Delhi Court August 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.
Goodwill India Ltd. Vs. Gian Kumar and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-20-1997
Reported in: 70(1997)DLT416
C.M. Nayar, J.(1) The present petition is filed under Section 20 of the Indian Arbitration Act, 1940 for filing the Arbitration Agreement dated February 17,1988 in Court and for an order for reference of the disputes which have arisen between the parties to the named Arbitrator therein Shri Raj Paul Sagar, Advocate, Delhi or in case he is incapable to act for the reasons as stated to the sole arbitration of Shri Inderjit Gulati, Advocate. (2) The petitioner is a Company incorporated under the Indian Companies Act, 1913 and has its registered office at Harsha Bhavan, E-13/29 Connaught Place, New Delhi-110001. It carries on the business of hire purchase of motor vehicles. It is further stated that Shri R.N. Gupta is the Managing Director of the petitioner Company and is duly authorised to sign and verify the pleadings and to institute the suit. (3) The petitioner Company purchased one 'DYNA' Commercial vehicle with 90BHP Diesel Engine, 3290mm Wheel Base with 6 tyres and one spare wheel w...
Bimla Devi Vs. Ishwar Singh
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-20-1997
Reported in: 1997VAD(Delhi)170; 68(1997)DLT306; 1997(43)DRJ316
Jaspal Singh, J. (1) On May 27, 1993 Bimla Devi filed a complaint against Ishwar Singh the then Station House Officer, Police Station Jahangir Puri and some other police officials of that Police Station. The complainant alleged commission of offences under Sections 343, 354, 357, 376, 506, 120B of the Indian Penal Code. Section 34, of the Code was also invoked. The learned trial Magistrate, after recording the statement of the complainant and her other witnesses, summoned all the accused persons excepting are R.C.Sharma. It was observed that as far as the Station House Officer Ishwar Singh was concerned a prima facie case was made out against him under Sections 330/348/354 read with Sections 114/506 besides Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code. The case, it appears, was subsequently committed to the Court of Sessions. The learned Additional Sessions Judge to whom the case was assigned, heard arguments on charge and holding that there was no 'incriminating evidence' against the Station ...
Madhav Leasing Finance (P) Ltd. and anr. Vs. Erose Educational Infotec ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-20-1997
Reported in: 1997VAD(Delhi)627; 68(1997)DLT846; (1997)117PLR39
K.S. Gupta, J.(1) This order will govern the disposal of I.As. No. 912/97 and 4510/97. (2) Plaintiffs have filed I.A. 912/97 under Order Xii Rule 6 read with Section 151, Civil Procedure Code alleging that they have filed a suit for recovery of possession etc. against the defendant. Registered lease deed dated January 15,1992 in respect of property No. C-4/17, Safdarjung Development Area, New Delhi, executed for a period of three years expired on January 14, 1995, by afflux of time. Thereafter, defendant- tenant has become liable to hand over vacant and peaceful possession of the said property and also the fitments and fixtures to plaintiffs 1 & 2 respectively. It is alleged that the defendant-Company in the written statement has taken the plea that lease-deed as well as the hire agreement both dated January 15, 1992 were orally renewed for a further period of two years which is strongly repudiated by the plaintiffs, It was prayed that a partial decree as claimed in prayer Clauses (a) ...
Binatone Computers (P) Ltd. Vs. Setech Electronics Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-20-1997
Reported in: 1997VAD(Delhi)374; AIR1998Delhi1; 71(1998)DLT114; 1998(44)DRJ432; (1998)118PLR16
K.S. Gupta, J.(1) M/S.BINATONE Computers (P) Ltd. has filed I.A.No.2036/96 under Order xxxviii, Rule 5 & Section 151, Code of Civil Procedure read with Section 41 and Second Schedule of the Indian Arbitration Act, 1940, alleging that M/s. Setech Electronics Ltd., respondent entered into an agreement with it on March 18,1993, at New Delhi. Under the aforesaid agreement respondent was permitted to manufacture and sell in India audio systems under the brand name 'Binatone' on the terms and conditions noted in the agreement itself. One of the terms of the agreement was that the respondent would pay a minimum royalty of Rs.16,00,000.00 per annum for the period March 18, 1993 to March 31, 1994 with minimum increase of 20% every year over the immediately preceding year. In consideration of the payment of the royalty the petitioner was to make arrangement for the import of Tdm and for that purpose petitioner also made certain advances to the respondent. Raw material, work in progress and the f...
Ram Pal Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-20-1997
Reported in: 1997VIAD(Delhi)173; 68(1997)DLT854; 1997(43)DRJ276
Usha Mehra, J.(1) Petitioner was appointed as Driver in the Delhi Transport Corporation (in short DTC) in August, 1973. Before appointment the petitioner was medically examined. The Medical Board declared him fit to drive the Dtc bus. When the Medical Examination of the petitioner took place the factum of his two fingers of right hand being slightly short was known to the medical experts. inspire of that the Medical Board declared him fit to drive the bus. In March, 1988 on account of general strike by the employees of the Dtc, services of the petitioner were terminated as he participated in the general strike. In November, 1989 Along with other employees the petitioner was also taken back in service, but was not allowed to perform duties. Subsequent thereto from February, 1990 petitioner was allotted duties. He was paid salary for about 80 days. At the same time the petitioner was asked to appear before a Medical Board for his re-medical examination. In fact during the period from Mar...
