Delhi Court November 2004 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.
Sultan Singh JaIn Thr. Lrs. Vs. Kanti and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-03-2004
Reported in: I(2005)ACC173; 116(2005)DLT161
R.S. Sodhi, J.1. FAO 89/1990 is directed against the Award of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal in Suit No. 190/85, whereby the Tribunal vide its Award dated 19th December, 1989, has held the owner-appellant herein, Sultan Singh Jain (since deceased), responsible to discharge the claim while discharging the insurance company. 2. The grievance of the appellants herein is that the insurance company ought not to have been discharged since the offending vehicle was insured with the insurance company on the date of the accident. Counsel for the appellants further submits that he has filed a subsequent certificate of insurance wherein No.4512172459 4512172459 is mentioned at the bottom. It is that policy which was in existence at the time when the accident took place. 3. Counsel for the insurance company-respondent No.5 on the other hand contends that the witness RW-1 has categorically stated that there is no policy with the insurance company bearing no. 4512172459. He submits that such num...
Radha Paintal and Anr. Vs. Narinder Nath Bakshi thr. LR's
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-03-2004
Reported in: 116(2005)DLT223
R.S. Sodhi, J.1. This petition is directed against the judgment dated 6.4.2002 of the Additional Rent Controller, Delhi in Petition No. E-862/00 (Old No.3/94) and E-863/00 (Old No. E-174/94) wherein the Additional Rent Controller has decreed the Suit of the landlord under Section 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act (for short 'the Act') but dismissed it under Section 14(1)(h) of the Act. 2. Brief facts of the case as noted by the Additional Rent Controller are as follows:- ''.....that the respondent Sh.R.S.Paintal was inducted as tenant by the previous landlady, who happened to be the late mother of the present petitioner Sh.Narinder Nath Bakshi. The tenanted premises comprised of two rooms, kitchen, bathroom, W.C., balcony in property bearing No.23/2, First Floor, Double Storey, Ramesh Nagar, New Delhi and the rate of rent agreed was Rs.25/- per month. No written agreement was executed. It is alleged that after demise of the previous owner/landlady, the petitioner become the owner ...
Vinitec Electronics Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Hcl Infosystems Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-03-2004
Reported in: AIR2005Delhi314; 2004(3)ARBLR412(Delhi); II(2005)BC72; 115(2004)DLT263
Mukul Mudgal, J.1. This petition under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996(hereinafter referred to as the `Act') seeks an interim injunction pending arbitration, against the encashment/remittance of the performance bank guarantee at 10% of the contract value to the respondent or any one acting on its behalf. The guarantee dated 10th August, 2001 as amended on 20th August, 2001 was provided by the petitioner/applicant to the respondent in the sum of Rs.16,81,238.50p., issued by the Oriental Bank of Commerce, Kirti Nagar Branch, New Delhi. The encashment of the said bank guarantee is sought to be stayed by this petition. 2. The facts of the case are as follows:- There was a contract dated 10th May, 2000 for the value of Rs.1,68,12,400/-(Rupees One crore sixty eight lacs twelve thousand and four hundred only) and it is the petitioner's case that after 30 per cent of the contract value was paid to the petitioner, a bank guarantee in question was furnished to the respond...
Centre for Public Interest Litigation Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-03-2004
Reported in: 115(2004)DLT297; 2005(79)DRJ24
B.C. Patel, C.J.1. This petition is filed, inter alia, praying for an order directing an independent investigation by an agency like the Central Bureau of Investigation into the financial irregularities in grant of contracts related to the Great Arc celebration and other irregularities, financial or otherwise, and to direct respondent No.1 to take appropriate departmental, civil and/or criminal action, against the erring officials of Respondent No.1 & 2, if the allegations against them stand corroborated after such investigation.2. In a public interest litigation, the Court has to be satisfied that a prima facie case is made out. In the instant case the Comptroller & Auditor General has to make the Audit Report, after considering the Explanationn that may be rendered by the person/authority against whom queries are raised. The petitioner must have personal knowledge about the matter in question. He must have some evidence with him to indicate that the alleged wrong-doer has committed a...
Sh. L. Gopinath Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-03-2004
Reported in: 2004(3)ARBLR408(Delhi); 115(2004)DLT260
R.S. Sodhi, J.1. FAO 126/1985 is directed against the order dated 3rd June, 1985, of the Joint Secretary and Legal Adviser, Ministry of Law and Justice, Department of Legal Affairs, as Arbitrator in Arbitration Case No. 3/1982, awarding to the claimants a compensation for requisition of the premises at Rs.3,433.40 ps. per month with effect from 11th March, 1975. 2. Brief facts of the case as noted by the Arbitrator are as follows:- 'According to the claimants, the premises were requisitioned by order dated 27.3.1950 and the compensation payable in respect of the same is liable to be revised with effect from 11.3.1975 in terms of the provisions of the Requisitioning and Acquisition f immovable property Act, 1952 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). According to the said provision, compensation is to be revised on the basis as if the premises were requisitioned afresh with effect from 11.3.75. Accordingly, the claimants sought revision of the compensation from the competent authority....
