Delhi Court February 1995 Judgments

B.N. Dora Prasad Vs. Hotel Samrat

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 1995(32)DRJ505; (1995)IILLJ1145Del

C.M. Nayar, J. (1) The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner for a direction to the respondents for his re-instatement with all back wages as a regular employee and for regularisation of his services.(2) The facts, which are relevant for deciding the present controversy between the parties are that the respondents advertised for the post of Assistant (Accounts)/(Night Audit) through 'Employment News' dated March 26, 1988,which has been filed as Annexure A to this petition. The petitioner applied for the said post and was ultimately placed in the panel at Seriall No.2. There were two posts available, one in the general category and the other in reserved category. The petitioner having been placed at Seriall No.2 was, thereforee, not given any appointment. It is further contended that he was employed as a Daily Wager on his request on April 1, 1989 and on December 14, 1990 he requested the respondents for regularisation on the basis of his selection and satisfactory serv...

Koyana Prestressed Products Pvt. Vs. Collector of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. M/s. Koyana Prestressed Products Limited have filed this appeal against the order of CCE, Pune. In his order the Collector had held: "17. I find from the show cause notice that quantities of various size of pipe cleared during the period from 1-3-1986 to 31-3-1988 have been taken into account for the purpose of calculating differential assessable value and duty thereon. It is not relevant whether the contract was entered into prior to the period of the show cause notice or thereafter. What is material in respect of excisable goods manufactured is the date of removal from the factory. 18. The contention that 'rate per R.M.T. contracted' has been taken in the show cause notice and Annexure-BI, II, III etc. that quantum determined towards freight, cost of Rubber Rings, lowering, laying, jointing, testing etc. complete has been deducted from the contracted price and differential assessable value has been worked out. The duty demanded has therefore, been worked out on proper footing. 19...

Collector of Central Excise Vs. Shardha Medicals Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1995)(77)ELT411TriDel

1. This is a department's appeal filed with reference to the order of Collector (Appeals), Madras No. 68/87 dated 30-6-1987.2. The Respondents have communicated that they do not want to appear and the case may be decided on merits.3. Ld. D.R. stated that the goods in question are plaster of paris bandage (BPC) described as such by the Respondents. The rival entries are 3003.30 claimed by the Respondents and 3004.00 claimed by the Department.4. The respondents had claimed that these are medicaments falling under 3003.30 as they were really not bandage although so called. However, department was of the view that they were bandages which have been specifically mentioned under Heading 3004.00.5. The Ld. Collector (Appeals) has remanded the matter as at that time it was represented before him that the goods were really gauze in rolls and not put out in the form of packings for medical or surgical use etc.6. However, it was the department's contention that the respondents had mis-represente...

Unibros Vs. All India Radio and anr.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 1995(32)DRJ509

M.K. Sharma, J. (1) By this judgment and order we propose to dispose of both the writ petitions, viz. Cwp No.3426/94 and Cwp No.4184/94 as the facts and issues involved in both the writ petitions are similar.(2) The petitioners have preferred the aforesaid two writ petitions before this Court with the prayer for quashing/setting aside the impugned conditions in the press notice dated 27.6. 1994 with respect to works mentioned therein including the work of construction of Door Darshan Bhawan, Mandi House-11, New Delhi. According to the petitioner the three conditions laid down in the press tender notice and quoted hereunder are arbitrary, irrational and have no nexus with the object sought to be achieved. According to the petitioners the respondents have evolved the said three conditions with a view to oust the petitioners from the competition and deprive them of their rights to tender. The petitioners' further case is that said conditions are clearly contrary to the qualifications by w...

R.M. Tiwari Vs. Aditya Singh and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 1995IAD(Delhi)894; 1995(1)ALT(Cri)18; 1995(1)Crimes648; 57(1995)DLT749; 1995(32)DRJ521

M.S.A. Siddiqui, J.(1) This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking relief for the issue of the writ of mandamus to the respondents to pay a sum of Rs. lO lakhs to the petitioner by way of compensation consequential upon the commission of the offence of house trespass by the respondents.(2) Briefly, stated, the facts giving rise to this petition, are as under: The petitioner is a practicing Advocate. On 16.7.1993, one Risaldar Chanda Singh, a Junior Commissioned Officer of the President's Bodyguard Unit of the Indian Army, engaged the petitioner to defend him in a departmental proceedings initiated against him by the Military Authorities. According to the petitioner, on 26.10.1993, at about 7.30 P.M. when he reached his house, he found that his office-cum-residence was put under blockade by the respondent Nos.2 to 8 and 10. He also found two lady A.S.I, Along with 5 to 6 armed policemen standing on the...

