Delhi Court April 1995 Judgments
Home Cases Delhi 1995 Page 1 of about 100 results (0.021 seconds)Municipal Corporation of Delhi Vs. Presiding Officer, Labour Court Iv ...
Court: Delhi
Reported in: [1995(71)FLR854]; (1996)ILLJ473Del
1. The amount of gratuity worked out in terms of statement of claim (Annexure P-3) dated May 10, 1988, is Rs. 50,603.50. Learned counsel for the workman and the petitioner both agree that there is a calculation mistake in arriving at the aforesaid amount and the correct amount is Rs. 45,618.46. In this view, we hold that the workman is entitled to receive gratuity amount of Rs. 45,618.46 with costs.2. Regarding interest amount, according to impugned order dated September 15, 1994, made by the Labour Court, the petitioner is entitled to interest from the date of retirement. The workman retired on November 30, 1986. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that Regular First Appeal was dismissed by this Court on October 8, 1990, and the workman in terms of Rule 65 of Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972 became entitled to gratuity only on October 8, 1990 and, thereforee, the liability of MCD to pay interest on gratuity amount would arise only from October 8, 1990. We do not agr...
Tag this Judgment!Collector of Central Excise Vs. Laldee Pvt. Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1995)(78)ELT717TriDel
1. This is an appeal filed by Collector of Central Excise, New Delhi against Order-in-Appeal No. 567-C.E./DLH/90, dated 20-8-1990 passed by Collector of Central Excise, New Delhi allowing the appeal of M/s.Laldee Private Ltd., respondents herein by annulling the order of the Assistant Collector and directing that their refund claim be sanctioned "if otherwise due, admissible and in order". The Assistant Collector held that their refund claim filed on 5-9-1985 for payment of duty during the period 1-4-1984 to 31-3-1985 was barred by limitation. He had rejected their contention that they could ascertain their eligibility to Notification 83/83 only at the end of the financial period 1984-85 and held their claim to be time barred prior to 5-3-1985 according to the provisions of Section 11B of Central Excises & Salt Act. He had also held that notwithstanding the said time bar provision, they were not eligible for refund as they had not applied for exemption under Notification 83/83 in ...
Tag this Judgment!Collector of C. Ex. Vs. Gujarat State Fertilizers Co.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1995)(78)ELT447TriDel
1. The Collector of Central Excise, Vadodara has preferred this appeal against the order dated 26-11-1993 passed by the Collector of Customs & Central Excise (Appeals), Ahmedabad. The brief facts of the case as brought out in the impugned order, are as follows: 2. M/s. Gujarat State Fertilizers Co. Ltd. (hereinafter called as respondents) have filed this appeal against the aforesaid order of the Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Baroda. The issue involved in the case is excisability and classification of Pre-polymer syrup of Methyl Methacrylate Monomer which comes into existence as intermediate product during the process of manufacture of acrylic sheets from Methyl Methacrylate Monomer (MMA). The Assistant Collector, in the impugned order has held the subject product to be excisable and has classified the same under Tariff sub-heading 3906.10. The impugned order has been passed after the Hon'ble CEGAT vide their order No. 705/91-C, dated 16-9-1991 had remanded the case to the...
Tag this Judgment!Collector of Central Ex. Vs. Thapsons Steels (P) Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1995)(79)ELT523TriDel
1. The Collector of Central Excise, Chandigarh has filed these two reference applications against the final order of this Tribunal. The contents of the two reference applications and the issue addressed by each of them, being identical, they are disposed of by this order.2. The issue in the appeals before this Tribunal was whether modvat credit could be taken by an assessee on the basis of challans issued by the Steel Authority of India Ltd. or gate passes issued by a manufacturer had been endorsed more than one month. The Collector (Appeals) had noted that there was no dispute that the inputs had paid duty and the only objection to the credit was the number of endorsements on the duty paying document. Applying the ratio of this Tribunal's decision in SBS Organics case (1990 (45) E.L.T. 701) she held that this criteria was not valid for denying the modvat credit.The appeals against these orders were dismissed by this Tribunal, holding that the number of endorsement was not the decidin...
Tag this Judgment!Larsen and Toubro Ltd. Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 59(1995)DLT99; 1995(33)DRJ523
M.K. Sharma, J.(1) This writ petition has been preferred by the petitioners challenging the action of the respondent No.2, Oil India Limited in seeking to award a contract relating to a Turn-Key Project for Offshore oil exploration in blocks known as L1, L2, L3 and L4 covered by tender No.BEP/ENG/F/ 93/135 to respondent No.3, M/s. Essar Oils Limited on the ground that the said action of the respondent No.2 is illegal and arbitrary and is in contravention of various terms and conditions of the notice inviting tender read with the various amendments made thereto from time to time. After filing of the aforesaid writ petition, by our order dated 20.2.1995 we issued notice to the respondents to show cause as to why Rule Nisi be not issued. On the stay application filed by the petitioners we issued notice for 1.3.1995. Subsequently on 21.3.1995, after hearing the counsel for the parties and on the basis of the statement made by counsel for the respondents 1 & 2 we recorded that 'in the natur...
