Delhi Court August 1998 Judgments
Home Cases Delhi 1998 Page 20 of about 237 results (0.022 seconds)Sanjay JaIn and Another Vs. Bar Council of Delhi and Others
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-07-1998
Reported in: 1998VIIAD(Delhi)345; AIR1998Delhi111; 1998(46)DRJ656
ORDERAnil Dev Singh, J.1. This is a writ petition challenging -(1) the removal of the first petitioner as the Honorary Secretary of the Bar Council of Delhi and installation of Shri Surya Prakash Khatri in his place vide resolution dated July 17, 1998 adopted by fourteen members of the Bar Council of Delhi by circulation. (2) the requisition of an emergent meeting of the Bar Council of Delhi for July 22, 1998 at 4.00 P.M. to consider a resolution for dissolving various Committees, namely, Library Committee, Rules Committee Executive Committee, Enrolment Committee, Indigent and Disabled Lawyers Committee, Disciplinary Committee-1, Disciplinary Committee-2, Disciplinary Committee-3, Bar Council of India Advisory Welfare Committee, Pre-enrolment Committee, and Building Committee; and (3) the notice dated July 18, 1998 issued by Shri Surya Prakash Khatri announcing the fixation of the meeting of the Enrolment Committee of the Bar Council of Delhi for July 20, 1998 at 3.00 P.M.2. The fact...
Tag this Judgment!M. Riyaz Khan Vs. Municipal Corporation of Delhi
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-07-1998
Reported in: 1998(46)DRJ586
ORDERK. Ramamoorthy, J.1. The petitioner, who instituted CW.4657/95 & CM.7765/95, has filed this contempt petition on the ground that on the 12th of December, 1995 this Court passed stay order and in-spite of the stay order, the fourth respondent in the contempt petition and fifth respondent in CW.4657/95, Mr.V.P.Tanwar, Inquiry Officer(W) issued a letter bearing No.95/94 dated 13th of December, 1995 calling upon him to attend the office of the Inquiry Officer on the 27th of December, 1995. The stay order dated the 12th of December, 1995 reads as under:-'CW.4657/95 Notice to the respondents to show cause as to why the writ petition be not admitted, returnable on 12th February, 1996. CM.7765/95 Notice for the same date. Till the next date of hearing, no proceedings be taken.'2. It is stated the in the letter dated 13th December, 1995 that if the petitioner fail to appear, the inquiry would be continued ex parte. The fourth respondent Mr.V.P.Tanwar, also wanted the petitioner to produc...
Tag this Judgment!Lalit Popli Vs. Union of India
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-07-1998
Reported in: 1998VAD(Delhi)47; 75(1998)DLT269; 1998(47)DRJ531
ORDERK. Ramamoorthy, J.1. The petitioner had joined the service of the Lakshmi Commercial Bank as clerk. In October, 1985, the Lakshmi Commercial Bank was taken over by the Canara Bank. The charge-sheet was issued to the petitioner on the 11th of May, 1992 and an inquiry was conducted. The petitioner was dismissed from service by the disciplinary authority. There was an appeal to the appellate authority and that was dismissed on the 3rd of April, 1996.2. The petitioner has filed the writ petition challenging the order of removal as confirmed by the appellate authority. The second respondent Canara Bank, opposed the writ petition on the grounds that the petitioner was given sufficient opportunity to defend himself and the inquiry officer held an inquiry examining the witnesses and submitted his findings to the disciplinary authority. On the basis of the inquiry report, the disciplinary authority imposed the punishment after considering the materials on record. It is further submitted by...
Tag this Judgment!New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Chinar Goods Carriers (Regd.) and ors ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-07-1998
Reported in: AIR1998Delhi394; 1998(47)DRJ557
ORDERK.S. Gupta, J. 1. Plaintiff filed suit, inter alia, alleging that it is a company registered under the Companies Act, 1913 having its registered office at Mahatma Gandhi Road, Fort, Bombay and one of the branch offices at Gulab Bhawan, 6, Bahadurshah Zafar Marg, New Delhi. M. J. S. Khurana being the constituted attorney and principal officer of the company is competent to sign and verify the plaint and to institute the suit. On 19th May, 1980 defendant No. 3 as consignor and for and on behalf of defendant No. 2, consignee and the owner for valuable consideration of two consignments comprising of Amul Cheese, Amul Powder, Amul Butter and Sagar Butter etc. having invoice value of Rs. 97,465.08 and Rs. 26/408.81, entrusted them to defendant No. 1, the common carrier for transporting ex-Delhi to Srinagar (J. & K.). Defendant No. 1 issued G.Rs. No. 85318 and 85319 both dated 19th May, 1980. Due to negligence on the part of defendant No. 1 and its employees, said consignments during tra...
Tag this Judgment!O.P. Dhingra and ors. Vs. Registrar, Cooperative Societies and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-07-1998
Reported in: 75(1998)DLT778; 1999(48)DRJ154
Devinder Gupta, J.1. Petitioners are members of Panchdeep Cooperative Group Housing Society Limited (hereinafter referred to as the 'Society'), which is a Society duly registered under Delhi Cooperative Societies Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'). The petitioners, in this petition instituted on 1.12.1995, have prayed for quashing of the order dated 27.4.1995 (Annexure-O) passed by the Financial Commissioner, Delhi and the order dated 25.8.1995 (Annexure-Q) dismissing petitioners' review application.2. The facts, as they emerge from the respective affidavits filed on record are that on 22.6.1994, show cause notice (Annexure-1) was served upon the Society by the Registrar, Cooperative Societies stating that the Society, which is required to perform certain statutory obligations, namely, preparation of annual accounts for auditing, holding of annual general body meetings and election of one third of the members of the Managing Committee every year, failed to discharge such ...
