Delhi Court January 1994 Judgments
Home Cases Delhi 1994 Page 7 of about 100 results (0.021 seconds)A.K. Walia Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1994IAD(Delhi)313; 53(1994)DLT279; 1994(28)DRJ269
Vijender Jain, J. (1) The short question arising in writ petition is whether there should be one or different elections for filling up thrce seats of Rajya Sabha from the Electoral College comprising of members of the Legislative Assembly of Delhi. Only three seats of Rajya Sabha have been allocated to Delhi.(2) The petitioner is a member of the Legislative Assembly of Delhi elected on Congress(l) ticket. The Legislative Assembly of Delhi has now 49 member belonging to Bhartiya Janta Party, 14 to Congress(l), four to Janta Dal and three independents. Keeping in view the present strength of different parties in the Assembly if one election is held in respect of three seats the possibility of result being different from the result which may be available if three different elections are held for the three seats cannot be ruled out.(3) Article 80(2) of the Constitution of India lays down that the allocation of seats in the Council of States to be filled by representatives of the States and...
Tag this Judgment!Munshi Ram Vs. Union of India
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1994IIIAD(Delhi)320; 53(1994)DLT330; 1994(28)DRJ345
A.B. Saharya, J. (1) The appellant has filed this Letters Patent Appeal against judgment. dated 17th of October 1977 of the learned Single Judge, dismissing his Civil Writ Petition No. 284/77, seeking a writ for quashing a Memorandum dated 1st of May 1975(Annexure X)communicating decision of the respondent refusing to change his date of birth recorded as 18th of June 1919 in the Service Book, and a Notice dated 28th of June 1976 (Annexure XII) declaring his retirement on attaining the age of 58 years, with effect from 30th of June 1977. According to the appellant, the Government ought to have accepted 29th of September 1924, or, in the (2) The Government issued a circular on 12th of September 1956 informing non metric clerks that they should pass the metriculation examination during the academic years 1956-57 and 1957-58, otherwise they were to be retrenched on 15th of June 1958. In pursuance of this requirement, the appellant passed the metriculation examination and submitted the metr...
Tag this Judgment!LupIn Laboratories Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1994)(71)ELT278TriDel
1. The above application has been filed by the Revenue under Section 35G(1) CESA 1944 for reference to the High Court of the following questions of law purporting to arise out of the final order of the Tribunal extending the benefit of modvat credit of Rs. 79,38,597.50 to (7 ADCA) used as an input in the manufacture of final products Cephalexin and Cephadroxil manufactured by the respondents herein: 1. The party filed Modvat declaration under Rule 57G to avail modvat credit on the inputs to be used in or in relation to the manufacture of final product like Cephalexin which in fact were used in the manufacture of 7 ADCA. The latter is a fully manufactured intermediate product which was never declared by the Respondent in any of the declaration filed under Rule 57G. Nor can complying with this statutory requirement be treated as a 'substantial requirement'? 2. In the facts and circumstances of the case, can M/s. Lupin Laboratories, Ankleshwar be considered as a 'Job Worker' of M/s. Lupi...
Tag this Judgment!Poly Compounds Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1994)(71)ELT318TriDel
1. This is an appeal against the order dated 11-10-1991 passed by the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals) Bombay. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the appellants are, inter alia, engaged in the manufacture of (1) Master Batches of Low Density Polyethylene granule with inorganic chemical and other additives; (2) Master Batches of Low Density Polyethylene granule with organic chemical and other additives; and (3) Compound of Low Density Polyethylene granule prepared with admixture of other additives. They filed a classification list effective from 1-9-1988 claiming classification of the above product under sub-heading 3901.10 on the grounds that in terms of Notes (1), (3) and (6) of Chapter 39 Master Batches cannot be deemed as manufactured products/goods under the Central Excise Tariff Act.However, by his order dated 19-7-1990, the Assistant Collector held that PVC Compound containing organic pigments was classifiable under subheading 3204.19 and PVC Compound containing ...
Tag this Judgment!Kirit Packaging Industries (P) Vs. Collector of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1994)(71)ELT369TriDel
1. This is an appeal against the order dated 27-5-1992 passed by the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals) Ahmedabad. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the appellants are, inter alia, engaged in the manufacture of (1) Master Batches of Low Density Polyethylene granule with inorganic chemical and other additives; (2) Master Batches of Low Density Polyethylene granule with organic chemical and other additives; and (3) Compound of Low Density Polyethylene granule prepared with admixture of other additives. They filed a classification list effective from 1-9-1988 claiming classification of the above product under sub-heading 3901.10 on the grounds that in terms of Note (1), (3) and (6) of Chapter 39 Master Batches cannot be deemed as manufactured products/goods under the Central Excise Tariff Act.However, by his order dated 19-7-1990, the Assistant Collector held that PVC Compound containing organic pigments was classifiable under sub-heading 3204.19 and PVC Compound containin...