Tag this Judgment!Surender Kumar Vohra Vs. Commissioner, Municipal Corporation of Delhi
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1995IVAD(Delhi)935; 1995(33)DRJ443
D.P. Wadhwa, J. (1) The petitioner is a tenant of basement in property bearing No. E-1 and E-2 (Mahajan House), New Delhi South Extension Part Ii, New Delhi, where he was running a restaurant by the name Safina Restaurant. He has filed this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution against the communication dated 15 April 1993 of the Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD) whereby the request of the petitioner for grant of registration certificate from health point of view to run floor shows (cabarets) at the said premises had been rejected and consequently the Deputy Commissioner of Police (Licensing) [for short 'DCP (Licensing)'] also did not grant any license to the petitioner to run floor shows (cabarets) under the provisions of the Regulations for Licensing & Controlling Places of Public Amusement (other than Cinemas) and Performances for Public Amusement, 1980, (for short 'the Regulations') which Regulations have been framed under the provisions of the Delhi Police Act, 1978. B...
Tag this Judgment!Sunil Aggarwal and anr. Vs. Kum Kum Tandon and ors.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1995IIAD(Delhi)627; 1995(33)DRJ599
R.C. Lahoti, J. (1) This order disposes of the plaintiffs' prayer for the grant of ad-interim injunction. (2) The suit is for permanent injunction restraining infringement of copyright, passing of and other reliefs. (3) The plaintiffs are publishers of books. The plaintiffs have published a book 'After 10 + 2 What'. The book was written by Ms. Kum Kum Tandon, the defendant No.1. The book has gained popularity and achieved substantial sales figures as mentioned in para 5 of the plaint. The defendant No.1 has published through defendants No.2 and 3 two books entitled 'Kum Kum Tandon Career Planner - After 10+2 and Beyond What, Where and How'. The first book relates to professions which are associated with commerce and humanities category. The second book deals with vocations which fall under the science and technology category. These two books contain extracts and sections copied verbatim from the plaintiffs' book, copyright in which vests with the plaintiff. As such the defendants have ...
Tag this Judgment!Hotel Kanishka Vs. Delhi Administrations and ors.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: ILR1997Delhi142
Anil Dev Singh, J. (1) The petitioner questions the order of the Industrial Tribunal No. 1 .dated July 31, 1989 whereby it was held .that .the enquiry conducted by the enquiry officer was bad in law and the same was accordingly declared invalid. (2) The petition arises in the Following circumstances. (3) Sixteen workmen, who have been arrayed as the third respondent were employed with the petitioner. Hotel Kanishka, a unit of the India Tourism Development Corporation (for short 'Corporation'). The second respondent Hotel Kanishka Employees Union, of which some of the aforesaid workmen were office bearers, raised a charter of demands for better wages, bonus and provident fund etc. On September 12 1994 the union gave a notice of a strike, in the wake of the agitation of the employees, .the petitioner filed a civil suit and obtained a restraint order which inter alia, interdicted the workmen : '(A)from squatting, staging Dharness, holding demonstrations in and around the premises of the P...
Tag this Judgment!Raj Kumar Nigam and ors. Vs. Khalifa Khajan Singh and ors.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 58(1995)DLT632; 1995(34)DRJ290; (1995)111PLR16
Arun kumar, J. (1) This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 19th January 1993 of a learned Single Judge of this Court whereby two applications of the plaintiffs in the suit (respondents herein) under Order Xxxix Rules I (2) It is admitted position that the defendants (appellants herein) arc owners of the property in suit bearing No.3564,Kucha Daya Ram, Chawri Bazar, Delhi by virtue of duty registered sale deeds executed in their favor by the previous owners of the property. It is also an admitted fact that on the date of institution of the present suit, no construction in the shape of any structure existed in the premises. Whatever structures existed on the premises stood demolished on the night of 30th/31st May 1992. THE learned Single Judge has observed that this was the common case of the parties. This fact is also fully supported by the report of the Local Commissioner appointed by the Court which is on record. That is why the present suit by the plaintiffs for damages., ...
Tag this Judgment!Bharat Vikas Udyog Vs. Income-tax Officer.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: (1995)53TTJ(Del)529
ORDERN. S. CHOPRA, A.M. :The assessed is in appeal against order dt. 28th June, 1969, of the learned Dy. CIT(A) dismissing assessees appeal against penalty of Rs. 19,000 levied by the Assessing Officer (AO) under s. 271(1)(c) of the IT Act vide his order dt. 7th March, 1984.2. The relevant facts are that the assessed is a partnership. It filed its return on 28th July, 1979, disclosing loss of Rs. 1,29,471. The Assessment was framed by the AO computing assessees loss at Rs. 43,471. One of the reasons which led to reduction in the loss computed related to addition of Rs. 57,000 made by the AO under s. 68 of the IT Act being unexplained cash credits/squared up accounts in the names of 9 different parties. The AO noted the following short-term deposits for which he called upon the assessed to explain the nature and source thereof :Rs.1.Shri Johri Mal5,0002.Shri Ved Prakash19,0003.Shri M. L. Kansal2,0004.Shri S. P. Singhal10,0005.Smt. Gyanvati Sharma5,0006.Smt. Pratima Singhal3,000 44,000He...
Tag this Judgment!