Tag this Judgment!Bhagat Raj Vs. Municipal Corporation of Delhi and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-07-1998
Reported in: 73(1998)DLT205; 1998(47)DRJ201
Devinder Gupta, J.1. Petitioner is seeking quashing of the Select List of Assistant Teachers(G) and all Office Orders/letters issued to the selected candidates for the post of Assistant Teachers(G) and to direct the respondents to appoint the petitioner to the post of Assistant Teacher(G) Scheduled Caste category.2. Petitioner is B.A., B.Ed, and belongs to Scheduled Caste category. His case is that in response to the advertisement issued by the respondent in 1992 for filling up the post of Assistant Teachers (General), he did apply and appeared in the competitive examination held on 1.3.1992 and was also declared successful in the written examination. He was also asked to appear in the personality test/interview on 11.9.1992, but thereafter did not hear anything from the respondents. Again in 1994, respondent No.2 advertised for 1878 posts of Assistant Teachers, out of which 274 were reserved for Scheduled Caste candidates. The posts were to be filled through written examination, which...
Tag this Judgment!thermax Devilbiss Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Aug-06-1998
Reported in: (1999)(108)ELT567TriDel
1.2 The appellants herein filed a Bill of Entry for clearance of 9 Nos. of low pressure pumps claiming classification under Tariff Heading 8413.50 with benefit of Notification No. 59/87-Cus. The certificate of origin submitted by the appellants along with the Bill of Entry described the goods as "Airless Paint to be as declared and the catalogue also described the goods as declared for Model No. PPL-1153 with a pump ratio 3 :1 as per catalogue. 1.3 The Revenue however, felt that the said pump was for spraying only and is part of "Airless Spraying Equipment". Therefore, as per Note 2 of Section XVI, there is a dispute as to whether it is to be assessed as under Heading 84.13 as claimed by the appellants or as a part of Spraying Equipment under Heading 84.24. 1.4 Investigation further revealed that the appellants had imported spray guns, fluid regulators and air caps of the said Spraying Equipment under three Bills of Entry Nos. 2720,2719 and 2718 dated 9-3-1992. It was further felt by ...
Tag this Judgment!Kesar Enterprises Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Aug-06-1998
Reported in: (2000)(116)ELT694TriDel
1. This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the findings of the ld. Commissioner (Appeals) holding that particulars of capital goods, description of final product manufactured and such other information as required by the Assistant Commissioner was not furnished by the assessee.2. The facts briefly stated are that the appellants are engaged in the manufacture of V.P. sugar and molasses. In addition they have a distillary also. With the introduction of Modvat credit on capital goods with effect from 1-3-1994 the assessee, filed a declaration on 29-6-1994 stating inter alia that they were filing on declaration under Rule 57T for availing Modvat credit on capital goods and further indicated that the tariff classification and details of duty paid on capital goods has not been mentioned by them in the declaration as those were not known to them at that time. Promising to furnish detail as and when the same were available to them. The Assistant Collector was not satisfied with the de...
Tag this Judgment!Kailash Chand and Others Vs. Mr. Chand
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-06-1998
Reported in: 75(1998)DLT734; 1998RLR603
ORDERC.M. Nayar, J.1. The matter was called out for hearing on 5th August, 1998 as well as 6th August, 1998. There was no appearance on behalf of the respondent on any of these two dates.2. The present petition is directed against the Order dated March 1, 1996 passed by the Additional Rent Controller, Delhi by which an application for eviction of the petitioners filed under Section 14(1)(e) read with Section 25-B of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') was rejected. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioners claimed to have purchased undivided half shares i.e. petitioners Nos.1 and 2 jointly and petitioners 3 and 4 jointly by two separate Sale Deeds in property No.2206 Ward No.VIII Gali Shankar Kali Masjid, Delhi. Respondent is alleged to be a tenant in respect of the portion shown in red in the site plan on a monthly rent of Rs.3/- which was let out to him by the original owner for residential purposes. It is next alleged that petitioners 1...
Tag this Judgment!Dr. Puran Chand Kaushik Vs. Smt. Prem Wati Kaushik and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-06-1998
Reported in: 75(1998)DLT378
M.K. Sharma, J.1. The present suit has been instituted by the plaintiff seeking for a decree of specific performance and mandatory injunction. The plaintiff is the son of late Shri Om Prakash Kaushik and defendant No. 1 is the wife of saidlate Shri Om Prakash Kaushik. The persons who were imp leaded as defendants 2 & 3 in the suit were the other sons of late Shri Om Prakash Kaushik. Late Shri Om Prakash Kaushik was given a lease in respect of a plot of land bearing No. 17 measuring an area of 200 sq. yds. at 17, Vasudha Enclave, Pitam Pura, Delhi-110034 and the deed of Perpetual Sub-Lease in respect thereof was registered as document No. 5985 on 7.11.1978 in the office of Sub-Registrar, Delhi. Late Shri Om Prakash Kaushik being the sub-lessee of the said plot of land appointed the defendant No. 1 as his nominee, and thereafter he expired on 11.7.1991. On his death the aforesaid plot of land was mutated in favor of and in the name of defendant No. 1.2. By selling another property which ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 14
- 15
- 16
- 17
- 18
- 19
- 21
- 22
- 23
- 24
- Next ›
- Last »