Delhi Court March 1998 Judgments

Navbharat Ferro Alloys Ltd. Vs. M/S. Continental Float Glass Ltd.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 1998(45)DRJ368

ORDERK.S. Gupta, J.1. This petition under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act,1996 (for short the Act') has been filed, inter alia, on the allegations that Navbharat Ferro Alloys Limited, petitioner and its division Beardsell Engineering entered into two agreements with the respondent. Agreement dated May 7, 1991 of the contract value of Rs.5,01,50,000/- was for supply of equipment and spares while dated May 5, 1991 of the contract value of Rs.65,50,000/- was for the execution of the work relating to raw-material handling system for the design, civil works, erection, testing and commissioning at Bhargarh (u.P.). Both the aforesaid agreements contain arbitration clauses. It is alleged that in or about January 1992 respondent informed the petitioner that as there were serious problems in their management they were not in a position to proceed with the work and asked the petitioner to stop it for the time being. By that time petitioner had raised voices towards the supply of...

Balwant Singh and Others Vs. the State

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 1998IIIAD(Delhi)459; 1998CriLJ2753; 77(1999)DLT208; 1998(45)DRJ282

ORDERDalveer Bhandari, J.1. This appeal arises from the judgment dated 1.4.1977 delivered by the Additional Sessions Judge, Delhi in Sessions case No. 18/75 whereby the accused, Balwant Singh, Braham Prakash and Duli Chand were convicted under Section 307 read with Section 34 IPC.Brief facts which are necessary to dispose of this appeal are recapitulated as under:2. On 14.9.1974, Chattar Singh, Complainant lodged a complaint with the police that he had been working as a watchman in Ayodhya Textile Mill and on the said date he was at his house situated in village Haloombi . After the day's work when he was going home at about 8.45 a.m. he reached the house of Balwant Singh accused, he found Balwant Singh accused and his son Brahm Prakash accused present outside their house. Duli Chand accused was also present outside his house situated near the house of Balwant Singh. Duli Chand retorted to Balwant and Brahm Prakash that Chattar Singh (complainant) be killed. On this instigation Balwant...

P.M. Diesels Ltd. Vs. M/S. Patel Field Marshal

Court: Delhi

Reported in: AIR1998Delhi225; 1998(45)DRJ255

Y.K. Sabharwal, J.1. The application filed in the suit for grant of temporary injunction pending disposal of the suit has been dismissed by learned single Judge holding that the appellant/plaintiff has not been able to prima facie show the territorial as well as pecuniary jurisdiction of this court and, there- fore, irrespective of the merits or otherwise of its claim the plaintiff would not be entitled to temporary injunction. As a result of this conclusion the application (I.A. 4465/89) seeking temporary injunction has been dismissed by the impugned order and the order dated 30th June 1989 granting interim injunction in favor of the plaintiff has been vacated. Paras 29 and 30 of the plaint relevant for determining whether prima facie this court has territorial jurisdiction or not read as under:-'29. The cause of action for the present suit in favor of the plaintiffs and against the defendants arose first of all in the year 1982 when the defendant No.1 applied for the registration of ...

Allora Electric and Cable Co. Vs. M/S. Shiv Charan and Bros. and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 1998IIIAD(Delhi)487; 72(1998)DLT761; 1998(45)DRJ403

ORDERJ.B. Goel, J. 1. Plaintiff, a partnership firm has filed the present suit against the defendants for recovery of Rs. 6,33,210.95, comprising of balance price of the goods, interest @ 12% per annum and amount on account of sales-tax in lieu of sales tax forms not issued. Defendant No. 1 is partnership firm and defendants 2 and 3 are its partners.2. The case of the plaintiff is that the plaintiff is carrying on business of manufacturing and sale of plastic pipes; formerly under partnership deed dated 7.6.1961 by two persons, namely, Shri Yoginder Nath and his brother Shri Mahinder Nath. Subsequently, with effect from 1.4.1965, two more partners, namely, Narinder Nath and Virendra Nath and Shri Vijesh Kumar, then the minor was admitted to the benefits of the partnership; Vijesh Kumar attained majority in the year 1973 and then partnership deed dated 10.5.1973 was executed amongst the aforesaid five partners. The partnership firm is duly registered under the Partnership Act. Defendant...

Pahlad Singh Vs. Union of India and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 1998IVAD(Delhi)52; 72(1998)DLT572; 1998(45)DRJ165

Dr. M.K. Sharma, J.1. By this writ petition, the petitioners have sought for quashing of the letters dated 6th October, 1981, 3rd January, 1983 and 29th July, 1986, whereby the respondent No.1 rejected the applications filed by the petitioners praying for grant of freedom fighter pension to the petitioners.2. The petitioners have contended that they were the employees of the Delhi Police and were posted at Police Lines in March, 1946. Around that time a police revolt took place which was popularly known as Delhi Police Revolt which was directed against the British Empire. It is stated that the petitioners participated in the said revolt and a criminal case was also instituted against the petitioners in pursuance of filing of an FIR under the defense of India Rules and the service of the petitioners were terminated. All the petitioners rely upon the scheme of the Central Government for awarding pension to freedom fighters and their families from the Central Revenue and state that the af...

