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.
Gaon Sudhar Samiti Vs. Union of India
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-23-1997
Reported in: 70(1997)DLT582
K.S. Gupta, J.(1) The petitioners are the permanent residents of village Khureji Khas since the birth. It is alleged by them that in 1970 an award was made in respect to land measuring 23 Bighas and 14 bids was comprised in Khasra Nos. 37/3,4,7,8 and 14 situated in village Khureji Khas but the same was quashed by an order dated December 15,1982 (Annexure A) by this Court in C.W.P. No. 1167/81. It is alleged that a scheme was framed on April 6, 1954 by the Mushawarti Committee in consultation with the Revenue Authorities and the villagers in terms, whereof aforesaid land was kept reserved for being used for welfare purposes like running of school, hospital or Panchayat Ghar. However, contrary to the scheme respondents I and 2, who are not the owners, have allotted the aforementioned land .to respondent No. 3 for running petrol pump. It is prayed on this writ petition that by issue of writ of mandamus respondents I and 2 be directed to stop the allotment of land in question to respondent...
Hotel Hans Private Limited Vs. Empire Builders
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-23-1997
Reported in: 1997(42)DRJ743
K. Ramamoorthy, J.(1) Omp has been filed by the petitioner against the three respondents for the following reliefs: A)Restrain the respondents, their agents, servants, employees, attorneys, representatives from in any manner alienating, transferring and/or parting with possession, entering into any kind of agreement to sell and/or enter into any kind of arrangement and/or grant licences and/or deal with and/or using, raising any constructions or making alterations in the properties comprising of the land measuring 3.7 acres situate on Hill Top, a little higher and adjacent to St. Mary's Hospital, off the Mall Road, Opp. Hackman's Hotel, Mussorie and the Cottages built thereon, site plan whereof is annexed hereto as Annexure `A', till the ultimate conclusion of the arbitral proceedings; B)Restrain the respondents, their agents, employees and/or representatives from in any manner dealing with, transferring and/or parting with possession of all the goods comprising of T.V. sets, Refrigera...
Sudershan Dutta Vs. Krishan NaraIn and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-23-1997
Reported in: 1997IVAD(Delhi)537; 68(1997)DLT369; 1997RLR534
Usha Mehra, J. (1) Krishan Narain and others sought eviction of two rooms, one verandah, kitchen, bath room and latrine on the first floor of premises bearing flat No. 2, House No. 6079, Block UB-39, Jawahar Nagar, Delhi in occupation of the tenant petitioner herein. The petition was filed on the ground of bonafide requirement. Leave to contest by the petitioner was rejected by the Additional Rent Controller (in short the ARC) thereby holding that no triable issue had been raised by this petitioner. That the need of this respondent/landlord and bonafide. Aggrieved by this order present revision has been preferred. (2) To appreciate the challenge we may have quick glance to the brief facts of the case. The respondent No. 1 and husband of respondent No. 2 were the sons of Shri Sri Narain owner of the premises in question. After his death, respondent No. 1 and the husband of respondent No. 2 Along with their sisters inherited this property. Sisters of the respondents relinquished their ri...
Hindustan Fertilizer Corporation Ltd. Vs. Great Eastern Shipping Co. L ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-22-1997
Reported in: 74(1998)DLT82; 1998(46)DRJ344; (1998)120PLR25
S.N. Kapoor, J.1.By this petition, the petitioner a wholly owned Government Company seeks declaration about existence of a valid arbitration agreement between the petitioner, assignee under the Bill of Lading and respondent No.1 and valid reference of disputes between the parties to the two joint Arbitrators-respondent Nos.2 & 3 and in the alternative seeks reference of the disputes to the Arbitrators already appointed. 2.1 The petitioner themselves claims that petitioner Company is authorised agent of Government of India in regard to handling and distribution of imported fertilizers. The respondent is a common carrier by sea and is the owner of the merchant ship 'JAGRAHAT'2.2. Under a Charter Party Agreement dated April 22,1992 between the President of India and the respondent Company - The Great Eastern Shipping Co. Ltd., the respondent Company undertook that its vessel 'm.v. JAGRAHAT' would call at one or two safe ports in U.S., Gulf, part of Tampa and there is could load full and c...
Babu Khan Vs. State (Delhi Administration)
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-22-1997
Reported in: 1997IVAD(Delhi)465; 1997(4)Crimes258; 67(1997)DLT452
J.K. Mehra, J. (1) I have heard the parties. In this case, 8 kgs. of poppy straw was seized. Notice under Section 50 was duly given.. veracity whereof is disputed by amices Curiae. The only question which the petitioner has pressed before me is that before taking search of the accused, the raiding party officials did not offer themselves to be searched by the accused to eliminate the possibility of any narcotic being planted. This is a very important safeguard which was enunciated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Bihar v. Kapil Singh, reported as Air 1969 Sc 58. That very view was further elaborated and adopted in the judgments delivered under Ndps Act, by Madhya Pradesh and Bombay High. Courts in the cases of Gurcharan Singh v. State of Vf.P., reported as 1992 (3) Crimes 412; Mohd. Siraj v. State of Maharashtra, reported as 1994 (2) Crimes 99 : 11 (1994) CCR805 and Najukrao Ramchatldra Kale v. State of 'Maharashtra reportedas l992(3)CCR2460. 8 kilos of poppy straw ...
