Delhi Court May 1997 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.
Raes Khan Vs. Siri Chand
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-30-1997
Reported in: 1997IVAD(Delhi)532; 67(1997)DLT730
Usha Mehra, J. (1) The respondent Siri Chand retired as Mason from the Central Public Department (CPWD) on 31st January, 1993. He owned House No. 454/B, Kalkaji, New Delhi, which was given on rent to this petitioner on 1st November, 1987 on a monthly rent of Rs. 900.00 . After retirement, the respondent herein filed a petition of eviction against the petitioner under Section 14-C of the Delhi Rent Control Act (in short the Act) as a classified landlord. Leave to contest was granted to this petitioner. He contested the eviction petition. Parties led evidence. Vide the impugned order the learned Additional Rent Controller passed the eviction order in favor of the respondent. (2) The petitioner has assailed the impugned order primarily on the grounds that the petition under Section 14-C of the Act having not been filed one year before retirement of the respondent hence was not maintainable. Secondly, the respondent had entered into an agreement with the petitioner which entitled the petit...
Polo Singh and Co. Vs. Delhi Development Authority
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-30-1997
Reported in: 1997IVAD(Delhi)400; 1997(2)ARBLR275(Delhi); 67(1997)DLT453; 1997(42)DRJ219
Anil Dev Singh, J.(1) The Arbitrator, Mr. H.P. Patel, made and published his award on the 26th of December, 1992, in respect of disputes and differences arising between the parties relating to the work of construction of 356, Sfs houses, category Ii, at Madipur, Pocket-III and Sh construction of 132 numbers Sfs houses category-II, at Madipur, Pocket-III, GR-II. While this award has been challenged by the respondent-UOI under Section 30 of the Arbitration Act by means of I.A.No. 2997 of 1994 (in Suit No. 473/93), the petitioner has filed an application, being Suit No. 212 of 1993, for making the award a rule of the court. The facts leading to the instant suit lie in a narrow campass. The word in question was awarded to the petitioner on the 7th of March, 1989. The estimated cost of the work was Rs. 1,23,06,150.00 and the tendered amount was Rs. 1,48,28,910.00 . The stipulated date for the commencement of the work was 17th of March, 1989, and the same was required to be completed within ...
A.i. Construction Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Goodwill (i) Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-30-1997
Reported in: 1997IVAD(Delhi)209; 1997(2)ARBLR247(Delhi); 67(1997)DLT892; 1997(42)DRJ361
K.S. Gupta, J. (1) By the order dated October 7, 1996, petition under Section 20 of the Arbitration Act registered as Suit No. 1571/89 filed by respondent No. 1 was allowed and the disputes as raised in para 14 of the petition were referred to the sole arbitration of Shri Sashivansh Bahadur, Advocate and Omp No. 60/90 preferred under Sections 30,31 & 33 of the Arbitration Act by the appellant was dismissed by the learned Single Judge FAO(OS) No. 53/97 is against the former part while FAO(OS) No 52/97 is against the latter part of the aforesaid order. Since both these appeals arise out of the same order we propose to dispose them of by this common order.(2) Suit No. 1571/89 was filed by respondent No. 1, inter alia, contending that it is carrying on business' of giving on lease equipment, vehicles, etc. It leased out machinery/equipment described as Stanford Eder Hydraulic Excavator Model R. 825 Lc to the appellant under a lease-agreement dated December 9, 1987, duly executed between re...
V.S. Sachdeva Vs. M.L. Grover
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-30-1997
Reported in: 1997IVAD(Delhi)472; 67(1997)DLT737; 1997(42)DRJ412; 1997RLR439
Usha Mehra, J. (1) In this petition, the petitioner has raised two important questions of law namely : 1. Whether other accommodation which is in exclusive possession of petitioner's brother would amount to suitable alternative accommodation available to the petitioner? WHETHER non-mentioning of the detailed tenanted portion in the petition though mention of the same was there in the site plan annexed with the petition, would amount to seeking partial eviction. TO understand the challenge, let us have a quick glance to the relevant facts of the case as set up by the parties in their pleadings. (2) Petitioner sought eviction of the respondent on the ground of bonafide requirement from the portion shown in red colour in the site plan annexed with the petition including the entire ground floor and the portion shown in green as well as in red colour in the site plan. Basically eviction was sought because accommodation in possession of the petitioner was highly insufficient. The petitioner ...
National Research Development Corporation Vs. Silicon Ceramics Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-30-1997
Reported in: 1997IVAD(Delhi)369; AIR1998Delhi52; 1997(2)ARBLR173(Delhi); 1997(42)DRJ476
Anil Dev Singh, J.(1) The petitioner is a Public Undertaking which is authorised to grant licences for use of the inventions, know-hows, expertise etc. developed by different Central Government laboratories, including Central Electronics Engineering Research Institute (for short `CEERI'), Pilani. The respondent is a company incorporated under the Indian Companies Act and is manufacturing semi-conductor packages. The petitioner granted license to the respondent to use the process developed by Ceeri for manufacture of 'TO-5, TO-18, etc.' semi-conductor packages vide license agreement dated 23rd February, 1972 (for short `the agreement'). It was agreed by the respondent to pay royalty to the petitioner at the rate of 3 per cent of the sale price of the semi-conductor packages manufactured by it. The royalty was to be paid by the 1st day of May and 1st day of November of every calendar year. The agreement postulated levy' of interest in case of failure to pay royalty on due dates. The agre...
