Delhi Court July 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.
Bhagwan Dass Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-22-1998
Reported in: 1998VAD(Delhi)325; 74(1998)DLT583; 1998(46)DRJ776
J.B. Goel, J.1. This Criminal Revision challenges the correctness of the judgment dated 4th May, 1998 of learned Addl. Sessions Judge confirming the judgment of conviction dated 15.3.1996 of the learned Metropolitan Magistrate convicting him under Sections 279 and 304-A IPC, but reducing the sentence of imprisonment from RI of one year to six months and maintaining the sentence of fine.2. The petitioner was charged under Section 279 and 304A IPC that he was driving truck No. DEG-239 on 18.6.1989 at about 5.35 p.m. near A-26, Rohit Kunj, Saraswati Vihar, Delhi in a rash or negligent manner he had struck against a cyclist causing his death. 3. The prosecution had inter alias examined two witnesses PW-3 Khacheru and PW-4 Shri Jai Prakash who had deposed as eye witnesses who supported the prosecution case. The learned Trial Court believed them, found the petitioner guilty and convicted him. The finding of the trial court has been upheld in appeal.4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has c...
Mool Chand Khairati Ram Hospital Vs. Anil Dhawan
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-22-1998
Reported in: 1998VAD(Delhi)374; 74(1998)DLT681; 1998(46)DRJ600; (1998)120PLR17
ORDERDr. M.K. Sharma, J.1. The present suit was filed by the plaintiff for delivery of vacant possession of the suit premises and also for recovery of Rs. 3,60,000/- as damages/mesne profits and for pendentelite and future damages/mesne profits. 2. In order to decide the present suit and to appreciate the issues raised herein, it is necessary to briefly state the case pleaded by the plaintiff in the plaint. 3. The plaintiff is a charitable hospital. The defendant is engaged in business of sale and supply of medicines and drugs. On 17.8.1977 the plaintiff entered into an oral agreement with the defendant whereby the defendant was allowed by leave and license to run the medical store in the suit premises on license fee of Rs.1,500/- per month. The said oral agreement was later on reduced to writing under an agreement dated 18.7.1978. As per the terms of the said agreement the period of license was limited for 3 years expiring on 16.8.1980 and the defendant was to pay a license fee of Rs....
international Computers Indian Manufacturing Ltd. Vs. Glowbus Office E ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-22-1998
Reported in: 1998(46)DRJ594
ORDERC.M. Nayar J.1. The present appeal is directed against the Order dated 14th August, 1996 passed by the Additional District Judge. The learned Judge held that the application filed by the appellant under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') was not maintainable as the appellant had taken two adjournments specifically for filing written statement and this will amount to joining the proceedings. The suit was filed by the respondent for recovery of Rs.4,65,560/- in the Court of District Judge, Delhi and the following order was passed on 21st April, 1993: 'Present : Counsel for the plaintiff New suit received on assignment. Be checked and the registered. Let the defendant be served with summons on PF & RC & UPC to be filed within twenty four hours and also by pasting for 26.5.1993.'2. The Court passed subsequent Orders on 26th May, 1993, 6th August, 1993 and 5th October, 1993 respectively which read as follows:- '26.5.1993. Present : Proxy counsel f...
Ram Phool and Another Vs. Union of India
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-22-1998
Reported in: 1998VAD(Delhi)433; 76(1998)DLT498; 1999(48)DRJ795
ORDERArun Kumar, J.1. The question for consideration in this appeal is as to what should be the appropriate market value of the land in village Poothkalan, Delhi as on the date of notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) which in this case was published on 11th December, 1981. The declaration under Section 6 was issued on 11th April, 1984. The Land Acquisition Collector made his award being award No.20/85-86 on 11th November, 1985. By the said notification dated 11th December, 1981 under Section 4 of the Act large tracts of land falling in village Poothkalan were acquired for planned development of Delhi. The Land Acquisition Collector categorised the acquired land into three categories and offered compensation for the acquired land as under:Category A Rs. 12,100/- per bigha Category B Rs. 12,000/- per bigha Category C Rs. 6,000/- per bigha 2. The land owners were dissatisfied with the offer of compensation made by the Collector an...
Surinder Kumar Pruthi and ors. Vs. Udan Chits (P) Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-22-1998
Reported in: 1998VAD(Delhi)462; 75(1998)DLT388; 1998(46)DRJ853; 1999(1)RLR117
ORDERS.N. Kapoor, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the appellant/petitioner. It appears that only Surinder Kumar Pruthi filed objection to the award within the stipulated time of 30 days. The objector claims that the claimant manipulated and misused the blank papers. The objector opted not to appear before the learned arbitrator despite notices dated 17th February 1996, 2nd March 1996 and 23rd March 1996. However, Surinder Kumar Pruthi sent letter dated 24th February 1996 received by the Arbitrator on 24th May 1996. The said letter indicates that certain payments had been made. Excepting the payment of Rs.2,800/- all the payments had been accounted for in the ledger. The appellant failed to appear before the learned Arbitrator to prove the payment of Rs.2,800/- on 11th November 1994. In so far as non-encashment of cheque No. 825914 dated 27th December 1994 for a sum of Rs.65,000/- is concerned, the learned Arbitrator considered it in the light of the ledger of the claimant and certifica...
