Delhi Court May 1994 Judgments

Mahavir Singh Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation

Court: Delhi

Reported in: [1995(71)FLR535]; ILR1995Delhi529

Usha Mehra, J.1. Petitioner, Mahavir Singh by this writ petition has challenged the order of his termination as Conductor by his employer, Delhi Transport Corporation (in short DTC). He has claimed continuation in service with consequential benefits therein. 2. Mr. S. N. Bhandari, counsel for the DTC at the outset took objection to the maintainability of this writ petition, inter alia, on the ground that even though the D. T. C. is an instrumentality of the State as defined under Article 12 of the Constitution of India, still this Court cannot entertain this petition in its extra-ordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The petitioner being a workman and DTC being an industry, the proper and efficacious remedy available to him is before the Labour Court under the Industrial Disputes Act (in the short the Act). In case the petitioner invokes the provisions of the Act, in that eventually D. T. C. would be in a position to defend its action by leading evidence...

G.R. Padmanabha Vs. Union of India and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 1994IIIAD(Delhi)45; 1994(30)DRJ74

D.P. Wadhwa, J. (1) The petitioner, a Sergeant in the Indian Air Force, by this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution, seeks a direction to the respondents numbering five for discharge of the petitioner from service, and further that his option dated 26 February 1980 submitted by him be declared null and void and contrary to instructions issued by the authorities under Air Force Instruction No. 21/79 (Corrigenda 15/79) dated I October 1979. The five respondents are respectively, Union of India through the Secretary Ministry of defense; Chief of Air Staff; Director of Personnel (Airmen); Air Officer Commanding, Air Force Station, New Delhi; and Air Officer Commanding, Air Force Record Office, New Delhi. Under the relevant Air Force Instruction, a candidate will be enrolled initially for20 years' regular service, but those who failed to attain the rank of Corporal within 15 years will be discharged. The petitioner who joined as Airman attained the rank of Corporal and then...

Collector of Central Excise Vs. Maruti Udyog Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1994)(54)LC112Tri(Delhi)

1. The Respondents herein are manufacturers of cars, jeeps and vans falling under Chapter 87 of the CETA 1985 and they had been availing Modvat Credit in terms of Rule 57A read with Rule 57G of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 after due observance of formalities prescribed. In cases where credit of duty had been taken already, the Respondents were taking differential credits subsequently based upon certificates issued by suppliers who had originally supplied the goods on payment of duty, but the same had been varied due to some reason or the other, and such certificates were duly certified by the Jurisdictional Central Excise Officer at the supplier's end. On 7th and 13th February, 1987, the officers of Preventive Unit, Faridabad visited the factory of the Respondents for scrutiny of Modvat records and observed that the Respondents had taken credit wrongly to the tune of Rs. 64,58,282.64/- up to the period of 5.2.1987 in their RG 23A Part II account towards additional duty paid by the m...

Collector of Customs Vs. Tata Elxsi India Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1994)(72)ELT218TriDel

1. This is an application by the Revenue for suspending the operation of the impugned Order-in-Appeal whereby the Collector (Appeals) has ordered for the classification of the imported goods under Heading 4901.10 reversing the Order of the Assistant Collector whereby he ordered for the classification under Heading 4911.99.2. When the application was taken up for hearing, none appeared on behalf of the respondents nor there is any request for adjournment on our record. Accordingly, the Bench in its discretion proceeded to hear and dispose of the present application.3. Arguing on the application, Shri Sharad Bhansali, learned SDR, submitted that the learned Collector (Appeals) failed to appreciate that to qualify for classification under Heading 4901, the test to be applied is whether the item imported is basically a printed matter comprising textual matter. He also produced the imported manual for our perusal. Continuing further, he submitted that the imported manual deals with Oracle ...

Indian Reprographic Systems Pvt. Vs. Collector C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1994)LC522Tri(Delhi)

1. In all these appeals common question of facts and law is involved, hence they are taken up together for disposal as per law.2. In Appeal No. E /3986 & 3987/90-B1 the appellant has challenged the impugned order passed by the Collector (Appeals), New Delhi, and against non-grant of benefit of exemption Notification No. 175/86-C.E., dated 1-3-1986 as amended as per its clause 7.3. In Appeal No. E/5593/92-B1 the Collector (Appeals) has remanded the matter for the purpose of working out the correct amount of differential duty chargeable for both the show cause notices issued against the appellants.4. Appeal No. E/1395/93-B1 arises from Order-in-Appeal No.216-CE/DLH/93, dated 10-5-1993 by which the Collector (Appeals) has dismissed the appeals, as not maintainable, in view of the fact that the Assistant Collector has only worked out the demand of duty in compliance of the order of the Collector (Appeals). He has held that since the appellants did not dispute the amount of demand, the...