Smt. Raj Rani Vs. Pushpa Devi and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-03-2004
Reported in: 116(2005)DLT150
R.S. Sodhi, J.1.CR.937/2003 is directed against the judgment dated 16.11.2002 of the Additional Rent Controller, Delhi in E-69/2002 whereby the learned Additional Rent Controller has dismissed the petition of the petitioner under Section 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act (hereinafter called the Act) on the ground that in a Suit filed by the petitioner against the present respondents eviction was sought on the ground that the present respondents are tress-passers in the property in question. The Controller his ruled that the landlord claiming the respondents to be in illegal occupation, in the Civil Suit, cannot maintain an eviction petition under the Delhi Rent Control Act. 2. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the Additional Rent Controller has gone wrong inasmuch as the Controller did not notice that the Suit of the petitioner was dismissed on the ground that the respondents herein are not tress-passers but were lawful tenants since their tenancy had not been correctly term...
Satpal and ors. Vs. Bhuvnashwar Dass Gupta and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-03-2004
Reported in: 116(2005)DLT216
R.S. Sodhi, J.1. This petition is directed against the judgment/order dated 13.12.2002 of the Additional Rent Controller, Delhi, in Petition No.Ex. 44/97 whereby the Executing Court has disposed of an application of the petitioner filed on 01.11.2002. 2. The facts of the case, as noted in the order under challenge, are as under : 'That on 28.8.02 the bailiff of the court along with Shri Rajender Parshad, one of the decree-holders, came at the premises of the applicant/judgment-debtor along with warrants of possession with permission to break open the lock and doors. It is state that on seeing the Ext. Site Plan which appears to have been exhibited as Ex. AW-4/6 which had shown the premises in red colour that the portion shown was of premises NO. of 5546 and not of premises NO. 5562 in possession of the applicant/judgment-debt r. It is stated that warrants of possession for premises shown as red in the site plan Ex. AW-4/6 are not for that premises in which the applicant is tenant and i...
Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Lalchand Wadhwani
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Nov-02-2004
Reported in: (2005)(183)ELT205TriDel
1. In this appeal, the Revenue has made challenge to the impugned Order vide which the Commissioner (Appeals) has reversed the Order in original of the adjudicating authority who ordered the confiscation of the foreign origin goods (Mobile Phones with A/c, D/c Adapters) under Section 111 read with Section 119 of the Act. The Commissioner (Appeals) on the face of it, has acted contrary to the law resulting in mis-carriage of justice. When the respondents failed to deposit the penalty, as per the Order dated 6-2-2003, the Commissioner (Appeals) had no option but to dismiss the appeal under Section 129E. He could not hear the appeal on merits. He had no power to review his own order.Therefore, the impugned Order passed by him is liable to be quashed on this very ground alone.2. Even on merits, the impugned Order cannot be sustained. The foreign origin goods detailed above, were recovered from the respondent and he himself admitted of having smuggled the goods into India. The Commissioner...
Agv Alfab Limited and V.K. Sharma, Vs. Cce
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Nov-02-2004
Reported in: (2005)(98)ECC372
1. These appeals are directed against the duty demand of Rs. 48 lakhs and imposition of penalties, upon a finding that there was manufacture of "doors, windows, frames of curtain walls, alucobond panels and structural glazing etc." by M/s AGV Alfab Ltd. 2. The submission of the appellant is that they are a construction contractor and they carry out construction of aluminium doors, windows, curtain walls etc. at various sites. The work is carried out against contract on various buildings, hotels, offices etc. According to the appeal and affidavit of Shri V.K. Sharma, Managing Director of M/s AGV Alfab Limited, the appellant purchased aluminium sections and after getting them anodized from outside, cut them to the required lengths for frames for curtain walls windows etc. These are erected at site on buildings. The aluminum frames are, as per specification of customers, constructed on location. The method of construction as explained is that walls of buildings are first mapped and marke...
Gail India Ltd. Vs. Cce
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Nov-02-2004
Reported in: (2005)(180)ELT387TriDel
2. Appellants filed this appeal against the Adjudication order passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise whereby the duty was demanded in respect of the Horton Spheres and Petals.3. The contention of the appellant is that these are huge storage tanks of 28.6 meters weighing 384.8 MT and these are constructed at site sep by step and these are used to store LPG or similar liquefied hydrocarbons. The appellants relied upon the decision of the Tribunal in the case of ICB (P) Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise, Baroda, reported in 1997 (95) ELT 239 (Tribunal) 4. The contention of the Revenue is that earlier, against the Adjudication Order, the appellants filed appeal and the Tribunal vide Order dated 2.7.2001 remanded the matter to the Adjudication authority for quantification of the duty only. Now, the appellants cannot challenge the excise-ability of the goods in question.5. We have perused the order passed by the Tribunal. In the earlier of excise-ability, directed the Assistant Co...
- ‹ Prev
- 16
- 17
- 18
- 19
- 20
- 21
- 22
- 24
- 25
- 26
- Next ›
- Last »