Court : Delhi
Reported in : 72(1998)DLT733
Lokeshwar Prasad, J.1. The petitioner, named above, has filed the present petition under Section 33 of the Arbitration Act 1940 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 averring that the Ministry of Posts, Telegraphs & Telephone, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (PTT) awarded the work for outside plants, construction, installation, supply of materials and equipment etc. In Dammam (Saudi Arabia)' to Abdul Aziz Zaidan & Partners (hereinafter referred to as 'BETA'), a Company, incorporated in Saudi Arabia. A contract agreement dated the 14th February, 1985 was signed between PTT and BETA. The petitioner further awarded the sub-contract to the respondent on back to back basis and a sub-contract agreement was executed between the petitioner and the respondent on 21.3.85. The sub-contract agreement, executed between the parties, contained an arbitration clause to the following effect:'If any dispute or difference arises in connection with the M...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : 1998IVAD(Delhi)469; 76(1998)DLT232; 1999(48)DRJ463; 1999RLR20
ORDERAnil Dev Singh, J.1. This is a suit for specific performance and possession.The dispute between the parties relates to property No.B-1/16, Vasant Vihar, New Delhi. The property is built upon plot measuring 600 sq. yards. The land belongs to the President of India. According to the plaintiff, the lease of this land along with some other plots of land were granted by the President of India in favor of the Government Servants Co-operative House Building Society Ltd (hereinafter referred to as the society). The plaintiff is a member of this society. By a tri-partite agreement (hereinafter called the sub-lease agreement) dated April 1, 1969, executed between the President of India (the lessor), the society (the lessee) and the plaintiff, the sub-lease of the above said plot was granted in favor of the plaintiff for a period of 99 years. As per clause 6 of the sub-lease agreement, the sub-lessee was not to sell, transfer, assign or otherwise part with the possession of the whole or any ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : 1998VAD(Delhi)7; 74(1998)DLT377; 1998(46)DRJ482
..... authority dated 22.09.1993.2. the case of the petitioner could be stated tersely in the following terms. since july 1985 the petitioner was serving in central reserve police force. after completing requisite training, the petitioner reported for service in 78 bt. he worked there till 1989. in may/june 1989 he was transferred to e company ..... custody the departmental inquiry was conducted against him and he was removed from service.6. the petitioner issued notice through his counsel to the director general of central reserve police force on 15.10.1995.7. according to the petitioner, the inquiry report was not given to him. the evidence recorded at the time of inquiry was sent ..... competent authority. he came back at his own accord on 5.4.91 at about 0530 a.m. thereby violated the provisions of rule 27 (b)(2) of central reserve police force rules, 1955.9. the learned counsel for the petitioner lt. col c.m. khanna broadly submitted (1) inquiry report was not given to the petitioner; (2) no .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : [2000]102CompCas203(Delhi); 74(1998)DLT715; ILR1999Delhi41
..... (supra) and n.r. dongre v. m/s. whirlpool corporation limited (supra). 57. as already pointed out while dealing with the issue of trans-border reputation, the plaintiffs have prima facie established their reputation and goodwill in this country. this is not to suggest that the goodwill and reputation was established merely by ..... letter dated september 20,1983, and thereforee he applied to the government of india for permission to establish a joint venture with bakerline. the international borders are quite porous in so faras the dissemination of the information regarding products and manufacturers and their trade names/trade marks/corporate names are concerned. the ..... not with the products of the plaintiffs. he also disputed the contention of the learned counsel for the plaintiffs that the plaintiffs have acquired trans-border reputation. learned counsel for the defendants contended that no interim mandatory injunction can be granted to the plaintiffs as they have not established any prima .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Reported in : (1999)69ITD69(Delhi)
1. This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order dt. 23rd December, 1997 of the CIT(A), Dehradun for asst. yr. 1994-95.1.1. That the learned CIT(A), Dehra Dun, has erred in law and on the facts and circumstances of the case in disallowing the appellant's claim of depreciation amounting to Rs. 12,50,48,50,000 in respect of assets to which it was eligible under s. 32 of the IT Act, 1961.1.2. That the learned CIT(A), Dehra Dun, ought to have held that under s. 43(6)(c) of the IT Act, 1961, the written down value should have been computed by the AO after taking into account the aggregate of the written down value of all assets falling within a block of assets at the beginning of the previous year i.e., 1st April, 1993, and adjusting it by increasing the actual cost of the assets acquired during the year and reducing it by the moneys payable in respect of any assets which were sold, discarded, demolished or destroyed during the previous year.1.3. That the learned CIT(A), Dehra ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : 75(1998)DLT873
