Delhi Court March 2000 Judgments
Home Cases Delhi 2000 Page 15 of about 221 results (0.022 seconds)Simplex Concrete Piles (India) Ltd. Vs. National Projects Construction ...
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 85(2000)DLT738; 2000(54)DRJ497; (2000)126PLR5
ORDERJ.B. Goel, J.1. M/s. National Projects Construction Corporation Ltd. (hereinafter called 'the respondent') has challenged the award dated 15.9.1992 passed by Shri C. Rama Rao, retired Director General of Works CPWD as Arbitrator under Sections 30 and 33 of the Arbitration Act, 1940. 2. The work of 'Pile Design and construction of Piles, Pile caps, etc. for BALCO Captive Power Plant at Korba (M.P) was awarded by the respondent to M/s. Simplex Concrete Piles (India) Ltd. (hereinafter called 'the peti- tioner') by means of letter of award No. 700565/Projects dated 17.11.1984. The estimated value of the work was Rs. 1,32,33,000/- and the work was to be completed within 7 months, i.e., 30.6.1985 commencing from 30.11.1984. Parties had entered into an agreement on 12.3.1986. (However the date of completion was by addenda No. 7123202/6203 dated 4/5.3.1987 was changed to 31.10.1986). Disputes arose between the parties as petitioner's claim were disputed and remained unpaid. In pursuance o...
Tag this Judgment!Rameshwar Dayal Vs. Delhi Development Authority
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 2000VAD(Delhi)459; 2000(54)DRJ245
ORDERDr. M.K. Sharma, J.1. The present writ petition has been preferred by te petitioner seeking for issuance of a direction to the respondent to hand over possession of plot bearing No.142, Block-C, Okhla Industrial Area, Phase I, New Delhi, or an alternative plot of land of the same size in Okhla Industrial Area, phase I, New Delhi, to the petitioner and to execute the necessary conveyance/perpetual lease deed in terms of the allotment made by the respondent to the petitioner. 2. The petitioner is a manufacturer of Wooden Cabinets which are being used for sewing machines and Television sets, carrying on his business from the premises bearing municipal No.525/16 and premises bearing municipal No.508 situated at Chhota Bazar, Shahdara, Delhi. The aforesaid area from which the petitioner was carrying on his business was found to be a non-conforming area and accordingly in terms of the scheme of the respondent/DDA, the petitioner applied for allotment of an alternative industrial plot. T...
Tag this Judgment!Naresh Jhanji (M/S. N.N. and Co.) Vs. Jugal Kishore and Another
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 2000IVAD(Delhi)589; 2000(54)DRJ174
ORDERDr. M.K. Sharma, J.1. The present revision petition has been preferred by the petitioner as against the orders dated 10.8.1994 and 7.10.1994 passed by the Subordinate Judge, Delhi in Execution Case No. 20/1989 whereby he issued directions for issuance of warrant of possession in respect of premises No. 2271/69, Nai Wala, Karol Bagh, New Delhi. 2. Shri Jugal Kishore, the decree holder/respondent No.1 herein, filed a suit for recovery possession which was registered as Suit No.273/1972. It was pleaded on behalf of the respondent No.1 in the plaint that defendant Maharaj Bahadur Singh (since deceased) was a tenant in Flat No.4, on first floor of House No.2271, Nai Wala, Karol Bagh, New Delhi at a monthly rent of Rs. 112/- and that he failed to pay the rent and thereforee, in the suit a decree for recovery of money was prayed for. In the written statement the defendant denied the allegation that he was defaulter in respect of payment of rent. The Subordinate Judge 1st Class by his jud...
Tag this Judgment!Union of India and ors. Vs. N.N. Mishra
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 2000IIIAD(Delhi)678; 85(2000)DLT156
ORDERMadan B. Lokur, J.1. The respondent in this appeal under Clause X of the Letters Patent, joined the Central Reserve Police Force (for short the CRPF) as a Constable sometime in 1964. He was subsequently appointed as a Lower Division Clerk in 1967. He worked in several stations and in May, 1971 he was transferred to Avadi near Madras city. 2. On 5th July, 1971 he applied for earned leave for the period from 12th to 26th July, 1971. This leave was not sanctioned to him. The Respondent then applied for casual leave on 22nd July, 1971 for attending to some urgent work in Madras. Even though no decision was communicated to him on this application, the Respondent proceeded on leave on 22nd July, 1971 and returned back to Avadi the same evening. The next day, that is, 23rd July, 1971 he again applied for casual leave for a day since he was not wall. He did not turn up for his duties on that date and rejoined on 24th July, 1971. 3. On 26th July, 1971 the Respondent was issued a memorandum...
