Delhi Court December 1998 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.
Ranjan Agencies Vs. Union of India
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-16-1998
Reported in: 1999IAD(Delhi)151
ORDERDR. M.K. Sharma, J. 1. This is a petition filed by the petitioner under Section 20 of the Arbitration Act praying for appointment of an arbitrator in terms of the arbitration agreement between the parties and also for referring the disputes arising between the parties to the said sole arbitrator for adjudication and decision. It is stated in the petition that in the course of execution of the contract for construction of permanent complex for NSG at Mansard SH Construction of Trading Complex for SAG/SRG Pockets certain disputes have arisen and the said disputes are required to be referred to the sole arbitrator in terms of clause 25 of the agreement. According to the said clause 25 in case of disputes and differences arising between the parties in respect of and relating to various aspects of the contract the same shall be referred to the sole arbitration of the person appointed by the Chief Engineer, in charge of the work at the time of dispute or if there be the Chief Engineer t...
Dss Mobile Communications Limited Vs. Union of India and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-16-1998
Reported in: 1999(48)DRJ1
ORDERDR. M.K. Sharma, J.1. By this order I propose to dispose of I.A. 7956/1998 arising out of Suit No.1952/1998 filed by the plaintiff praying for an injunction re-straining the defendant No.1 from encashing the financial bank guarantees for an aggregate sum of Rs.11,78,30,000/- all dated 5.11.1997 in any manner till the disposal of the suit.2. The plaintiff has filed a suit in this court against the defendants seeking for a permanent injunction in favor of the plaintiff and against the defendant No.1 restraining the defendant No.1 from encashing the said bank guarantees and also for restraining the defendant No.2 from releasing any amount to defendant No.1 against the said financial bank guarantees.3. In order to appreciate the contentions of the learned counsel appearing for the parties it would be necessary to state some background facts leading to the presentation of the present suit and filing of the injunction application.4. The plaintiff entered into a license agreement with th...
Boiron Vs. Sbl Pvt. Ltd. and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-16-1998
Reported in: 1999(48)DRJ31
Dr. M.K. Sharma, J.1. The present appeal is directed against the impugned judgment and order passed by the Company Law Board on 1.3.1998 in Company Petition No. 63/1997.2. By this judgment and order, I propose to dispose of the said appeal preferred by the appellant under Section 10F of the Companies Act. The appellant assails the findings of the Company Law Board on the ground that the said findings are not supported by materials on record and are contrary to or irreconcilable with the evidence on record. According to the appellant, the said judgment is also contrary to several mandatory requirements of the Companies Act, particularly, the provisions of Sections 283, 291, 209(4A), 370 and 301 of the Companies Act.3. The appellant which is a French Company holding 30% of the share capital of SBL Pvt. Ltd. as filed a petition under Sections 397 and 398 of the Companies Act alleging various acts of alleged oppression and mismanagement in the affairs of the Company SBL Pvt. Ltd., the resp...
Magnum Films Vs. Motion Picuture Assoc. and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-16-1998
Reported in: 1999IIAD(Delhi)312
ORDERM.S.A. Siddiqui, J.1.By this order, I propose to dispose of IAs.7412 & 8907/1998. 2. The plaintiff has filed the application under Order 39, Rules 1 and 2 CPC (IA No. 7412/98) seeking ad interim injunction. is No. 8907/98, is an application under Order 39 Rule 4 CPC filed by the defendants No. 2 and 3 seeking vacation of the ex parte injunction order dated 26.8. 1998. The defendants 2 and 3 have also filed an application under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 seeking stay of the suit on the ground of pendency of dispute before the arbitral Tribunal. 3. The plaintiff has filed the present suit for declaration and permanent injunction. According to the plaintiff, on 27.7.1998, the plaintiff entered into an agreement with the defendant No. 2 whereunder the plaintiff acquired sole and exclusive rights of distribution and exhibition of Hindi feature film 'RAJAJI' for the territories of Delhi and U.P. circuits for a total consideration of Rs. 90 lacs. As per terms...
First Stonex Let. Vs. Manoj Kumar and Others
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-16-1998
Reported in: AIR1999Delhi302; 77(1999)DLT231; (1999)121PLR45
1. This order shall also govern the disposal of I.A. Nos. 686/95, 693/95 and 696/95 in Suit Nos. 1440/94, 1439/94, 1441/94 respectively. 2. By this petition under Section 20 of the Arbitration Act, the petitioner seeks directions to the respondents to file original agreement before the Court and to appoint an Arbitrator to adjudicate upon the disputes which have arisen between the parties in respect of the said agree-ment. The respondents have filed the application under Order 7, Rule 11, CPC for rejection of the petition on the ground that there is no valid and binding contract between the parties. 3. Facts relevant and requisite for the purpose of deciding the application under Order 7, Rule 11, CPC lie in a narrow compass. By the collaboration agreement dated 26.6.1992, the respondents agreed to grant mining lease to the petitioner after obtaining the requisite statutory approval under M.P. Minor Minerals Rules from the Competent Authority. As per terms of the agreement, the petitio...