Jagdish Lal Aggarwal and ors. Vs. Baldev Raj and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-20-1997
Reported in: 1997VAD(Delhi)492; 69(1997)DLT597; 1997RLR651
Usha Mehra, J. (1) Appellant felt aggrieved by the impugned order of the Rent Control Tribunal (in short the Tribunal) dated 11/10/1979. By the impugned order the Tribunal while reversing the order of the Additional Rent Controller (in short the ARC) held that there did not exist any relationship of landlord/tenant between the appellant and the respondents.(2) The questions for consideration in this appeal are (1) Whether respondents are tenants in the property in question; (2) Whether the property in dispute was bequeathed to Shri Hukanri Chand Jain by virtue of a Will and/or being the adopted son of Smt. Dropti Devi.(3) Whether Dropti Devi had no right to execute a Will because it is alleged that the property was alienated by her to a Trust by registered Trust Deed.(3) In order to determine the above questions, the brief facts of the case are that respondents Baldev Raj and Mohan Lal are residing in property bearing No. 771-772, Chabi Ganj, Kashmiri Gate, Delhi. The appellant herein ...
Delhi Municipal Corporation Vs. Kanwar Natwar Singh and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-20-1997
Reported in: 69(1997)DLT404
M.S.A. Siddiqui, J. 1. The challenge in this writ petition is the order of the Additional District Judge, who, while accepting the appeal of the respondent has inter alias fixed the ratable value of the premises in question on the basis of the land value fixed by the Land and Development Officer from time to time. Learned Counsel for the petitioner contended that the impugned order is not sustainable in law inasmuch as it was not open to the learned Additional District Judge to fix ratable value without their being a proper material on record. 2. The question involved in this case is the rate of the land at the time when construction was commenced by the respondents for the purpose of determining the ratable value. It is now well settled that the ratable value has to be fixed keeping in view the standard rent which is determined on the basis of the cost of land in the year in which the construction commenced (Dr. Balbir Singh v. M.C.D., : [1985]152ITR388(SC) ). Section 6 of the Delhi R...
Shanti Vrat and Sons Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Aug-19-1997
Reported in: (1998)(99)ELT153TriDel
1. This appeal arises from Order-in-Appeal dated 27-9-1996 passed by Commissioner (Appeals), Allahabad by which he has modified the Order-in-Original to the extent that the redemption fine has been reduced to Rs. 1,30,000/- and penalty to Rs. 50,000/-, as against the confirmation of duty amount of Rs. 58/- and imposition of redemption fine of Rs. 3,50,000/- in respect of goods confiscated in the Panchnama/Recovery Memo dated 22-9-1995 under Rule 173Q of Central Excise Rules, 1944, the original order had imposed a penalty of Rs. 1 lakh under Rule 52A and Rule 173Q read with Rule 226 of Central Excise Rules, 1944.2. The facts of the case are that on an intelligence received by deptt.that the appellants were engaged in suppression of their production and were clearing the same clandestinely without discharging the duty liability due thereon and were also storing their product unaccounted for in their statutory records; a team of officers of Central Excise, headed by Superintendent, Centr...
Tele Shop (India) Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Aug-19-1997
Reported in: (1998)(97)ELT188TriDel
1. This appeal arises from the Order-in-Appeal dated 7-8-1996 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), New Delhi. By this order the Commissioner has confirmed the spot adjudication order passed by the Additional Commissioner of Customs Import Air Cargo Unit, New Custom House. By this Order-in-Original, the Additional Commissioner ordered for confiscation of the imported leather covers totally valued at Rs. 3,78,106/- under Section 111(d) of the Customs Act, 1962, however, granting redemption on payment of fine of Rs. 1,20,000/- and also imposed a penalty of Rs. 30,000/- on the importers under Section 112 of the Customs Act, 1962.2. The facts of the case are that the appellants filed Bill of Entry seeking clearance of the consignment of 2,300 pcs. of leather cases of different colours and makes meant for different models of cellular phones namely Ericsson, Siemens, Nokia and Motorola. On examination of the goods, it was reported that the goods are in the nature of consumer items requiring...
Top Exports Private Ltd. Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Aug-19-1997
Reported in: (1998)(98)ELT692TriDel
1. The appellants filed this appeal against the Order-in-Original passed by the Collector of Customs, Bombay. Vide impugned order, the Collector of Customs ordered confiscation under Section 111(d) and 111(m) of 1962 of the machine imported by the appellants and, to redeem the goods on payment of Rs. 2.50 lakhs in lieu of confiscation. The Collector of Customs imposed a penalty of Rs. 50,000/- under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act, 1962.2. The Appellants made an import of Centreless Grinding Machine of Model No. 150-SL-2 and filed a Bill of Entry dated 24-6-1990 claiming the classification of the machine under Tariff Heading 84.60 of the First Schedule to the Customs Tariff 1975 and also claimed benefit of Notification No. 154/86-Cus. The appellants sought clearance of the machine as peripheral speed of the machine is higher than 45 m/sec.under OGL Appendix 1 Part B Sr. No. 3(1) 30 of Import Policy 1990-1993.The Collector of Customs in the impugned order held that under the OGL unde...
- ‹ Prev
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- Next ›
- Last »