Higher Tractors Ltd. Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: May-21-1997
Reported in: (1997)(95)ELT63TriDel
1. In this appeal filed by the appellant the matter relates to the eligibility of the piston rings imported by them to the benefit of exemption Notification No. 172/89-Cus., dated 29-5-1989. Under exemption Notification No. 172/89-Cus., dated 29-5-1989 under Sl. No. 7 of the table annexed to that notification goods falling under 84.09 were eligible for concessional rate of duty but such exemption was not available to part of engine which was interchangeable for use in motor vehicles. The appellants have imported piston rings for their tractors.The matter was adjudicated by the Asstt. Collector who denied the exemption on the ground that the tractors were motor vehicles and the benefit of exemption Notification No. 172/89 was not available. On appeal the Collector of Customs, New Delhi while agreeing with the appellant's contention that the imported piston rings were suitable for eicher tractor engines found nothing to support their plea that the imported piston rings were not intercha...
Collector of Customs Vs. Larsen and Toubro Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: May-21-1997
Reported in: (1997)(95)ELT133TriDel
1. In this appeal filed by the Revenue being aggrieved with the order-in-appeal dated 27-12-1990 passed by the Collector (Appeals) Customs Excise, Bombay the matter relates to the eligibility of the seamless carbon steel tubes to the benefit of concessional rate of customs duty under Notification 155/86-Cus., dated 1-3-1986. The exemption under the said Notification 155/86-Cus. was available to the components of heat exchangers. It was found that seamless carbon steel tubes were not fabricated. The Asstt. Collector of Customs who adjudicated the matter held that as the tubes were specifically described under Heading No. 73.04 of the Customs Tariff, in terms of Rule 3A of the general Rule 4 they should not be classified elsewhere under heading covering parts. On appeal the Collector of Customs (Appeals) observed that Notification 155/86-Cus. did not lay down any specific condition that the parts of machine which were being extended benefit under Notification should also be specified un...
Collector of C. Ex. Vs. New Great Easter Spg. and Wvg.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: May-21-1997
Reported in: (1997)(95)ELT75TriDel
1. The short point to be considered in this appeal is whether chindies of cotton fabrics are exempt from handloom cess in terms of first proviso to Notification 115(E), dated 1-3-1975. The Assistant Collector held that handloom cess is payable on these items. On the other hand, the Collector (Appeals) observed that item, in question, is exempt in terms of aforesaid notification.2. Shri L.P. Dhir, ld. Advocate appearing for the respondents, submitted that the very issue had come up for consideration before the Tribunal in the case of C.C.E. v. Lakshmi Mills Company Ltd. reported in 1989 (43) E.L.T. 487 wherein it was held that cotton chindies are not liable to handloom cess following the earlier decision of the Tribunal in the case of C.C.E., Madras v. Kothari (Madras) Ltd. as per Order No. 215/87-D, dated 4-3-1987.3. He also submitted that it is clear from the notification that all varieties of cloth are exempt except the items falling under Medium-A, if unprocessed and falling under ...
Collr. of Cus. Vs. Manipal Printers and Publishers
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: May-21-1997
Reported in: (1997)(95)ELT64TriDel
1. In this appeal filed by the Revenue the matter relates to the classification of halogen lamps and xenon and their eligibility to the benefit of exemption under Notification No. 67/83-C.E., dated 1-3-1983 as amended. The Asstt. Collector of Customs who had adjudicated the matter had held that as the rating of halogen lamps was 10 watts they were not covered by Sl. No. 5 of the table annexed to Notification No.67/83-C.E. With regard to xenon he held that they were in the nature of tubes. They were not covered by the said exemption. The Collector of Central Excise while setting aside the order of the Asstt. Collector and allowing the appeal of the respondent before us observed as under :- "I have considered the submissions made. I find that the Asstt. Collector has denied the benefit of Notification No. 67/83 in respect of halogen lamps on the ground that they are having rating of 10 watt and are therefore not covered by Sl. No. 5 of the Notification No. 67/83. The Asstt. Collector sh...
Mohan Construction Co. Vs. Delhi Development Authority
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-21-1997
Reported in: 1997IVAD(Delhi)101; 1997(2)ARBLR189(Delhi); 67(1997)DLT579; 1997(42)DRJ263
Anil Dev Singh, J. (1) The parties entered into an agreement with regard to construction of 360 dwelling units in pocket C-IA, Pankha Road, New Delhi. The agreement contained arbitration clause. Disputes arose between the parties and the matter was referred to the arbitration of Mr. G.R. Hingorani. The Arbitrator made and published his award on 7th November, 1987. The respondent-DDA not being satisfied with the award has filed the instant application being I.A. 1575/88 under Sections 30 and 33 of the Indian Arbitration Act, 1940.(2) The main grievance of the respondent is with regard to the award pertaining to Claim No. 10. Under this claim the petitioner claimed a sum of Rs. 79,480.00 on account of providing brass stays and handles in steel windows. The Arbitrator after considering the submissions of the parties made the following award :-(3) Claim No. 10 for Rs. 79,480/0 on account of providing brass stays and handles in steel windows: A careful reading of the agreement item of steel...
- ‹ Prev
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- Next ›
- Last »