Delhi Court September 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.
Bureau of Indian Standards Officers Association and anr. Vs. Bureau of ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-23-1993
Reported in: 1993IIIAD(Delhi)1145; 1993(27)DRJ341
C.M. Nayar, J.(1) The present petition has been filed by Bureau of Indian Standards Officers Association, through its General Secretary, and Shri S.C.Gupta, who is the President of the Association. The petitioners have impugned the Order of transfer dated June 1,1993, transferring petitioner no. 2 from New Delhi to Bhopal and it is contended that the said order of transfer is opposed to public policy and in violation of Article 19(i)(c) of the Constitution of India. It is arbitrary, malafide and vocative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. (2) Petitioner no.2 has been working as Joint Director at Head Quarters of Bureau of Indian Standards, hereinafter referred to as 'the Bureau', till the impugned order of transfer was passed on June 1, 1993 (Annexure D to the petition). The petitioners have felt aggrieved with the order of transfer for the reason that respondent no.2 has exercised his power of transfer mala fide and in order to break down the legitimate activities of ...
R.P. Sharma Vs. Vice Chairman Delhi Development Authority and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-23-1993
Reported in: 1993IVAD(Delhi)39; 1994(28)DRJ197
D.P. Wadhwa, J. (1) This petition is directed against the order of the Vice Charman, Delhi Develop- ment Authority, dated 13February 1991 imposing a penalty of reduction in the petitioner's milk, an Executive Engineer in the Delhi Development Authority ('D.D.A.' for short), a body constituted under the Delhi Development Act, 1957 ('the Act' turn short). The petitioner has .sought a declaration that Delhi Development Authority (Salaries, Allowances and Conditions of Service) Regulations, 1961 (for short 'Regulations of 1961') are in force and binding upon the respondent D.D.A., and further to declare that powers to initiate disciplinary action for major penalty against Class I officer in which category the petitioner was placed vests only in the Central Government and that the order imposing penalty upon him could have been imposed only by the Central Government and not by The Vice Chairman.(2) The impugned order is dated 13 February 1991 whereby the Vice Chairman, D.D.A., in exercise o...
Basant Ispat Udyog Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Sep-22-1993
Reported in: (1994)(69)ELT78TriDel
1. Penalty of Rs. 40,000/- has been imposed on the appellants for alleged failure to apply for Central Excise Licence after crossing the 80% of the exemption limit.2. On behalf of the appellants it is contended that they had actually applied for the licence on 9-10-1990 as they were likely to cross the 80% of the exemption limit and as required vide Notification No.175/86-C.E., dated 1-3-1986. It was added that the same was also granted on 16-10-1990. Meanwhile, they crossed 80%, of the exemption limit. As they had applied for Central Excise licence before crossing 80% of the exemption limit, no penalty was leviable it is contended.3. Learned SDR reiterated the Order-in-Original. He argued that once the appellants crossed 80% of the exemption limit they could not work without a Central Excise licence.4. Considered. The provisions of Section 6 of Central Excises and Salt Act read with Rule 174 of Central Excise Rules, 1944 no doubt require a manufacturer of excisable goods to obtain a ...
Delhi Transport Corporation Vs. NitIn Transport Co. and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-22-1993
Reported in: 1994(28)DRJ49
Mahinder Narain, J. (1) Mr. M.C. Garg has filed written statement on behalf of State Transport Authority, the added defendant. (2) In this suit, the plaintiff seeks injunction, restraining the Nitin Transport Company, defendant No. 1, from violating the terms of the contract carriage permit, which has been granted to defendant No. 1. (3) Issues framed by this Court, include an issue, as to whether the plaintiff has locus standi to file the suit. (4) The Stage Carriage Permits or Contract Carriage Permits are granted under the Motor Vehicles Act. These permits are not granted under the Road Transport Corporation Act. This is clear from the perusal of Section 2(7) of the Motor Vehicle Act. (5) The licensing procedure for the grant of Stage Carriage Permit and the Contract Carriage Permit are mentioned in sections 72 and 74 of the Motor Vehicle Act. The general conditions attached to all the permits are mentioned in section 84, and cancellation and suspension of permits are dealt with by ...
Municipal Corporation Delhi Vs. Savitri Devi
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-22-1993
Reported in: 53(1994)DLT109; 1993RLR620
V.B. Bansal, J.(1) Municipal Corporation of Delhi (for short the appellant) has filed this Regular Second Appeal against the order dated 20.10.1992 of ShriS.N. Dhingra, Additional District Judge, Delhi, thereby dismissing the application moved by the appellant under Section 5 of the Limitation Act and, consequently, the appeal against the judgment and decree dated 22.10.1990 of Shri C.K. Chaturvedi, Sub-Judge, 1st Class, Delhi, was also dismissed. (2) The learned Sub-Judge had passed a decree in favor of Smt. Savatri Rana and against the Municipal Corporation of Delhi for a declaration that her termination from service under Rule 5(1) of the Central Civil Services (Temporary Rules), 1965 was bad in law and the order dated 28.7.1977 terminating her services was set aside. It was also declared that the plaintiff continued to be in service and would, thus be entitled to the consequential benefits. (3) The case of the appellant has been that an application was moved for obtaining certified...