Eyre Smelting Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: May-29-1997
Reported in: (1997)(96)ELT463TriDel
1. The order-in-original dated 12-9-1988 passed by the Additional Collector of Central Excise, Calcutta-I is under challenge in this appeal.2. Appellant, engaged in the manufacture of soldering and flux materials classifiable under old T.I. 68, had availed benefit of Notification No. 120/75 by which exemption was granted in respect of goods cleared from factory of manufacture, on sale, from so much of the duty as is in excess of the duty calculated on the basis of the invoice price (excluding duty and local taxes, if any, included in such price) charged by the manufacturer for sale of the goods, subject to the conditions stipulated in the proviso thereto. Appellant had factory gate sales as well as depots sales. There is a dispute as to whether one or the other predominated. In our view, this aspect is not very relevant for the purpose of the disposal of the appeal. In respect of factory gate sales, appellant was paying duty on the prices shown in the relevant invoice. In respect of t...
Orissa Construction Corpn. Ltd. Vs. Collr. of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: May-29-1997
Reported in: (1997)(95)ELT398TriDel
1. In this appeal filed by the appellant M/s. Orissa Construction Corpn. Ltd. a Govt. of Orissa Undertaking the matter relates to the excisability and dutiability of the steel fabricated items for erecting structurals. The appellants were a contractor. They were engaged by M/s. National Aluminium Co. (NALCO) for fabricating and erecting structural steel work. They received all the raw material like angles, channels, tin plates etc. from M/s. NALCO. The raw materials were subjected to the process of cutting into proper sizes, drilling holes where necessary, and all this works was done in the premises of M/s.NALCO. The show cause notice was issued to them on 16-3-1988 alleging that they had manufactured/fabricated steel structural items. The works was for electrical sub-stations and for the storage of materials. In reply the appellants submitted that the work was done in the licenced factory premises of NALCO and that the structural work was immovable and the fabrication of so-called go...
Commissioner of C. Ex. Vs. Swastik Rubber Products Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: May-29-1997
Reported in: (1997)(93)ELT711TriDel
1. M/s. Swastik Rubber Products Ltd. manufactured 3 balloons for supply to the Space Application Centre Research Institute of Government of India. A show cause notice was later issued alleging that the balloons were dutiable and that they were cleared without payment of appropriate duty and without following the procedural requirements connected with their production and clearance. The Collector in his impugned order held that the manufacturers were the Space Application Centre and that the balloons were cleared in an incomplete stage. He held that no duty was recoverable from the assessee and dropped the claim. The present appeal from the Revenue is against this order.The appeal was argued by Shri M. Haja Mohideen, the learned JDR.Respondents desired disposal on merits.2. We have carefully considered the various claims made before us by both sides.3. The assessee had communicated to the department the requisite information regarding the activities undertaken by them vide their letter...
Ceat Ltd. Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: May-29-1997
Reported in: (1997)(95)ELT117TriDel
1. This appeal arises from Order-in-Appeal dated 10-1-1991 rejecting the refund claim of the appellants for re-classification of spares for temperature measuring instrument under subheading 9033.00. Department has confirmed the classification under sub-heading 9025.90 and have also denied the benefit of exemption under Notification 172/89 on the ground that the notification excludes parts or instruments for measuring or checking quantities of heat, etc. The claim for the benefit of Notification 69/87 was also rejected on the ground that the said notification had been rescinded by Notification 175/89, dated 29-5-1989. In this appeal, the appellants are not challenging the classification adopted by the lower authorities but it is submitted that the parts or instruments are entitled for the benefit of total exemption of auxiliary duty under Notification 124/87-Cus.3. We have heard ld. DR. The DR pointed out that this notification has been rescinded by Notification 175/89, dated 29-5-1989...
Vishnu Kumar Soni Vs. Collector of Customs-ii
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: May-29-1997
Reported in: (1997)(95)ELT91TriDel
1. Shri R.V. Sinha, ld. Advocate, appearing for the Applicant, pleads for dispensing with pre-deposit of Rs. 20.00 lakhs imposed as penalty on Shri Vishnu Kumar Soni, the applicant. The ld. Counsel submits that the statement was taken under duress which was retracted in the bail application as also by the telegrams sent by the wife of Shri Vishnu Kumar Soni. The ld. Counsel submits that the facts of the case as brought out in the Panchnama only narrate the story after the applicant was taken to the DRI office in 'D' shaped building at Indraprastha Estate, New Delhi. He submits that the wife of the applicant sent a telegram to various authorities complaining forcible taking away of her husband, Shri Vishnu Kumar. The ld. Counsel submits that when the confessional statement is retracted, there being no other evidence to corroborate the story, the confessional statement loses much of its value. He, therefore, submits that the Department has not been able to make out a case against the ap...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »