Delhi Court August 1999 Judgments
Home Cases Delhi 1999 Page 4 of about 321 results (0.010 seconds)G.D. Builders Vs. Union of India and anr.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 2000IIAD(Delhi)171
ORDERMukul Mudgal, J.1. This is an arbitration petition, on behalf of the petitioner, under Section 11(2) & (6) of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinaf- ter referred to as the 'Act') seeking a direction to the respondents to file the original of Arbitration Agreement in this Court & also an Order of reference of the disputes/claims enumerated in Para XXII of the petition for arbitration. 2. The Clause 67 of the contract Agreement provided for the arbitration. 3. This petition arises from construction of Institute of Printing Technology at Pusa Campus, Delhi. The petitioner was awarded a contract for construction of work. The dispute arose from the alleged inability of the respondents to hand over the structure to the petitioner. The petitioner had furnished security and the claim is on account of the suffering of heavy losses due to non-handing over of the site and illegal termination of the contract. Thus on 12.6.97 the petitioner served a notice on the respondent under ...
Tag this Judgment!Darshan Singh @ Fauzi Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1999VAD(Delhi)417; 2000CriLJ304; 81(1999)DLT490
ORDERS.K. Agarwal, J.1. By this petition the petitioner was challenged the order of detention dated 4.11.1996 passed under Section 3(1) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 (for short the Act) with a view of preventing him from engaging in transporting smuggled goods in future.2. It is alleged that on 17.5.1996 on specific information the officers of Directorate of Revenue Intelligence, Delhi Zonal Unit intercepted a truck at Wazirabad Village, Delhi; the petitioner, driver of the truck, one Ajay Kumar Arora and Munni Lal were found present there; all of them were brought to the office of the Directorate along with the truck at Lodhi Estate, New Delhi, and the search of the same resulted into recovery of 353 packages containing articles of foreign origin, valued at about Rs. 78,16,225/ lakhs; they were interrogated and their statements were record-ed. On 19th May, 1996 the petitioner was arrested and produced before the court and was ...
Tag this Judgment!J.U. Mansukhani Anda Mp; Co and anr. Vs. the Presiding Officer and ors ...
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1999VAD(Delhi)435; AIR2000Delhi103; 81(1999)DLT524; 1999(51)DRJ95; ILR1999Delhi439
ORDERS.K. Agarwal, J.1.The petitioners are seeking quashing of the order passed on 21.8.1998 by Debt Recovery Tribunal, New Delhi (for short the Tribunal) declining to dismiss or reject the Original Application of respondent No.2 - Indian Bank (for short 'the Bank') for a decree of Rs. 2,43,50,000/- (Rupees two crores forty three lakhs and fifty thousand only) against the petitioners and other respondents, instituted under the Recovery of Debts Due to the Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 (for short the Act). 2.The Bank filed an Original Application against the petitioners (respondent No.1 and 2 in the Original Application) and others before the Tribunal for recovery decree of the above amount, inter alia, pleading therein:- '(i) respondent No.1 through its partners approached the applicant Bank at its Jamshedpur, Bihar Branch for issuance of drafts on various dates; (ii) that pursuant to the request of respondents Nos. 1 and 2 the applicant Bank at Jamshedpur, Bihar issued th...
Tag this Judgment!Delhi Farming and Const. Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Ass. Comm. of Income-tax, Circl ...
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1999VIAD(Delhi)509; ILR1999Delhi349; [1999]240ITR127(Delhi)
ORDERD.K. Jain, J.1. These three writ petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution impugn the validity of notices, all dated 30th March, 1989, issued by the Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, Investigation Circle-I(1), New Delhi under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short 'the Act'), pro-posing to re-assess the petitioner in respect of Assessment Years 1972-73 to 1983-84 to include the amount of interest received by the petitioner on the compensation for acquisition of their lands. All the writ petitions raise common questions of law and even the relief sought being the same, these are dealt with under a common judgment. 2. To appreciate the controversy involved, it would be necessary to notice the facts in a little greater detail. 3. The petitioner, earlier known as M/s. Delhi Cattle Breeding Farm (P) Ltd. till February 1983, is assessed to Income-tax in the status of a company and its accounting period ended on 30th June of each of the relevant years. Certain agric...
Tag this Judgment!Ganga Saran and Sons Pvt. Ltd Vs. Sachdeva Offset and Packing Industri ...
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1999VAD(Delhi)569; [1999]98CompCas351(Delhi); 81(1999)DLT483; 1999(51)DRJ105
ORDERS.K. Agarwal. J. 1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 31st October, 1995 dismissing the suit of the appellant/plaintiff against the respondent/defendant for recovery of Rs. 38,186.75. 2. The appellant filed the suit alleging therein that during the period 3.9.83. to 17.19.84 they supplied goods to the respondent and sum of Rs. 19.782/- was payable to them together with interest @ 18% amounting to Rs. 11. 350/- and Rs. 7054.75 as sales tax for not sending the sales tax declaration and that despite notice the said amount was not paid. The respondent contested the suit on merits denying the allegations in the plaint. A preliminary objection was also taken that the plaint was not signed and verified by a duly authorised person. Following issues were framed on the basis of the pleadings of the parties:- (i) Whether the plaintiff company is limited a company duly incorporated under the Indian Companies Act and the suit has been signed and verified by a duly a...