U.P. State Sugar Corpn. Ltd. Vs. Union of India

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 1994IIAD(Delhi)757; 1994(29)DRJ424; 1999(107)ELT23(Del)

K. Shivashankar Bhat, J.1. The petitioner is aggrieved by the levy of excise duty by invoking Rule 49 of the Central Excise Rules, under the provisions of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944. 2. The petitioner is a manufacturer of the Vacuum Pan Sugar. In the process, commodity referred as brown sugar is produced containing 90% of the sugar. However, it is in a semi-finished form having very high percentage of molasses. This brown sugar shall have to be processed further to obtain sugar. Between the years 1981-82 to 1987-88 several quantities of brown sugar were kept in the godown unit of the petitioner without being processed further. According to the petitioner the further processing could not be done as the petitioner became a sick unit and its plant and machinery were old and the petitioner had no control over the events. 3. The respondents did not accept the stand of the petitioner. A show cause notice was issued to the petitioner on 24-10-1989 as to why the unprocessed brown s...

Gwalior Ispat Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State Bank of India

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 1994IIAD(Delhi)739; AIR1995Delhi199; ILR1995Delhi473; 1994RLR537

K. Shivashankar Bhat, J. (1) The petitioner seeks a direction to the respondent not to abandon petitioner's project midway, as conveyed in the communication dated 16-10-1993 (Annexure 20). Petitioner also seeks a direction to the respondent to continue to support petitioner's project. According to the petitioner, it applied for a term loan of Rs. 95 lakhs on 18th November, 1988 and on 18th August 1989, respondent Bank sanctioned a loan of Rs. 120 lacs; (the letter Annexure 2, also stated that the detailed terms and conditions applicable to the facility may be obtained from the Nehru Place Branch of the Bank). Petitioner purchased a land in Punjab. A joint term loan agreement was executed by the petitioner and the respondent on 22nd June, 1990 (Annexure 3). Petitioner states that Rs. 25 lacs were disbursed to it towards the loan on 19-8-1990. The loan agreement provides for the waiver of loan disbursements. It seems another Rs. 20 lacs was released to the petitioner by the respondent on...

Mahabir Vs. State

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 1994IIAD(Delhi)746; 55(1994)DLT428; 1994(29)DRJ384

Jaspal Singh, J. (1) The story relates to the year 1974 and revolves around a man in his twenties carrying the name of Mahabir and a woman in her teens known as Sheela.Both were distantly related to each other and in fact knew each other quite well. On September 27, 1974 Mahabir took Sheela to Beharampur. They stayed thereforee about 15 days sharing the warmth of their bodies. When they came back her parents lost no time in taking her to the Police Station where a report stood already lodged by hermother.This saw the arrest and subsequent prosecution of Mahabir. On August 13, 1976 he was convicted and sentenced under sections 366 and 376 of the Indian Penal Code.(2) This appeal is by the same Mahabir.(3) It is the statement of Sheela which holds the key. And, what does it show? It shows that she was quite friendly with Mahabir and had enjoyed his company by the bank of river Yamuna, at a restaurant and at: other undisclosed places. It was she who, on the fateful day, had met Mahabir at...

Subhash and Co. Vs. Kribhco and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 1994IIIAD(Delhi)221; 56(1994)DLT285

Mr. K. Shivashankar Bhat, J. 1. Petitioner challenges the action of the 1st respondent forwarding fresh tender forms for the work of Handling and Transportation work (referred as H & T work) of fertilizer at rail head Moradabad; Petitioner was asked to submit fresh tender forms duly filled on or before 10th February, 1994 (as per letter Annexure D). Similar is the letter dated 7.2.1994 (Annexure E), which is also sought to be set aside. Petitioner, further seeks a Mandamus to the respondents reeling them to fulfill their part of the contract, (on the basis that there has already been a concluded contract between the petitioner and the respondents under which the contract to perform the work had been awarded to the petitioner); other reliefs sought in this writ petition are incidental to these reliefs.2. According to the petitioner, it is a proprietorship concern and 1st respondent is a Multi Unit Cooperative Society incorporated under the provisions of the Multi State Cooperative Socie...

Sg. Manjit Singh Bhatia Vs. Regional Manager, National Insurance Co. L ...

Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi

R.N. Mittal, President: 1. Briefly, the facts are that the complainant purchased a Maruti Car on 17th December, 1991 for a consideration of Rs. 1,68,178.87 and got it insured with the Opposite Party (O.P.) comprehensively. It caught fire on 22.12.91 and a report was made to the police in this regard. The respondent was informed about the incident and a claim was lodged with them. However, the claim was not settled by them for a long time. Consequently, the complainant filed a complaint on 16th December, 1992 for replacement of the car and damages. 2. The complaint was contested by the respondent who controverted his allegations. During the pendency of the complaint Mr. Riaz Rasool made a statement on 23rd August, 1993, that the amount due would be paid to the complainant subject to his completing the formalities. Consequently, the complainant was directed to see the Branch Manager on 25th August, 1993. Ultimately an amount of Rs. 1,60,000/- was paid on 15th September, 1993 which was ac...