Delhi Court July 1995 Judgments

Union of India Vs. D.L.F. United Limited

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 59(1995)DLT623

M.K. Sharma, J. (1) This is an appeal filed by the Union of India under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) against the enhancement of compensation payable to the claimant/respondent under the award dated 20.11.1979 in Lac No. 445/1974 passed by the Additional District Judge, Delhi for the land belonging to the company at Village Bahapur, Delhi acquired for public purposes under Notification dated 13.11.1972 under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act.(2) By the aforesaid notification dated 13.II.1972 issued under Section 4 of the Act a total land measuring 14 bids was situated within Khasra No. 1228/115 of Village Bahapur was acquired and the Land Acquisition Collector by his Award No. 66/73-74 assessed the land acquisition compensation for the said land at Rs. 11,000.00 per bigha. From the award passed by the Land Acquisition Collector it appears that on coming to this conclusion for determination of the Land Acquisition compensation form...

Nawal Kishore and ors. Vs. Union of India and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: AIR1996Delhi114; 1995(34)DRJ421

M.K.Sharma, J. (1) This is an appeal filed by the claimant/appellant under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) against the determination of compensation payable to the claimant/appellant under the award No.1422 in L.A.C case No.515/68 passed by the Additional District Judge, Delhi dated 24.10.1986.(2) By the aforesaid notification under Section 4 of the Act a total land measuring 20 bighas and 2 bids was in all was acquired wherein the appellant/claimant had 1/3rd share. The declaration under Section 6 of the Act was made on 12.9.1962. The Land Acquisition Officer divided the land into 2 blocks and awarded the market value of Rs.2,000.00 and Rs.1,500.00 per bigha for the land placed in the said two blocks.. The disputed land was categoriesed in block 'A' and the Land Acquisition Collector assessed the market value of the disputed land at Rs.2,000.00 per bigha.(3) On reference the Additional District Judge, Delhi through the impugned award e...

Union of India Vs. Prabhu Dayal Bhargava

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 1995(35)DRJ69

M.K. Sharma, J. (1) This is an appeal filed by the Union of India under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter called the Act) against the enhancement of compensation payable to the claimant/respondent under the award dated 8.7.1975 in Lac No.183/68-527/1972 passed by the First Additional District Judge, Delhi, for his land at Village Bahapur, Delhi, acquired for public purposes under notification dated 13.11.1959 under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act.(2) By the aforesaid notification issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, total land measuring 145 Bighas 3 bids was was acquired and the declaration under Section 6 of the Act was made on 24.3.1962. The Land Acquisition Collector divided the entire land into two blocks and awarded the market value of Rs.3,500.00 and Rs.2,500.00 per bigha to the land placed in the said two blocks. On reference the Additional District Judge through the impugned award enhanced the compensation amount and determined the s...

Bhullan Vs. Ehsan Elahi and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 1995IIIAD(Delhi)373; 59(1995)DLT324; 1995(34)DRJ475

C.M. Nayar, J. (1) The present second appeal is directed against the judgment dated December 14, 1976, of Additional District Judge, Delhi. The learned Judge upheld the judgment dated March 31,1975 of the trial court in suit No. 424/75. (2) The brief facts of the case are that one Mehboob Elahi filed a suit for partition in respect of property bearing Municipal Nos. 7590 to 7592 situated in Gali Ghante Wali, Qasabpura, Delhi alleging that Badruddin was the owner of the aforesaid properties having obtained the same in family partition on September 18, 1944; that be had four sons, namely, Mehboob Elahi, Noor Elahi, Maqbool Elahi and Fazal Elahi and one daughter Smt. Bhullan appellant/defendant herein. Badruddin died on March 2, 1968 and, as a consequence, his sons and daughters became owners of the aforesaid properties; that the sons had 2/9th share each while Smt. Bhullan had 1/9th share; that Mehboob Elahi did not want to keep his share with other heirs and thus he filed a suit for par...

Delhi Development Authority Vs. Tika Ram

Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi

A.P. Chowdhri, President: 1. This appeal is directed against order of District Forum II dated 9.1.95 disposing of two complaints involving common questions of fact and law. It will be convenient to refer to the facts of the case of Tika Ram, MIG flat A-11 /38 in Sector 18, Rohini was allotted to him. In this connection demand letter was issued on 21.2.90, the amount of Rs. 1,54,700/- was deposited on 17.4.90 and other formalities were completed on 19.4.90 and respondent Tika Ram was given possession letter on 5.7.90. Possession was actually delivered on 27.2.91. The Complainant claimed interest for the period of delay. 2. The plea of D.D.A. in the written statement was that possession could not be delivered earlier as water, electricity and sewerage lines had not been laid by MCD/DESU and W.S. and S.D.U. which were independent bodies and not within the control of D.D.A. 3. The learned District Forum took the view that for failure to provide basic services at the time of delivery of pos...