The Chaudhary Co-operative Poultry Society Ltd. and anr. Vs. the Union ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-22-1993
Reported in: 1993(27)DRJ560
D.P. Wadhwa, J.(1) By this petition filed on 16 December 1992 under Article 226 of the Constitution the petitioners seek an appropriate writ, direction or order in the nature of certiorari quashing the notification dated 27 January 1984 issued under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act (for short 'the Act'). The petitioners also seek a mandamus directing the respondents to release the land of the petitioners. The land in question is stated to be bearing Khasra Nos. 4/26 and 37, measuring 5 bighas and 5 bids was situated in the revenue estate of village Bagdoula, Delhi. By the impugned notification a big chunk of land measuring 3550 hectares was sought to be acquired. (2) A declaration under section 6 of the Act was issued on 24 September 1984 and the award was made on 19September 1986. We find the petitioners earlier filed a writ petition No. 1945/86 on 23 September 1986 also challenging the impugned notification and seeking a restraint on the respondents not to dispossess the petitio...
Laxmi Board and Paper Mills (P) Vs. Collector of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Sep-21-1993
Reported in: (1993)(68)ELT857TriDel
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 final hearing none has appeared for the appellants. However, we find that there was a request from them to decide the case on merits and based upon written submissions.Accordingly, on perusal of the records, we have proceeded to hear the departmental representative for passing this order.3. The appellants are engaged in the manufacture of paper and paper boards. They manufacture inter alia M.G. kraft paper and kraft liner etc. The issue relates to benefit of exemption notification in terms of Notification No. 46/83 dated 1-3-1983. Arguing for the Revenue Ms.Praveen Mahajan, learned SDR, submitted that appellants have claimed benefit of exemption in terms of Notification No. 46/83 in respect of paper of the substance having 220 gms. It was declared in the classification list the substance of paper manufactured by them exceeds 25 gms an...
Sardar Aluminium Factory Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Sep-21-1993
Reported in: (1994)(71)ELT76TriDel
1. When the matter was called, Shri J.S. Agarwal the learned advocate appearing for M/s. Sardar Aluminium Factory, submitted that Rule 57G(2) speaks of the bill of entry. There is no further procedure laid down about the endorsement in the rule. He submitted that the goods were imported by M/s. Metal Trading Company and were sold to appellant in original packings. This aspect has been verified by the Superintendent and this is evidenced from the Supdt. Central Excise's endorsement on the face of the bill of entry. He submitted that even there is a letter of the Asstt. Collector (Audit) clarifying that when the importer endorsed the bill of entry in favour of actual user, one endorsement may be accepted as a duty paying document for modvat. Subsequent endorsements should not be accepted and no modvat credit is to be allowed on them. The learned advocate also cited the judgment of the Tribunal in the case of S.B.S. Organics Pvt. Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise & Customs, reporte...
Home Communication Ltd. and anr. Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-21-1993
Reported in: 1993IIIAD(Delhi)1013; 52(1993)DLT168
D.P. Wadhwa, J.(1) All these petitions have been beard together,as same questions either in, support or against the scheme for allotment of time slots on satellite channels of Doordarshan arise therein. Pleadings are, however, complete in C.W.P. 3248/93 filed by Bannett, Coleman & Co.Limited which we will generally refer to in the course of this judgment.(2) Civil Writ Petition No. 3104/93 was filed by Home Communication Network Ltd. and another in 6/07/1993. In this a restraint order is sought on the respondents not to deviate from the basis of first come first served (FCFS' for short) set out in the scheme, and for setting aside the decision order dated 3/07/1993 seeking to change the FCFS basis of allotment of time slots. Civil Writ Petition 3117/93 was filed by Dr. Arvind Gupta also on 6/07/1993. In this the petitioner prayed for a writ that effect not be given to public notice inviting applications from 'interested applicants' for preferential allotment of time slots to different ...
Harbhajan Kaur Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-21-1993
Reported in: 52(1993)DLT54; 1993(27)DRJ401; 1994(73)ELT269(Del)
S.C. Jain, J. (1) Both these petitions i.e. Cr.M(M) 1659 of 1991 and Cr.M(M) No. 2937 of 1992 have arisen out of the same facts and the questions of law in both these petitions are the same and so I propose to dispose of both these petitions by this common order.(2) The facts giving rise to these petition are that on 23.7.1984 the customs officers had intercepted one Auto Rickshaw No.DLR 8981 on Sadhu Vaswani Marg.Opp.Springdales School, New Delhi, in which one person, later on known as Sat Pal Arora, was traveling carrying two zipper bags and on search of the said two bags goods alleged to be of foreign origin were found. As a follow-up action on the basis of disclosures allegedly made by Sat Pal Arora, the residential premises at 16/96 Subhash Nagar, New Delhi in occupation of Sunil Kumar Sharma were searched and as a result of search, miscellaneous goods of foreign origin including wrist watches totally valued at Rs. 1,67,440 were recovered.(3) On the basis of the said recoveries an...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- Next ›
- Last »