Delhi Court May 1995 Judgments
Home Cases Delhi 1995 Page 10 of about 141 results (0.021 seconds)Arvind Kumar Vs. Rajesh Kumar and ors.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: II(1995)ACC532; 1995ACJ948; 1995IIAD(Delhi)632; 58(1995)DLT691; (1995)111PLR31
C.M. Nayar, J. (1) The present first appeal arises from the award dated 20thOctober, 1987 of Shri B.L.Garg, Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Delhi. The appellant, Arvind Kumar filed the petition for compensation under Section 110-Aof the Motor Vehicles Act claiming Rs. 9,90,000.00 as compensation for injuries sustained by him in the accident. The appellant, it is alleged was driving two wheeler scooter No. Dek 8787 with one Shri Jagdish Chand Bansal on the pillion seat on 21/11/1984 at about 12.00 noon from near Police Picket SaraswatiVihar, Shalimar Bagh on the left side of the Outer Ring road with slow speed when bus No. Dep 6535 driven rashly, recklessly and negligently by respondent No. 1in due course of his employment with respondent No. 2 came from the opposite direction on the wrong side of the road and hit the two wheeler scooter with the front side of the bus. The offending bus stopped after covering some distance resulting into grievous injuries to the appellant and fat...
Tag this Judgment!Babu Ram Sharma and anr. Vs. Kamla Devi and ors.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: II(1995)ACC711; 1995ACJ1070; 58(1995)DLT701; (1995)111PLR39
C.M. Nayar, J. (1) The present judgment will dispose of Fao No. 141/91arising from the award dated 27/03/1991 of Shri J.P.Sharma, Judge Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Delhi as well as cross objections filed on behalf ofrespondents/claimants.(2) The brief facts of the case are that Nirmal Singh aged 32 years. Sub Inspector in Delhi Police died in a road accident on 14/12/1984. The claim petition was filed by his widow Smt. Kamla Devi for self and on behalf of her minor daughterKm.Deepali and minor son Master Digvijay Singh besides Smt. Maha Devi and Shri Kanwar Singh who were the parents of the deceased. Shri Kanwar Singh expired during the pendency of the petition before the Tribunal and his name was accordingly deleted. The claim for compensation was made in the sum of Rs. 10lakhs with interest at the rate of 18 per cent per annum and costs of the petition against the driver Kesho Ram and the owner Babu Ram and the insurer of the vehicle National Insurance Co. Ltd., respondent No. 5 ...
Tag this Judgment!Dhruvco Printers (P) Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1996)(85)ELT62TriDel
1. These two appeals, which have been filed against the Order-in-Appeal dated 31-5-1994 and 7-9-1994 passed by the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), New Delhi involve a common issue of eligibility to the exemption under Notification 59/88 in respect of printed cartons made of corrugated board manufactured by the appellants, herein. The facts, briefly, are that the appellants, herein, manufacture printed cartons and boxes of 3 ply corrugated board falling under Heading 48.08 of Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. They purchased craft paper and duplex board from the market. The craft paper is converted into corrugated sheet and after that the corrugated sheet is affixed to duplex board on a pasting machine and out of this, the printed cartons are manufactured. The Notification 59/88 exempts printed cartons made wholly out of paper or paper board under Heading numbers or sub-heading numbers 48.04; 4805.11; 4805.19; 4807.91; 4807.92; 4808 and 4811.10 as the case may be of the Central Ex...
Tag this Judgment!Collector of Customs Vs. Assam Company (India) Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1995)(78)ELT168TriDel
1. The issue for determination in this appeal is the eligibility of kraft paper bag with inner metallic coating of aluminium imported for re-export after packing of tea to the benefit of Notification No. 97/79 which grants total exemption from Customs duty and Additional duty of Customs to containers of durable nature imported for re-export within a period of six months. The Adjudicating authority denied the benefit of exemption for the reasons that the imported tea sacks are made of paper only and can be used only once whereas durable containers can be used more than once and that the importers were not able to produce any documents to establish that they had claimed the benefit of notification at the time of importation. He also denied the benefit of Notification No. 150/80-Cus., dated 2-7-1980 on the ground that only printed bags of polythene, polypropylene, etc. are covered by Notification while the tea sacks in question are made only of paper.2. The lower Appellate Authority exte...
Tag this Judgment!Jaideep Singh Sandhu Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1995IIIAD(Delhi)1137; 1995(34)DRJ307
M.J. Rao, C.J. (1) The petitioner has moved this petition for quashing the Central Government order dated 1st September,1995 granting maintenance to petitioner's wife and minor child. The Government of India passed an order on 1st September, 1993 granting maintenance to the petitioner's wife and his son of Rs. 1280.00 and Rs. 320.00 respectively from September, 1993, totalling Rs. 1600.00 per month. The compensation was awarded in exercise of the powers conferred under Section 90(i) of the Army Act 1950 (46 of 1950). The order reads as follows: 'TO The Chief of the Army Staff, New Delhi. SUBJECT: Grant of Maintenance Allowance to Smt.Seema Sandhu wife of IC-41377Y Capt. J.S. Sandhu, 10 Armd. Regt. IN exercise of the powers conferred under Section 90(1) of the Army Act 1950(46/1950) I am directed to convey the sanction of the President to the recovery of Rs. 1600.00 per month(Rupees one thousand and six hundred only) (Rs. 1280.00 for wife and Rs. 320.00 for her son) commencing from Sep...
Tag this Judgment!Savitri Devi Vs. Fashion Linkers and ors.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1995IIAD(Delhi)569; 1995(34)DRJ188; 1995RLR491
Usha Mehra, J. (1) The defendants M/s Fashion Linkers & Ors. by this application want this court to hold that the evidence recorded by the local commissioner is neither sustainable nor tenable in law. The grounds for attacking the evidence recorded by the local commissioner is primarily based on the fact that the Division Bench of this High Court in the case of Sh. Deepak Kapur V. Ashok K.Ghose & Ors. reported in : 1994(30)DRJ489 has held that evidence by commissioner should be allowed only in compelling and exceptional circumstances. Since in this case there were no compelling circumstances nor any reason was assigned for ordering the evidence to be recorded by the commissioner, hence the discretion has been wrongly exercised. The Court in this case could not have ordered for recording the evidence by the local commisisoner and consequently the evidence recorded by the said Commissioner is no evidence in the eye of law nor can be read.(2) MR.S.N. Marwah, Senior Advocate, accompanied b...
Tag this Judgment!Sangeeta and anr. Vs. State and ors.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1995CriLJ3923; 58(1995)DLT589
Mohd. Sharnim, J. (1) These are three Revision Petitions Nos. 219/94; 227/94and 10/95 preferred by Miss. Sangita, Mrs. Usha Singh, Mrs. Pooja and Rekha.Besides the above, Mrs. Usha also filed Criminal Writ Petition No. 872/94. All the aforesaid petitions are being taken up together as they raise the same pleas and legal issues which can be disposed of by a common judgment and order.(2) Brief facts which led to the presentation of the present petitions are asunder: that Inspector P.L.Suri, S.H.O. Ps Kamla Market was present at G.B.RoadAlong with a lady constable and staff in connection with his usual patrolling duty during the night of 12/06/1994. He received a secret information that certain minor girls were indulging in prostitution in premises No. 5216, G.B.Road, Delhi.On receipt of the said information, he organized a raiding party and included therein two members of the public known as Rajesh Chawla r/o 2860/3, and Mrs.Sneh Srivastava r/o 107/1, Railway Colony, Thomson Road, Specia...
Tag this Judgment!Commopore C.P. George Vs. Chief of Naval Staff
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 58(1995)DLT578
M. Jagannadha Rao, C. J.(1) These two writ petitions are connected and can be disposed of togother.(2) Cwp 2852193 was filed on 29-5-93 praying for quashing of a 'censure' awarded to the petitioner by the Chief of Naval Staff (1st respondent) and for directing the respondent to promote the petitioner to the rank of 'Rear Admiral' with all consequential benefits on the first available vacancy from any date prior to 4-9-92 when a Junior was promoted to that rank. Later the Cwp was amended, seeking also the quashing of the order dated 17-8-93 of the Central Government rejecting the petitioner's statutory complaint. The amended Cwp was filed on 7-9-93.(3) Cwp No. 572194 is filed on 31-1-1994. seeking quashing of the order dated 7-1-94 and directing that petitioner is deemed to have been continued In service and quash confidential Navy Order 16181 as ultra virus of the Navy Act and Regulations and vocative of Articles 14, 16 and 21 and other reliefs.(4) Petitioner was working as Commodore i...
Tag this Judgment!Manu Ghosh Vs. State-delhi Administration and ors.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1995(34)DRJ212; 1995LabIC2433
S.O. Pandit, J.(1) Rule D.B.(2) We have heard learned counsel for the parties in detail and have also carefully examined the record. We proceed to decide this petition finally.(3) Petitioner, Manu Ghosh, was appointed as Head Mistress of Chhola Nagpur Girls High School, Ranchi, Bihar on 17.7.67. Thereafter she joined as Principal in Vidhya Bhawan Senior Secondary School, Delhi on 16.7.76. She retired as Principal of the said School after attaining the age of superannuation on 30.9.1988. Her pension papers were prepared and she has been awarded pensionary benefits by calculating the service rendered by her between the period 16.7.76 to 30.9.88. Her service period running between 17.7.67 and 15.7.76 was not taken into consideration for deciding the length of service rendered by her. She had approached the authorities in the Pension Department and had requested to also count the period running between 17.7.67 to 15.7.76 and refix the pensionary benefits. Her claim has been rejected and, h...
Tag this Judgment!Hira Lal Vs. D.D.A. and ors.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1995IIAD(Delhi)466; 1995(34)DRJ30; 1995LabIC2196
Anil Dev Singh, J.(1) This is a writ petition whereby the petitioner seeks quashing of the order dated February 26, 1991 passed by the Commissioner(Slum & J.J.Wing), Delhi Development Authority, declining to pay the petitioner anything over and above the subsistence allowance already drawn by him during the period when he was under suspension and not treating the same as spent on duty even though suspension had been revoked on July 25, 1989. The facts giving rise to this petition are as under:-(2) The petitioner was appointed as Ldc in the pay scale of Rs.950-1500 on 19th October, 1974 in the Slum and JJ. Department of the DDA. On January 22, 1983 the petitioner was promoted as UDC. However, on September 1, 1984 he was suspended in contemplation of a disciplinary enquiry On July 25, 1989 the suspension of the petitioner was revoked but without prejudice to the departmental proceedings anticipated against him for which he was earlier placed under suspension. Thereafter on April 9, 1990 ...
Tag this Judgment!