parties intimating them about the filing of the award. (2) The respondent No. 1 tiled an objection in that Court under Sections 30 and 33 of the Arbitration Act, against the award which was registered as 1.A. No. 11741 / 1992 The petitioner, however, did not file any objection as against the award and prayed that the coward be made a Rule of the Court. (3) In the objection filed by the respondent No. 1, objections have been mainly raised as against the aw...

B.N. Rao Vs. State (Central Bureau of Investigation)

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 1997IIAD(Delhi)856; 67(1997)DLT705; 1997(42)DRJ212

S.K. Mahajan, J.(1) This order will dispose of the revision petition filed by the petitioner for quashing of the order dated 16th September, 1995 whereby the Special Judge, Delhi had framed charges against the petitioner under Sections 120-B Indian Penal Code read with Sections 5(2) & 5(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and under Sections 5(2) read with Section 5(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947. The case of the prosecution in short is :-(2) That while functioning as the Chief Marketing Manager, Agriculture Commodity Division, State Trading Corporation of India, New Delhi during the year 1978-81, the petitioner allegedly entered into a criminal conspiracy with Sh.K.S.Kohli, Manager (Procurement), Food Corporation of India, New Delhi, Sh.George R.Lobo and M/s.Action S.A.Paris to cause wrongful loss to the Food Corporation of India, Government of India, in the matter of sale of 45,000 MTs of IR-8 variety rice to M/s.Action S.A.Paris at uneconomical rates. By letter...

M.K. Mongha Vs. Tribhuvan Nath Puri and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 1997IIAD(Delhi)869; 66(1997)DLT425

Jaspal Singh, J.(1) It is an order passed by the learned Additional District Judge on an application by the present petitioner under Order 6 Rule 17 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure which has given birth to this order. (2) Before I proceed to deal with the arguments advanced, a brief resume of the facts is called for. Respondents No. 1 & 2 as plaintiffs filed a suit for possession against respondent No. 3 and so also against the present petitioner. It was alleged therein that as the plaintiffs happended to be the landlords and as they had let out the premises to respondent No. 3 on a monthly rent of Rs. 4500.00 and as the tenancy of respondent No. 3 had been validly terminated, thereforee, they were entitled to a decree for possession. They arrayed the present petitioner also as a defendant in the suit on the ground that he was in unauthorised possession of a part of the suit premises. Written statements, in response to the suit, were filed and the present responden...