Indian Circus Federation and anr. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-16-1998
Reported in: 1999(48)DRJ171
Anil Dev Singh, J. 1. In the main petition the petitioner challenges the notification of the Government of India, Ministry of Environment and Forests, Deptt. of Environment, Forests and Wild-life, dated 2nd March, 1991. This notification was issued under Section 22 of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960. By this notification five animals, namely, bears, monkeys, tigers, panthers and dogs, were banned from being trained or exhibited. By a subsequent notification ban on training and exhibiting of dogs was withdrawn. On March 20, 1991 by means of an interim order the operation of the notification was stayed by this court. On August 21, 1997, during the course of hearing of the petition, the challenge to the virus of the notification was made, inter alia, mainly on the following grounds:-'1. The ban has been imposed without there being adequate material available with the Government justifying the necessity of imposing the ban; 2. In order to achieve the object as spelled out by...
Collector of Central Excise Vs. Digvijay Textile Mills
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Dec-15-1998
Reported in: (1999)(106)ELT420TriDel
1. The Revenue is aggrieved by the order of the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), Bombay extending the benefit of Notification 70/88 to fabrics manufactured by the respondents herein and sold at prices higher than the maximum ex-factory price fixed by the Textile Commissioner in terms of the Notification. It is the case of the Revenue that, since the explanation to the Notification stipulates specification by the Textile Commissioner of maximum ex-factory price, and since the respondents have sold the fabrics at a price higher than that specified under the Notification, the fabric in question cannot be considered as "controlled cloth" covered by the Notification.2. We have heard Shri A.K. Agarwal, learned SDR and perused the records since none appears for the respondents inspite of notice. "For the purpose of this Notification "controlled cloth" means cloth which answers to the description of "controlled dhoty", "controlled saree", "controlled long cloth" and controlled polyester...
indodan Industries Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Dec-15-1998
Reported in: (1999)(107)ELT180TriDel
1. The classification of the product described by the appellants as 'Indana House - concentrated Coffee, Chicory blend powder (Soluble Coffee chicory blend) arises for determination in this appeal - according to the Assessees, the product is classifiable under GET sub-heading 2102.30 as roasted Coffee substitute, while the Revenue has classified under GET sub-heading 2101.10 as preparation with a basis of coffee.2. None appears for the appellants in spite of notice ; hence we have heard Shri A.K. Agarwal, learned DR and perused the records. The rival sub-headings are reproduced below :Sub-heading Description of goods Rate of duty2101.10 Extracts, essences and concentrates, of 30% coffee, and preparations with a basis of these extracts, essences or concentrates or with a basis of coffee.2101.30 Roasted chicory and other roasted coffee 15% substitutes, and extracts, essences and "I have considered carefully the order-in-original dated 31-10-1992 and submission made by the appellants. I ...
Sheela Foam (P) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Dec-15-1998
Reported in: (1999)(107)ELT179TriDel
1. This is an appeal against the order of Collector of Central Excise, Ghaziabad upholding the order of the Assistant Collector who had denied the benefit of concessional rate of duty in terms of SI. No. 4 of the Table annexed to Notification 80/90, dated 20-3-1990 on Bus seats and Back rests and confirmed a demand of Rs. 83,908/-upon the appellants.2. None appears for the appellants when the case is called; hence we have heard the learned DR and perused the records. We find that there is no dispute regarding the classification of goods under CET sub-heading 9401.00 which covers "Seats (other than those of Heading 94.02) whether or not convertible into beds and parts thereof". The dispute only relates to whether the items fit into the expression 'non-wooden furniture' occurring in Col. No. 3 of SI. No. 4 of the Table annexed to Notification 80/90. Parts of non-wooden furniture have not been specifically exempted and it is only complete furniture which has been exempted, as contrasted ...
Bharti Cellular Ltd. Vs. Collector of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Dec-15-1998
Reported in: (1999)(107)ELT181TriDel
1. In this case, the Commissioner of Central Excise, Delhi has confirmed an amount of Rs. 53,41,647/-as service tax under the provisions of Section 73(a) of the Finance Act 1994 and has also confirmed the interest accrued on the above amount under Section 75 of the Act, till the date of its payment.2. The learned SDR, Shri A.K. Agarwal raised a preliminary objection to the maintainability of the appeal before the Tribunal, referring to the language of Section 86(1) of the Finance Act which provides that "any assessee aggrieved by an order passed by a Commissioner of Central Excise under Section 84 or an order passed by a Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals) under Section 85 may appeal to the appellate Tribunal against such order", and contends that since the order against which the present appeal has been filed is an order passed under the provisions of Section 73, an appeal against such order is not maintainable before the Tribunal. Shri V. Sridharan, learned Counsel draws our at...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »