Delhi Court October 1993 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.
Pankaj Traders Vs. the Deputy Commissioner of Police (Licensing) and a ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-14-1993
Reported in: 1993IVAD(Delhi)391; 52(1993)DLT385; 1993(27)DRJ533
Dalveer Bhandari, J.(1) The petitioner-firm has filed this petition with the prayer that the orders dated 21.10.92 and 13.7.92 issued by respondent no.2 and respondent no. I respectively refusing to grant N.O.C. for fireworks license may be quashed by an appropriate writ, order or direction. This court issued show cause notice to the respondents on 29.1.1993.(2) Petitioner firm is having its business in Sadar Bazar, Delhi. Chapter Vh of ExplosivesRules,1983 framed under the Explosives Act, 1884,empowers the Controller of Explosives, Agra, a Department of Government of India, to grant licenses in different prescribed forms, including Form no.24 to possess and sell limited quantities of fireworks, crackers as well as sparklers.(3) The applicant for the grant of a new license in Form 24 under Rule 154(4) of the Explosives Rules, 1983 is also required to apply to the Deputy Commissioner of Police (Licensing) for a certificate to the effect that there is no objection to the applicant receiv...
S.K. Enterprises Vs. Delhi Development Authority
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-13-1993
Reported in: 1993IVAD(Delhi)236; 1994(1)ARBLR50(Delhi); 52(1993)DLT281
Sat Pal, J.(1) This application has been field on behalf of the respondent Delhi Development Authority (hereinafter referred to as 'theDDA') under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. In this application it has been prayed that the delay in filing the objections be condoned.(2) In para 3 of the application it has been stated that the notice offering of the award was received by the Dda on 1/10/1992. It is further stated that the Executive Engineer of the Division concerned prepared his comments on the award on 15/10/1992 and the same were sent to the Chief Engineer for approval on the same date. Thereafter the Chief Engineer gave his approval on 4/11/1992 and the file was sent to the legal cell of DDA. On 18/11/1992 the legal cell of Dda is stated to have given its approval. It is then stated in the application that the file was mixed up with some other file and came to the notice of the concerned officer only on 5/02/1993 and thereafter a panel lawyer was briefed and objections were filed...
Neeta Aggarwal and ors. Vs. Raj Wadhwa and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-13-1993
Reported in: 52(1993)DLT273
D.P. Wadhwa, J. (1) This petition has been filed by six petitioners who claim themselves to be eligible to be appointed as Principal of the Vivekananda College, Vivek Vihar, Delhi ('College' for short), and, thus, challenge the re-employment of the first respondent as Principal of the College. The Vice-chancellor of Delhi University and the Chairman, Governing Body of the College have been implead as respondents. (2) Petitioners say that the Statute of the Delhi University provides that every College shall have a duly constituted Governing Body consisting of not more than twenty persons approved by the Executive Council of the University and including, among others, at least two representatives of the teaching staff and the Principal of the College as Member-Secretary. It is stated that the Governing Body of the College is thus a statutory body/authority. The college itself was started by the Delhi Administration and is an affiliated college of the University. It is not necessary for u...
Jagat Singh Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-13-1993
Reported in: 1993IVAD(Delhi)465; 52(1993)DLT407; 1993(27)DRJ619; (1995)ILLJ617Del
B.N. Kirpal, J. (1) The petitioners who are Readers on the establishment of the District & Sessions Judge, Delhi have filed the present writ petition praying for the grant of revised higher pay-scale of Rs.2000-3200.(2) Briefly stated the facts are that the posts of Reader attached to the Additional District & Sessions Judges are equal status posts with those of the Stenographers attached to the Additional District & Sessions Judges in the establishment of the District & Sessions Judge, Delhi. In other words the posts of Readers and Stenographers in the subordinate Courts are based on equal status and have had identical pay-scales.(3) It appears that for want of parity amongst the said Readers with the Stenographers in the subordinate Courts a writ petition was filed in this Court which was then transferred to the Central Administrative Tribunal being case of Shakti S. Pun v. Uoi & Ors. (Case No.T-1050/85). Vide judgment dated 17th July, 1986 the Central Administrative Tribunal came to...
Delhi Judicial Service Association and anr. Vs. Delhi Administration E ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-13-1993
Reported in: 1993IVAD(Delhi)446; 52(1993)DLT536; 1993(27)DRJ541
B.N. Kirpal, J. (1) In this writ petition, the Judges belonging to the Delhi Higher Judicial Service are seeking justice by invoking the principle of 'Equal Pay for Equal Work'. (2) The petitioners are all members of the Delhi Higher Judicial Service (for short the DHJS) who perform the duties of Additional Chief, Metropolitan Magistrate, Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Additional District Judge and Additional Sessions Judge. In addition thereto, as at present, one member of the said service is also the District & Sessions Judge of Delhi. This service has been constituted by framing rules under Article 309 of the Constitution of India and at present the sanctioned strength of the service consists of one post of District & Sessions Judge, 43 permanent and one temporary post of Additional District Judge, 5 posts of Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate and 10 deputation and leave reserve posts. Rule 21 of the Delhi Higher Judicial Service Rules further provides...
Time Pharma Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Oct-12-1993
Reported in: (1995)(78)ELT484TriDel
1. This is an appeal preferred against the impugned order passed by the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), Bombay.2. When the matter had come up for hearing, none appeared for the appellants. However, we find that there was a request from them to decide the case on merits. Accordingly, we have proceeded to hear Shri Somesh Arora, learned SDR to pass this order.3. The appellants are manufacturers of Antiseptic perfumed creams. They claimed exemption under Notification No. 126/86, dated 1-3-1986 which was granted by the Assistant Collector. Not being satisfied with the said order the Department filed an application under Section 35A(4) of the Central Excises and Salt Act on the ground that exemption allowed by the Assistant Collector was not proper.4. There are two conditions for availing the concession at the rate of 20%. They are (i) The products should be manufactured under Drug License issued under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1979 and (ii) Its prices are fixed under Drugs (Pric...
Collector of Customs Vs. Purity Flex Pack Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Oct-12-1993
Reported in: (1994)LC85Tri(Delhi)
M/s. Purity Flex Pvt. Ltd., Ready Money Terrace, Worli Naka, Dr. A.B. Road, Bombay filed B/E No. F-001398 dated 13-3-1990 for clearance of one extrusion lamination plant and accessories imported by them from Korea. They claimed the classification under Heading 8477.20.A query was raised by the department so as to know how they had claimed the classification of the machines under Heading 8477.20. They were also asked to explain as to why the machines should not be classified under Heading 8479.89.In reply to query raised by the Deptt. the importer vide their letter dated 4-5-1990 stated that the machine fell under Heading 8477.20. They were also asked to explain as to why the machines should not be classified under Heading 8479.89. In reply to the query the importer replied that the machine fell under 8477.20 and not under 8479.89 as the machine is a coater/extruder. They gave the detailed process description to justify their claim. They further added that since the machine is basicall...
Wings Wear Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Oct-12-1993
Reported in: (1994)LC83Tri(Delhi)
1. The appellants herein filed two bills of entry dated 7-1-1989 and 11-4-1989 respectively for clearance of industrial sewing machines and parts thereof imported from Hongkong and both the bills of entry were cleared on submission of TR 6 challans for Rs. 5,68,671 and Rs. 90,713/- of Punjab National Bank. Subsequently, Intelligence revealed that the consignments were cleared on payment of production of forged TR 6 challans and the Senior Manager of Punjab National Bank confirmed that the amounts as mentioned in TR 6 challans was not deposited in their Bank. The Managing Director of the appellant was summoned and he stated that the work of clearance had been entrusted to a firm of Clearing Agents, M/s. Golden Eagle Cargo Services, having their office at Karol Bagh, New Delhi and they had handed over two cheques to the Clearing Agent for payment of customs duty. The statement of Sh. Azad Singh Chauhan, Proprietor of M/s. Golden Eagle Cargo Services was also recorded on 10-5-1991 in whi...
Gayways Publicity Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-12-1993
Reported in: [1995]217ITR506(Delhi)
B.N. Kirpal, J. 1. The petitioner seeks reference of the following questions : '1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned Income-tax Appellate Tribunal has erred in rejecting application under section 254(2) dated September 13, 1991, in regard to the allow ability of commission to Shri Chander Mohan to whom the commission has all along been allowed except for 1981-82 and 1982-83? 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned Income-tax Appellate Tribunal is correct in not following the orders dated September 3, 1991, relating to the assessment year 1983-94 even though the facts of both the years are same? 3. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned Income-tax Appellate Tribunal has erred in disallowing commission to Shri Chander Mohan to whom commission has all along been allowed right from his becoming the managing director from the assessment year 1971-72 onwards? 2. The present application...
R.K. Aneja Vs. Delhi Development Authority
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-12-1993
Reported in: 1993IVAD(Delhi)408; 1994(1)ARBLR92(Delhi); 52(1993)DLT332; 1993(27)DRJ537
J.K. Mehra, J. (1) In this case the disputes had arisen under the contract for construction of 208 S.F.S. Houses at Block-B Kilokari vide Agreement No. 15/EE/ED5/A/84-85 between the claimant and the Delhi Development Authority (hereinafter referred to as 'the Objector'). The said disputes between the parties were referred to the sole arbitration of Shri S.S.Kaimal. The Arbitrator after hearing the parties published his award on 14th May 1992 allowing certain claims of the claimants. The Objector felt aggrieved with the said award and filed its objections against Claim No. I, Items 1. i. 1.2 and 1.2.13 and Claims No.2,3,4,5 and 8. At the time of hearing, it was agreed between the parties that no oral evidence need be led and the record of the arbitrator be read in evidence. The claimants have pointed out that in the award itself there is a totalling error inasmuch as the total of the amount awarded under various claims Nos-1,2,3,4,6 and 8 comes to Rs.4,70,946.01 and not Rs-3,87,911.81. ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- Next ›
- Last »