Delhi Court December 1995 Judgments
Home Cases Delhi 1995 Page 5 of about 128 results (0.011 seconds)C.M. Khanna Vs. Union of India
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1996IAD(Delhi)149; 1996(36)DRJ170
Usha Mehra, J. (1) Petitioner Shri C.M.Khanna retired as Lt.Coloncl (Time Scale) from Army Service. He has challenged the Special Army Instructions 1/8/87 dated 23rd June,1987 issued by the defense Ministry by virtue of which the respondent implemented the recommendation of the Fourth Central Pay Commission for the officers of the Army. Consequent upon the recommendation of the Fourth Central Pay Commission integrated pay scale of Rs.2300-5100.00 was made admissible to officers of the Army above the rank of Second Lieutenant to Brigadier. But with regard to the officers of the substantive rank of the Lt.Colonel (Time Scale) omission has been made to regulate their initial fixation of pay as on 1st January,1986, in relation to prescribed length of reckonable service as required for substantive promotion. The aim of providing one integrated scale for officers from the rank of second Lt. to Brigadier was to give one scale-related with length of service. But this has been denied to Lt.Colo...
Tag this Judgment!K.L. Mehta Vs. National Seeds Corporation Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1996(36)DRJ114
Usha Mehra, J.(1) MR.K.L.MEHTA who was working as Seeds Officer with National Seeds Corporation Limited (In short the Corporation) was prematurely retired on 13th December, 1989. His appeal was also rejected vide order dated 17th May,1990. The grievance of the petitioner are two fold namely; (i) he had clean and unblemished record of services. Hie was promoted as Deputy Seeds Officer in 1983 and Seeds Officer by Selection in 1985. He completed the probation period successfully after two years, (ii) He was placed under suspension on 26th August,1989, by the order of Regional Manager. This he challenged. The respondent when found going difficult invoked the provisions of Rule 56(j)(I) of Fundamental Rules which respondent could not do during the pendency of suspension. No enquiry was held nor charges were leveled. Moreover, without communicating any adverse entry or remarks regarding his integrity at any point of time, respondent could not prematurely retire the petitioner.(2) The impugn...
Tag this Judgment!Narinder Singh Rao Vs. Union of India
Court: Delhi
Reported in: ILR1996Delhi699
M.K. Sharma, J. (1) By this writ petition, the petitioner a retired Judge of Patna High Court and presently a member of the Kaveri Water Disputes Tribunal, seeks to challenge the decision of the respondent communicated through their letter dated 10/13-2-1995 intimating the petitioner that as per proviso to to Rule 7-C of the High Court Judges traveling Allowance Rules, 1956 (hereinafter called the Rules) no transfer/traveling allowance is admissible to the petitioner since the amount of transfer allowance claimed after retirement was less than the amount already claimed by the petitioner on leave travel concession under Rule 7-A. of the aforesaid Rules. The Petitioner further seeks for a direction to clear his bill amounting to Rs. 15,000.00 towards transportation charges, displacement (lumpsum transfer and packing allowances) and/or to get the same cleared. (2) The, petitioner was a Judge of Patna High Court and he retired on 4-1-1994. Immediately thereafter the petitioner was appoint...
Tag this Judgment!Bank of Baroda Vs. S.K. Aggarwal
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1996IAD(Delhi)203; I(1996)BC429; 61(1996)DLT271; 1995(35)DRJ687
Jaspal Singh, J. (1) Although as many as five issues stand framed on the pleadings of the parties, only the question of limitation has generated heat. It is common case of the parties that if the suit comes out unscathed with the help of section 18 of the Limitation Act, a decree for the sum claimed would follow. Is the protective umbrella of section 18 available to the plaintiff Bank? This, then, is the question. However, before I proceed to answer it, let me provide the facts. (2) The case of the plaintiff Bank is that in or about October, 1972 the defendant was granted a cash credit hypothecation limit of Rs.35,000.00 which, on request, was enhanced in December, 1975 to Rs.40,000.00 . On August 21, 1976 the defendant requested for reduction in the rate of interest. This was followed on January 17, 1977 by a request for further facilities to enable him to repay the pending dues. On September 12, 1977 the defendant wrote yet another letter which, as per the plaintiff, amounted to ackn...
Tag this Judgment!Collr. of Central Excise Vs. Assam Timber Treating Works
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1996)(83)ELT443TriDel
1. The respondent manufactured urea formaldehyde for captive consumption in the manufacture of plywood. Since the product was liable to duty the Assistant Collector arrived at its value in terms of Rule 6(b) of the Central Excise (Valuation) Rules. In calculating the cost of production as provided in this rule he added 10% as the normal profit that the assessee would earn on the sale of these goods. In appeal, the Collector (Appeals) reduced the profit to 5%. The department has come up in appeal against this order.2. Rule 6(b)(ii) of the Valuation Rules provides that, if the value of the goods for captive consumption cannot be arrived at by applying Rule 6(b)(i) it shall be based on the cost of production or manufacture, "including profit if any, which the assessee would have normally earned on the sale of such goods." We have heard the Departmental Representative's argument that (Sic.) should be considered to be the normal profit margin that should be applicable. We however do not fi...