Surinder Kumar Gupta Vs. Delhi Development Authority and anr.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 1998IIAD(Delhi)769; AIR1998Delhi356; 72(1998)DLT398; 1998(45)DRJ206; 1998(2)RLR88

ORDERC.M. Nayar, J.1. The present judgment will dispose of the objections filed by the respondent-D.D.A. under Sections 30 and 33 of the Indian Arbitration Act, 1940 to the Award dated 1st September, 1995. The respondent awarded work of 'Development of Land in CBD area at Shahdara SH:Construction of Roads and Paths'. The disputes arose between the parties and in term of clause 25 of the Agreement dated 22nd January, 1982 executed between the parties, Engineer Member Delhi Development Authority vide his letter No.EM2(17)91/Arbn./5139-43 dated 9th April, 1991 referred the same to the sole arbitration of Shri A.P.Paracer. Clause 25 of the Agreement may be reproduced as follows:- 'CLAUSE 25. Settlement of disputes by Arbitration Except where otherwise provided in the contract all questions and disputes relating to the meaning of the specifications, designs drawings and instruction herein before mentioned and as to the quality of workmanship or materials used on the work or as to any other...

Palmyra Tsiris Lines S.A. of Piraeus Vs. Union of India

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 72(1998)DLT490; 1998(45)DRJ223

ORDERC.M.Nayar, J.1.This judgment will dispose of the objections filed by the respondent Union of India under Sections 30 and 33 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 against the Award dated July 25, 1995. 2. The reading of paragraphs 1,2,3 and 4 of the Award will give the relevant facts which may be reproduced as follows: '1. By a Charter Party dated 21st June 1993, the respondents (the Union of India) - hereinafter referred to as 'Respondents') chartered the vessel M.V. City of Beirut from M/s Palmyra Tsiris Lines S.A. of Piraeus, 85, Akti Miaoulii, 18538, Piraeus, Greece, (hereinafter referred to as 'Claimants') for the carriage of 13000 MTs (5% more of less at owners' option) of Bulk Urea from Ummsaid port for discharge at any Indian Port, excluding Haldia Calcutta on terms and conditions set out in the said Charter Party. 2. Pursuant to the said Charter Party, the vessel loaded at Ummsaid Port a quantity of 12850.793 Mts. of Bulk Urea as per the Bill of Lading dated 29.06.93 and sailed on ...

Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Ltd. Vs. Union of India (Uoi)

Court: Delhi

Reported in: [2000]246ITR211(Delhi)

1. Though we had passed an interim order on 2nd March, 1998, the petitioner has come up with yet another application complaining of orders under Section 226(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1,961, having been issued by respondent No. 3 to the banks and the purchasers from the petitioner owing amounts due and payable to the petitioner, withholding whereof may paralyse the working of the petitioner.2. We have heard learned counsel for the parties.3. Oil and Natural Gas Commission was taken over by Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Ltd. (the petitioner herein) on February 1, 1994, consequent to the enactment of the Oil and Natural Gas Commission (Transfer of Undertaking and Repeal) Act, 1993. Relevant to the assessment year 1994-95, the petitioner has been assessed on 27th March 1997, resulting in tax liability of Rs. 843 crores plus interest of Rs. 575 crores making a total demand of Rs. 1,418 crores. The petitioner preferred an appeal before the Additional Commissioner of Income-tax and also sou...

Vikas Motors Ltd. and Another Vs. H.L. Mehta

Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi

A.P. Chowdhri, President: 1. Maruti Udyog Ltd. made this application on or about 24.11.1997 seeking a review of the order finally disposing of two Appeals A-640/96 filed by Maruti Udyog Ltd. and A-633/96 filed by Vikas Motors Ltd. In order to appreciate the contentions put forward, a few facts may be noted. Maruti Omni, in question, was cleared from the manufacturer's factory on 13.3.1993. It was registered as a taxi on 19.4.1993. Mr. H.L. Mehta, who purchased the vehicle, submitted necessary papers in May, 1993 to claim refund of 7% excise duty. The case was contested both by the dealer as well as the manufacturer mainly on the ground that Mr. Mehta had failed to submit the papers within the time limit of three months to enable the manufacturer to claim refund of the excise duty from the Central Excise Authorities. The District Forum allowed the complaint of Mr. Mehta. Both the manufacturer and the dealer preferred two separate appeals before this Commission. Both the appeals were dis...

Asian Paints Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1998)LC421Tri(Delhi)

1. Appellant has submitted a request for adjournment on the ground that the notice of hearing was received late. Having perused the papers we find that this is a case where the Collector (Appeals) failed to exercise the jurisdiction vested in him. We therefore propose to dispose of the appeal.2. Order-in-Original dated 9-4-l991 was passed by the Assistant Collector partially and provisionally modifying an earlier order of provisional assessment. Oh this order being challenged in appeal, the Collector (Appeals) dismissed the appeal on the ground that the Order-in-original was not an appealable order and the appeal was premature. It is this order which is now challenged. The view taken by the Collector (Appeals) that appeal would not lie against a provisional order of assessment is erroneous. Hence we set the order passed by the Collector (Appeals) and remand the case to the jurisdic-tional Commissioner (Appeals) to decide the appeal preferred by the assessee against the provisional ord...