ORDER ADMIT,Heard learned Advocates on the issue of interim relief. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, by way of interim relief till final hearing and disposal of this appeal, appellant personally is permitted to manufacture and sell under the Trade Mark 'Crystal' Spoons, Forks and other table cutlery, not in set but as separate pieces, included in Class 8 as stated in the impugned deed of assignment dated 2.9.1992 but shall not manufacture and sell items under the Trade Mark 'Crystal' retained by 2nd Respondent firm in respect of kitchen knives, table cutlery set consisting of spoons, forks and knives and kitchenwares under the said assignment deed. Appellant shall not be entitled to permit others to use the trademark 'Crystal' and shall maintain the accounts of the product.'13. The younger brother would complain that the elder brother had been instituting cases on frivolous grounds,14. In paragraph 27 of the is 2571/96, he would state:'That the mala fides of Shri Mad...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in : (1998)(62)ECC631
1. Prior to its amendment on 27.12.1985, Section 11A of the then Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 {now called Central Excises Act, 1944, and hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'), provided that for recovery of central excise duty not levied or not paid or short levied or short paid, notice was to be served, on the person chargeable with the central excise duty, which had not been levied or paid or which had been short levied or short paid, by a Central Excise Officer. The power to determine the amount of duty of excise due from such person on whom the notice had been served, was to be exercised by the Asstt. Collector of Central Excise, A question had arisen whether this power could be exercised by the Collector of Central Excise. The Assistant Collector of Central Excise was an officer subordinate to the Collector of Central Excise. There were a few decisions of the Tribunal wherein it had been held that even though under Sub-section (2) of Section 11A of the Act, Asstt. Collector ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi
..... open competitive examination in the case of css stenographers has been examined by various benches of the tribunal when the applicants belonging to central administrative tribunal, bsf, indo-tibetan border security force and bureau of police research and development wanted parity with csss. this is so when there is no provision for direct recruitment to the post of assistant in bsf and cat. the ..... recruitment.11. we also find that the revised pay scale of 1640-2900 has been granted to similarly placed persons in attached and subordinate offices like cbi. central administrative tribunal, border security ordnance factory board employees, crime-assistants in cbi and assistants in the subordinate offices of directorate general of income tax (inv): offices of the cbtd, ministry of finance.12 .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in : (2000)(67)ECC658
1. These are a group of three appeals against three orders passed by Collector (Appeals), Meerut. One of the appeals viz., Appeal No.E/657/93-D has been filed by the Revenue and the other two, by M/s.Vishwa Rattan Refractories (P) Ltd. since the parties to the three appeals are common, they were heard together and is being disposed of by this common order.2. Shri V. Sridharan, ld. Advocate appeared for M/s. Vishwa Rattan Refractories (P) Ltd., and Shri A.K. Agarwal, ld. JDR appeared for the Department.3. First we take up the two Appeals filed by M/s. Vishwa Rattan Refractories (P) Ltd. ('VR' for short), VR were engaged in the manufacture of Fire Clay Refractories falling under erstwhile T.I. 68 and presently under Chapter Heading No. 6901 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. They were also availing of Small Scale exemption under Notification No. 175/86 as amended. The case of the Department is that with effect from 30-10-1987 and upto November, 1988, VR had become ineligible for th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : 2000IVAD(Delhi)257; 85(2000)DLT828; 2000(53)DRJ653
ORDERJ.B. Goel, J. 1. Application (I.A. 12820/95) under Order 1, Rule 10 CPC read with Section 151 CPC has been filed by one Iqbal Singh for being imp leaded as a party in a suit for specific performance filed by the plaintiff against the defendant on the basis of an agreement of sale dated 31.3.1992 whereby the defendant had agreed to sell her 1/135th (8 Biswas) undivided share in agricultural land comprised in various khasras as mentioned in the plaint situated in village Bijwasan for a consideration of Rs. 90,000/- out of which a sum of Rs. 10,000/- was paid as advance. The balance of Rs. 80,000/- was payable at the time of execution of sale deed. The sale deed has not been executed by the defendant in spite of legal notice dated 12.5.1995. The suit was filed on 9.10.1995. On an application under Order 39, Rules 1 and 2 by an Order ex parte temporary injunction passed on 17.10.1995 defendant was restrained from transferring, alienating, parting with possession or creating third part...
Tag this Judgment!