Tag this Judgment!R.M. Bagai Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 53(1994)DLT273; 1994(28)DRJ274
Vijender Jain, J. (1) This writ petition has been brought for issuance of writ of mandamus requiring the respondents to immediately and forthwith revise and up-to-date the electoral rolls of Delhi before the elections to the Municipal Corporation of Delhi are held in February 1994. (2) This petition was filed on December 23, 1993 and on the following day the notice to show cause had been issued and the respondents were restrained from issuing any notification regarding holding of any elections for Municipal Corporation of Delhi till the next date of hearing i.e. January 5, 1994. Before that date the respondents moved an application C.M.9458/93 for vacation of the stay order and on December 31, 1993, the court directed for issuance of notice to the petitioner for 2 P.M. on the same day and then the learned Vacation Judge vide order dated December 31, 1993, permitted the respondents to issue the notifications for holding the elections but made it clear that issuance of such notifications...
Tag this Judgment!Future Innovations P. Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1994)LC193Tri(Delhi)
1. This is a stay application filed with reference to the order of Collector (Appeals) Chandigarh dated 16-12-1992.2. Ld. Advocate stated that in this case they have cleared goods on payment of duty from their modvat account.3. Both inputs and outputs are covered by the Modvat Scheme and their declaration and there is no dispute about it.4. The Department is seeking to deny the credit and recover the amount on the ground that the final products were exempted under Notification 53/88 during the relevant period.5. It was their contention that during that time a practice, approved by Department, was prevalent, according to which a Licensee could pay voluntarily duty even in respect of products which were otherwise exempted. Accordingly, in their classification list, they had intimated that they will be availing modvat and the same had been approved by the Asstt. Collector. It was, therefore, incorrect on their part to treat it as an voluntary payment in the nature of deposit only and to ...
Tag this Judgment!Ruby Ranjan Vs. Head of Department Zoology, University of Delhi and an ...
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 53(1994)DLT310
D.K. Jain, J. (1) In this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner, who was an applicant for admission to M.Sc. (Zoology) in Delhi University seeks a writ of mandamus directing the University to consider her for admission to the said Course. (2) The petitioner has passed the B.Sc., Zoology (Hons.) Examination from Ranchi University securing 68.37% marks. She applied for admission to the Post Graduate Course of M.Sc. (Zoology) in the Delhi University in the academic year 1993-94 but has not been selected. Her grievance is that whereas candidates who have graduated from Delhi University with lesser number of marks have been granted admission, she has been denied admission because she has graduated from Ranchi University though has secured more than 60% marks. It is alleged that the method of selection adopted by delhi University is arbitrary and discriminatory because it gives preference for admission to a candidate from Delhi University inasmuch as a candi...
Tag this Judgment!Deepak Tandon Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 53(1994)DLT312
Jaspal Singh, J. (1) The petitioner moved an application under section 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for recalling two witnesses. It was claimed that a settlement had been arrived at and a deed of compromise had been executed but since the same was not traceable it could not be put to the witnesses concerned. The learned Trial Judge dismissed the application persuaded by the fact that the trial had been lingering on for the last number of years and it was felt that in any case the document in question was not that material. (2) Unfortunately, it is true that the trial has been lingering on since long and for that the petitioner too is to be blamed for. However, the fact remains that the petitioner wants the witnesses in question to be confronted with a document which appears to be quite material to the defense set up by him. I feel that mere probability of further delay in the disposal of the matter should not come in the way of something material being brought on the record, f...
Tag this Judgment!Kanwala Ram and ors. Vs. Swaran Kaur
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1994IAD(Delhi)352; 53(1994)DLT671; 1994(28)DRJ500
D.K. Jain, J. (1) This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 27 February 1992 of the Additional District Judge, Delhi, dismissing with costs the suit filed by the appellants against the respondent for separate possession by partition and in the alternative for joint possession in respect of the plot No. J-107, New Delhi South Extension, Part-1, New Delhi, included in Khasra No. 143, Kotia Mubarakpur, New Delhi. (2) The appellants herein and plaintiffs in the suit, had acquired and obtained possession of the said plot along with some other plots vide Exchange Deed dated 11 April 1961 from one Chandi Ram. In the Exchange Deed the size of the plot was stated as 273-1/2 sq. yds. By Sale Deed dated 01 May 1964, the plot was sold to the respondent. The appellants claimed that even after execution of the sale deed in favor of the respondent they were joint owners and in joint possession of the said plot with 207/480 and 273/480 share respectively, but the respondent had raised a build...
Tag this Judgment!