Tag this Judgment!Roneo Vickers India Ltd. Vs. Union of India and anr.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 2000IIIAD(Delhi)755; 85(2000)DLT337; 2000(56)DRJ194
ORDERMadan B. Lokur, J.1. The petitioner (successor of M/s. Vickers India Pvt. Ltd. which was amalgamated will M/s. Roneo Vickers India Ltd.) preferred a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution directed against the order dated 17th August, 1996 passed by the learned Rent Control Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal). 2. The narration of the facts of the case is quite cumbersome, but the question involved is extremely narrow and is really based on an appreciation of the facts of the case. 3. On or about 20th August, 1980, Respondent No.2 filed an eviction petition against the Petitioner in respect of the suit premises being No.136, Block No. 171, Sunder Nagar, New Delhi-110 003. According to respondent No. 2 the petitioner was liable to be evicted in view of the provisions of Clause (c) and Clause (k) of the proviso to Section 14(1) of Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). 4. By an order dated 27th February, 1987, the learned Additional R...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. L.P. Appliances
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (2000)(119)ELT627TriDel
1. The appellants were engaged in the manufacture of LPG stoves and were availing the facility of Modvat credit on inputs under Rule 57A of the Central Excise Rules during the period of dispute. They took Modvat credit amounting to Rs. 13,113.50 on C.R. Steel Strips (inputs) on the strength of invoice dated 14-12-1995. The credit was taken after filing a declaration on 14-9-1995, wherein the inputs were described as 'steel sheets'. The jurisdictional Assistant Commissioner disallowed the above credit on the ground that there was no proper Modvat declaration for the purpose of such credit. In the appeal filed by the aggrieved party against the order of the Assistant Commissioner, the Commissioner (Appeals) found that there was substantial compliance with the Modvat rules for the purpose of availment of Modvat credit by the appellants.The Commissioner (Appeal) following the ratio of the decision of the Tribunal in the case of CCE v. Rattan Ind. (P) Ltd. -1996 (83) E.L.T.573 (T) held tha...
Tag this Judgment!Janardhan Plywood Industries Vs. Commr. of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (2000)(120)ELT673TriDel
1. The order impugned in these appeals has demanded duty of over Rs. 15.6 lakhs from the appellant, M/s. Janardhan Plywood Industries Ltd. and has also imposed penalties on the appellant manufacturing unit as well as on its Managing Director and Vice President. It has also imposed penalties on M/s. Kwality Agencies and M/s. Prakash Enterprises. Facts relevant to the dispute are that the appellants, M/s. Janardhan Plywood Industries Ltd. is a small scale industry manufacturing flush doors, block boards and commercial plywood. They sell their products to various dealers including M/s. Kwality Agencies and M/s. Prakash Enterprises. Goods received by M/s. Prakash Enterprises get sold to D.G.S. & D. at rate contracts. Similarly, part of the goods received by M/s. Kwality Agencies also get sold to Govt.departments. The manufacturer was paying duty on the goods so sold to D.G.S. & D. and Govt. departments at the prices at which they sell the goods to these two dealers. The impugned o...
Tag this Judgment!L.P. Mittal Vs. State of N.C.T. Delhi and ors.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 2000IIIAD(Delhi)910; [2000]100CompCas737(Delhi); 2000CriLJ2557; 84(2000)DLT575
ORDERK.S. Gupta, J.1. This petition under section 482 Cr.P.C. seeks the quashing of charge dated 14th October, 1998 framed against the petitioner for an offence punishable under section 7 of Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (for short'the Act') by a Metropolitan Magistrate. 2. Complaint wherein the impugned charge came to be framed, was filed by the Textile Commissioner interalia alleging that on receipt of a complaint in writing dated 16th March, 1982 from Consumer Education & Research Centre,Ahmedabad that M/s. Birla Cotton Spinning & Weaving Mills Ltd. Delhi had stamped the blend composition with an incorrect and wrong percentage on their blended cloth (suiting), the samples of sorts of cloth i.e. Black Sea, Dynamic and Republic manufactured by the said Mills were collected from M/s. Bhadani Textile, 351, New Cloth Market, Ahmedabad and were taken into possession vide a panchnama dated 18th September, 1982. Rakesh K. Jain, trustee of said M/s. Bhadani Textile had directly purchased t...
Tag this Judgment!Dorris Randhawa Vs. M/S. Alankar Marketing Associates
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 2000IIIAD(Delhi)901; 85(2000)DLT309; 2000(56)DRJ213
ORDERMadan B. Lokur, J. 1. The petitioner, in this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution, has challenged the common order dated 3rd November, 1998 passed by the learned Rent Control Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal) in R.C.A Nos. 606/98, 607/98, 609/98 and 610/98 . 2. The petitioner is the landlady of the suit premises being P-12, Haus Khas, New Delhi. Some time in April, 1992 she filed a civil suit for possession of the suit premises. According to her, since the rent of the suit premises was Rs.3,850/- per month, the premises were out of the purview of the rent control legislation. The Respondent hotly contested the civil suit and claimed that the rent of the suit premises did not exceed Rs.3,500/- per month and, thereforee, the provisions of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958(hereinafter referred to as the Act) were applicable. 3. During the pendency of the civil suit, the Petitioner filed two eviction petitions in November, 1996. The first eviction petition w...
Tag this Judgment!Kamal Kishore Bahl and ors. Vs. State and anr.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 86(2000)DLT544; 2000(56)DRJ719
ORDER1. This Petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing the FIR No. 192/93 under Sections 406/498-A/494/34, IPC registered at P.S. Mukherjee Nagar, Delhi. The notices were given to the respondents and in pursuance thereto State/respondent No. 1 and respondent No. 2 Smt. Pooja Rani (complainant) are present. She is identified by Mr. S.S. Bakshi, Advocate. The learned Counsel appearing for the parties submit that the parties have obtained a decree of divorce by mutual consent. The parties have settled the matter. The complainant accepted Rs. 3,00,000/- as full and final settlement of all her claims. In pursuance to the settlement, the petitioner has already paid Rs. 2,60,000/- and today he has paid two Bank Drafts (No. 174792 dated 5.3.2000 of Rs. 10,000/- and No. 148484 dated 28.2.2000 of Rs. 27,000/-) amounting to Rs. 37,000/- and Rs. 3,000/- in cash to the complainant. The complainant submits that the FIR filed by her be quashed.2. I have ...
Tag this Judgment!