Tag this Judgment!Uco Bank Vs. Presiding Officer and Another
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1999VAD(Delhi)514; 81(1999)DLT696; ILR1999Delhi331; (2000)ILLJ1187Del
ORDERA.K. Sikri, J.1. The petitioner UCO Bank which has filed this writ petition challenging the order dated 5.9.1990 of Respondent No.1, namely, Central Government Industrial Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as 'CGIT', for short) whereby petitioner Bank is asked to lead the evidence first in the Industrial Dispute raised by Respondent No. 2/Workman and pending before CGIT. Before adverting to the controversy, it would be appropriate to recapitulate the facts in brief.2. Respondent No.2 was working as Assistant Cashier at Naraina Branch of the petitioner Bank. On 19.10.1983 chargesheet was issued to him alleging that he had fraudulently altered payment of Rs.1,200/- in token book to Rs.4,200/-. Enquiry was held. Enquiry Officer submitted his report dated 8.4.1985 holding that charges against the workmen as per chargesheet dated 19.10.1983 were proved. Disciplinary Authority issued show cause notice dated 6.2.1985 proposing the punishment of dismissal of workman from service. Workman s...
Tag this Judgment!Maharaja Exporters (India) Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1999VAD(Delhi)609; 82(1999)DLT479; 1999(51)DRJ192; 2000(68)ECC240; 2000LC48(Delhi); 2000(115)ELT293(Del)
ORDERArun Kumar, J.1. Under a Scheme announced by the Govt. of India categories were granted Special Import Licences (for short SIL). The basis for grant of SIL could be Net Foreign Exchange (for short NFE) earned during the previous year or the Free on Board (for short FOB) value of the exports during the previous year. The petitioner has challenge the refusal of the respondents to issue SIL for the licencing year 1993-94 in favor of the petitioner on the basis of NFE. According to the petitioner it is entitled to the SIL on the basis of NFE instead of on the basis of FOB.2. Briefly the facts are that the petitioner at all material times enjoyed the status of a 'Trading House' in terms of the Import-Export Policy of the Government. The petitioner is carrying on the business of exporting hand knitted carpets of staple/rayon synthetic yarn, silk and other categories. Earlier it enjoyed the status of 'Export House' which was upgraded to the status of Trading House with effect from 1st Ap...
Tag this Judgment!Kamal Promoters and Devp. (Const.) P. Ltd. Vs. Diesel Shed Co-op. Grou ...
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1999VAD(Delhi)631
ORDERManmohan Sarin, J.1. This is a petition filed under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'. The prayers made in the petition are to quash or set aside the letter of termination dated 13.8.1998 and to direct the respondent Society to allow the petitioner to execute the contract as per the sanctioned building plan. Further, restraint is sought against the defendant from dispossessing the plaintiff from the plot in question bearing No. 26, Sector X, Dwarka Phase-10, New Delhi, where the construction work was being executed, till the payment for the work executed Along with 15 per cent profit computed on the value of the balance work, is made to the petitioner by the defendant Society. 2. Another interim application, viz. IA. 7438/98 has also been filed, wherein directions are sought to permit the petitioner to execute the contract as per the agreement dated 30th April, 1997 and stay of the letter of termination etc. It is further...
Tag this Judgment!Yogender Prasad and Another Vs. State of Manipur and Others
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 2000IAD(Delhi)491; 83(2000)DLT59
ORDERN.G. Nandi, J.1. In this petition under Article 226 of the Constitutionof India, the petitioner has been seeking direction to the respondents for absorption/redeployment of the petitioners as LDCs on regular basis, preferably at New Delhi, Manipur Bhawan-I or II against the available vacan- cies, otherwise at Manipur Office, Imphal and allow the petitioners regular pay scale of LDCs. 2. The say of the petitioners is that the petitioners were appointed to work as LDCs in lottery Section of the respondents at Manipur Bhawan-I, Government of Manipur, New Delhi on a consolidated pay/daily wages; that the petitioners were issued a regular order to appoint them as LDCs in the Lottery Department at Manipur Bhawan, New Delhi from 19.12.1996 and 31.8.1996 respectively at Rs. 80/- per day; that the appointment of the petitioners have been extended from time to time for a period of six months on one go and have been in continuous service for 2 to 3 years; that the last order extending the pe...
Tag this Judgment!Jagjit Singh Vs. the Administrator of Delhi and Others
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1999VAD(Delhi)848; 81(1999)DLT770; 1999(51)DRJ184
ORDERA.K. Sikri. J. 1. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner against Judgment dated 8th March, 1988 passed by the Presiding Officer, Delhi School Education Tribunal, Delhi in Appeal No. 3/86 whereby the Tribunal dismissed the said appeal preferred by the petitioner against the punishment of dismissal imposed by the Respondent School pursuant to departmental enquiry conducted against the petitioner. Facts are mentioned in detail by the Education Tribunal in his Judgment and, thereforee, it is not necessary to state the facts in complete details here. thereforee, only those facts, which are relevant for determining the controversy, would be stated. 2. The petitioner was working as Trained Graduate Teacher (TGT) with Respondent No. 4 School, namely, DAV Secondary School, Delhi Cantt. Alleging grave and serious charges against the petitioner, the Charge-sheet was issued and the disciplinary proceedings were started. The petitioner filed writ petition being CWP. No. 2603/84 in...
Tag this Judgment!