Tag this Judgment!Bhavani Stores Pvt. Ltd. Vs. National Fertilizers Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: [1996]86CompCas477(Delhi)
S.D. Pandit J.1. The plaintiff, Bhavani Stores Pvt. Ltd., is a company incorporated in Singapore under the Singapore Companies Act. Defendant No. 1 is a Government of India undertaking, whereas defendant No. 2 is a nationalised bank. In the month of January, 1995, defendant No. 1 had floated a global tender for supplying of one lakh metric tonnes of urea with certain specifications. Bidders were permitted to offer quantities, they could supply and the price at which they could do so the same. The plaintiff gave a tender to supply 25,000 metric tonnes of urea at a rate of 207 US dollars per metric tonne. The said tender of the plaintiff was accepted and contract was given to the plaintiff bearing No. NFL/CMO/IMC/IV/94-95/65, dated February 10, 1995. The period to supply the urea was to expire on March 31, 1995, and the plaintiff was asked to give a performance guarantee for an amount of 2 per cent. of the contract amount. Accordingly, the performance guarantee bond bearing No. 55 of 199...
Tag this Judgment!Devi Prashad Sharma Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 61(1996)DLT678; 1996(36)DRJ361
J.B. Goel, J.(1) The three appellants Devi Prasad, Dwarka Prasad and Lalji have been convicted by the court of an Additional Sessions Judge, New Delhi for offence under Section 302/34 Indian Penal Code and all the three have been sentenced to imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs.5,000.00 each and in default of payment of fine further Ri for six months each vide judgment of conviction and separate order of sentence dated the 10th October, 1990.(2) Briefly the prosecution case is that deceased R.N.Krishnan was working as Junior Accounts Officer at Nehru Place Telephone Exchange of Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Ltd. On the 17th November, 1987 at about 6.15 P.M. Inspector Niranjan Singh then Sho Police Station Kalkaji who was returning from the office of the Deputy Commissioner of Police and was going to Police Station Kalkaji on the way opposite Hemkunt Tower, near Private Bus Stand Nehru Place on Outer Ring Road noticed that one person was lying on road in injured condition and profusely b...
Tag this Judgment!K.D. Sharma Vs. C.K. Mody
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1996RLR477
Devinder Gupta, J. (1) This appeal is against the judgment and decree passed on 14.3.90 by Shri Prem Kumar, Commercial Sub Judge dismissing the plaintiff/Appellant's suit. (2) On 6.3 80, a suit was filed by the plaintiff against one Shri H K. Mody, (now deceased and represented by his L R.s, the respondents), claiming a decree directing the deft. by a mandatory injunction to sign the deed of sale and to get the same registered in favor of the pff. It was alleged that by an agreement in writing dated 22.10 71, the deft. contracted to sell to the pff. plot No. 21 block 'K' in Hauz Khas, and the house constructed thereon for Rs. 1 80,000%. A sum of Rs. 40.000.00 was paid at the time of execution of the deed. The house was subject to mortgage with L.I.C. It was provided in the agreement that on pff. making payment of Rs. 80.000.00 to enable the deft. to redeem the house to enable him to transfer the property in pff.'s favor, vacant possession would be delivered to the pff. The balance amou...
Tag this Judgment!Taj Mohamad Sheikh Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1996IAD(Delhi)117; 61(1996)DLT197; 1996(36)DRJ268
R.C. Lahoti, J.(1) This is an application seeking review of the order dated 30.11.95 passed in Cwp No.2231/95 whereby the writ petition Filed by the petitioner was directed to be dismissed on the ground of availability of an efficacious alternate remedy by preferring a petition under Section 164 of the Army Act.(2) Vide para 19 of the order, we have held that jurisdiction of the High Court to entertain writ petition in an appropriate case without insisting on the Filing and disposal of pre-confirmation/post- confirmation is not taken away such as where there is a patent lack of jurisdiction in constitution of a court martial or any proceeding thereto. It is submitted by learned counsel for the review-applicant that in the case at hand there has been a breach of Section 130 of the Army Act which strikes at the very root of the Constitution of the court martial and hence the present one is a case where the court should have entertained the writ petition for adjudication on merits without...
Tag this Judgment!Kuldeep Raj Vs. Yash Pal
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1996RLR97
Arm Kumar, J.(1) Rent Control Act (the Act), seeking an order of eviction against the respondent who is a tenant under the petitioner with respect to ground floor of property bearing No. 242, Double Storey, New Rajinder Nagar, New Delhi.(2) According to the landlord he is the owner of the premises and the same was let to the respondent for residential purposes. The petitioner landlord has no other reasonably suitable residential accommodation particularly in view of the fact that ground floor residential accommodation is required by the landlord for his only son Suneel Kapoor. The said son of the landlord is suffering from Post Polio Residual Paralysis of left lower and right upper limb resulting in weakness and deformity and hunchback. He has a permanent disability described as 60% disability. The said son requires to stay in a ground floor accommodation. The premises where presently the landlord is residing is on the first floor for which the said son has to climb 16 stairs. The said...
Tag this Judgment!