Amar Singh and ors. Vs. Union of India
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-22-1998
Reported in: 1998VAD(Delhi)481; 76(1998)DLT442; 1998(47)DRJ346; 1998RLR495
Arun Kumar, J.1. These appeals arise from the decisions of the learned Addl. District Judges, Delhi in reference made to them Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') at the instance of the land owners. The acquired lands of the appellants fall within the revenue estate of village Mukandpur, Delhi. The dates of notification under Section 4 of the Act are as under:-RFA No. Date of Notification u/s 4 481/1987 15th February, 1979 484/1987 24th December, 1979 547/1987 1st November, 1978 630/1987 15th February, 1979 500/1995 15th February, 1979 384/1988 15th February, 1979 366/1988 15th February, 1979 757/1988 15th February, 1979 756/1988 15th November, 1979 2. As a matter of fact the land which is subject matter of the present appeals was acquired under the emergency provisions of Section 17 of the Act and the date of notifications under Sections 4,6 and 17 of the Act are the same. The urgent requirement for acquiring the land was for construct...
Paramount Conductors Ltd. Vs. Collector of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jul-21-1998
Reported in: (1999)(65)ECC455
1. This appeal is directed against order-in-original No. 76/89, dated 12-7-1989 passed by Additional Collector of Central Excise, Nagpur.2. Appellant, engaged in the manufacture of conductors, was also manufacturing aluminium strips from duty paid aluminium wire rods, cap-tively consuming a part of the strips in the manufacture of conductors and clearing a part of strips for home consumption for sale to dealers. Price lists were filed in Part I in regard to aluminium strips cleared for home consumption and in Part VI for aluminium strips captively consumed. Part I price list declared the wholesale prices of the strips to be sold and the same prices were adopted in Part VI price list under Rule 6(b)(i) of the Central Excise Valuation Rules, 1975.The price lists were approved and goods were cleared on payment of appropriate duty on the approved price. The dispute in this appeal relates to the period 1-4-1984 to 31-3-1986. It was found that during this period, the price of duty paid alum...
Upper Couper Paper Mills Co. Ltd. Vs. Collector of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jul-21-1998
Reported in: (1999)LC526Tri(Delhi)
1. This application seeks restoration of the appeal dismissed for default by Final Order No. 413/98-A on the ground that none appeared on behalf of the appellant and there was no request for adjournment. It is seen that learned Counsel for the appellant who had been briefed was engaged in another Bench at the relevant time and, therefore, could not be present. In these circumstances, we recall the final order and restore the appeal to file. Application is allowed....
Ganga Kisan Sahkari Chini Mills Vs. Commr. of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jul-21-1998
Reported in: (1998)(103)ELT638TriDel
1. The Appellants have filed the captioned Appeal, being aggrieved by the Order of the ld. Commissioner (Appeals) holding that "In this case Modvat credit has been disallowed without any show cause notice or personal hearing in violation of principles of natural justice. On merits also Modvat credit on lubricants was admissible. Hetro Fit being part of the weigh bridge is also entitled to Modvat credit. But steel for molasses tank cannot be called a capital goods under Rule 57Q and so Modvat credit shall not be available on them. Appeal is thus allowed partly. The adjudicating authority is directed to pass proper speaking order in future after following principles of natural justice.2. The facts, briefly stated, are that the Appellants are manufacturers of Sugar. They filed a declaration, claiming Modvat credit on steel sheets for molasses tank. The Department alleged that Modvat credit can be allowed only in respect of goods as covered by the Explanation 1(a), (b) and (c) provided un...
Collector of C. Ex. Vs. Bhilwara Spinners Ltd
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jul-21-1998
Reported in: (1998)(104)ELT719TriDel
1. The issue to be decided in these appeals filed by the Revenue is whether "blended spun yarn" produced and cleared by the respondents falls for classification under T.I. 18-LU(i) as contended by the assessees (and upheld by the lower appellate authority) or under T.I.18-III(ii) as claimed by the Revenue in these appeals. According to the Revenue such yarn falls for classification under T.I. 18-LU(ii) since it contains man-made fibres of non-cellulosic origin. On the other hand, the assessees contend that the product in dispute is classifiable under T.I. 18-III(i) on the ground that it contains non-cellulosic synthetic waste, and does not contain man-made fibres of non-cellulosic origin.2. We have heard Shri A.K. Agarwal, learned SDR and Shri K.K. Anand, learned Counsel.3. We find that an identical issue was decided in the case of CCE, Nagpur v. Vardhan Syntex; CCE, Calcutta v. Eastern Spinning Mills and Industries ; Modern Threads India & 7 Ors. v. Collector of Central Excise, J...
- ‹ Prev
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 16
- Next ›
- Last »