State Vs. Ram Chander

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 1995IAD(Delhi)899; 57(1995)DLT745; 1995(32)DRJ462

P.K. Bahri, J.(1) This appeal is directed against the judgment dated February 28, 1987 of an Additional Sessions Judge, New Delhi by which he had allowed the appeal against judgment and order dated November 19, 1985 and 20th December 1985 of the Metropolitan Magistrate by which he had convicted the respondent of an offence punishable under Section 7 read with Section 16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and had sentenced him to rigorous imprisonment for six months and to pay a fine of Rs.2,500.00 and in default to undergo simple imprisonment for three month. The learned Additional Sessions Judge had acquitted the respondent of the said offence. (2) The undisputed facts of the case, in brief, are that on 21st October 1982 at about 1 P.M,PW1 Sh.V. P.S.Chaudhary, Food Inspector, accompanied by Sh.Naresh Kumar, Local Health Authority and PW4 Sh.Siya Ram, Field Assistant had come to the sweetmeat shop of the respondent which was being run under the name & style of M/s.Nanda Sweets ...

United India Insurance Co. Vs. Ram Rati and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 1995IAD(Delhi)1107; 1995(33)DRJ182

C.M. Nayar, J. (1) The present judgment will dispose of the appeal filed by the Insurance Company, Fao No. 6 of 1989 and cross objections (C.M.No.552 of 89) on behalf of the respondents/claimants against the award dated October 3, 1988, passed by Shri V.B.Gupta, Judge, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Delhi. (2) The respondents/claimants filed Claim Petition under Section 110-A of the Motor Vehicles Act (hereinafter called the Act) for compensation of Rs.12 lakhs and for Rs.15,000.00 under Section 92-A of the Act. The respondents/claimants are the widow of the deceased Jai Prakash Tyagi, two daughters, one son and parents. The learned counsel for the respondents has stated that one daughter, Kumari Adesh has since expired on July 21, 1989. (3) The case of the respondents/claimants is that deceased Jai Prakash Tyagi died in an accident, which took place on October 7, 1982 at about 5.45 P.M. The deceased was going on a two wheeler scooter No. DHP- 7070 as a pillion rider and this scooter...

Ganga Devi and ors. Vs. Randhir Singh and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: II(1995)ACC552; 1996ACJ99; 1995(32)DRJ695

C.M. Nayar, J.(1) The present first appeal has been filed for enhancement of compensation as awarded by Shri R D Aggarwal, Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal vide order dated 12th March, 1979. The brief facts of the case are that the appellants filed an application under Section 110A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 claiming compensation for the amount of Rs. 1 lakh on account of death of one Kesho Dutt in an accident on September 8, 1973. While the deceased was proceeding from Azadpur to Rani Bagh on a cycle and having reached the Ring Road near Britania Biscuit Factory, truck bearing No. Hrr 659 came from behind at a very fast speed without blowing any horn and knocked down the deceased. The deceased fell down along with the cycle and sustained multiple injuries and he ultimately died. The truck driver, Randhir Singh, respondent no. I, did not stop the truck and fled away. It is further stated that the deceased was a able bodied skilled carpenter and was employed with the Northern ...

Sunil Puri and ors. Vs. Modi Spinning and Weaving Mills Ltd.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: AIR1995Delhi203; 57(1995)DLT560

Arun Kumar, J. (1) This is a review application under Section 114 read with Order Ixvii, Rule 1 and Section 151 of Code of Civil Procedure. The application seeks review of the judgment dated 10/03/1993 delivered by Hon'ble Ms.Justice Santosh Duggal. The application was filed on 17/04/1993, i.e. after the retirement of the learned Single Judge who had passed the judgment.(2) An objection has been raised on behalf of the appellant/non-applicant that the application is an abuse of the process of the Court and has been filed knowing fully well that the Hon'ble Judge who decided the matter had retired. The judgment was dictated in open Court and if the applicant/respondent had any grievance the same could have been pointed out to the Court then and there rather than moving the present application after the learned Judge had retired on20.3.1993.(3) In reply to this objection it has been submitted on behalf of the applicant thatthe applicant tried to obtain copy of the order after the same ha...

Dayalal Siddibhai Vs. Collector of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1995)(80)ELT632TriDel

1. Since the above appeals involve a common issue and since the evidence is also more or less similar and since common argument is advanced by the learned counsel Shri S.P. Seth for the appellants and Shri Somesh Arora, the learned JDR for the respondent, the appeals are consolidated and disposed of by a single common order.2. For the purpose of convenience we shall take up the Appeal No.E/5360/91-B1 relating to M/s. Dayalal Siddibhai, Jamnagar.3. Appellants M/s. Dayalal Siddibhai, Jamnagar manufactured 'Brass Cast Rods' falling under the erstwhile Tariff Item 26A of the Central Excise Tariff or Chapter 74.01 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 out of the materials supplied by the appellants M/s. Dayalal Brothers and M/s.Milan Enterprises, Jamnagar on job work basis and removed the excisable goods from the place of manufacture to the premises of the concerned parties. Shri Dayalal Siddhibhai is also a partner in the firms of M/s.Dayalal Brothers and M/s. Milan Enterprises, Jamnagar...