Ramaraju Surgical Cotton Mills Vs. Collr. of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1995)(80)ELT217TriDel

1. This is an appeal against the order of Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), Madras, dated 30-11-1987.2. The appellants' advocate has sent a letter dated 19-11-1994, mentioning, inter alia, that the matter may be disposed of on merits or adjourned to another date.3. Since it was observed that the matter had already been adjourned several times earlier, hence it was decided to proceed with the matter.4. We have accordingly gone through the appeal memorandum and allowed the learned Departmental Representative to make his submissions.5. The learned D.R. stated that the issue relates to classification of plaster of paris and the rival entries are 2505.00 claimed by the appellants and 3005.90 claimed by the Department.6. It was the appellants' contention that Heading 2505 includes plasters with a basis of calcium sulphate and by virtue of Chapter Note 1(b) of Chapter 25, products of Chapter 30 only are excluded.Furthermore, according to the appellants, the plaster of paris is excluded ...

Collector of Central Excise Vs. Ultima Search

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1996)(81)ELT221TriDel

1. This is Department's appeal against the order of Collector (Appeals), Ahmedabad dated 11-8-1992.2. The learned Departmental Representative stated that the issue revolves round the classification of a product called Rodenticide. The rival entries are 3808.10 claimed by the Department and 3808.90 claimed by the respondent. These entries read as follows :--------------------------------------------------------------------------Heading Sub-head- Description of goods Year Rate ofNo. ing No. duty------------------------------------------------------------------------- 3808.10 - Insecticides, fungicides, 10-2-1987 Nil herbicides, weedicides and 3808.90 - Other 10-2-1987 15%------------------------------------------------------------------------- 3. The learned D.R. argued that since the product is Rodenticide and Rodenticides are not mentioned under Heading 3808.10, therefore, they are excluded from 3808.10 and in the circumstances they could only be classified under 3808.90.4. The respon...

Union of India Vs. Auto and General Engg. Co. and Others

Court: Delhi

Reported in: [1996]85CompCas670(Delhi); 1995(35)DRJ25; 1995(80)ELT246(Del)

Anil Dev Singh, J. 1. This is a petition under article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the orders of the third respondent Chairman, Foreign Exchange Regulation Appellate Board, dated December 6, 1993, and March 28, 1994. Briefly stated the facts are as under : 2. Respondent No. 1, Auto General Engineering Company, exported agricultural equipment worth Rs. 1,92,002.66 and Rs. 1,00,845 to Bacha Inc. Sanfransico California, a subsidiary of the first respondent. The Reserve Bank of India, vide its letters dated June 27, 1983, and August 21, 1984, intimated the Directorate of Enforcement that the exporter had failed to realise the export proceeds. Pursuant to the investigation, it was revealed that non-realisation of the export proceeds was to the tune of U.S. dollars 1,81,897.68 and 97,886.00. On February 23, 1988, a notice was issued by the Director, Enforcement Directorate, to the first respondent and its partners, respondent No. 2 and Mrs. Iqbal Kaur Chadha, requiring them ...

Union of India Vs. Auto and General Enggineering Co. and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 1996(54)ECC20

Anil Dev Singh, J.(1) This is a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging orders of the third respondent Chairman, Foreign Exchange Regulation Appellate Board dated December 6, 1993 and March 28, 1994. Briefly stated the facts are as under:-(2) Respondent No. 1, Auto General Engineering Company exported agricultural equipment worth Rs. 1,92,002.66 and Rs. 1,00,845.00 to M/s. Bacha Inc. Sanfransico California, a subsidiary of the First respondent. The Reserve Bank of India vide its letters dated June 27, 1983 and August 21, 1984, intimated the Directorate of Enforcement that the exporter had failed to realize the export proceeds. Pursuant to the investigation, it was revealed that non-realisation of the export proceeds was to the tune of U.S. dollars 1,81,897.68 and 97,886.00. On February 23, 1988, a notice was issued by the Director, Enforcement Directorate to the First respondent and its partners respondent No.2 and Mrs. Iqbal Kaur Chadha, requiring them to s...

Attaur Rehman Vs. M.C.D. and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 1995IIIAD(Delhi)1029; 59(1995)DLT476

L. Prasad, J.(1) The Petitioner, named above, who is an employee of the Municipal Corporation of Delhi (hereinafter referred to as 'the MCD') has filed the present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution praying for issuance of directions to the Mcd to consider him for promotion to the post of Administrative Officer from the cadre of Translators. (2) Brief facts, which are necessary to dispose of this writ petition, are recapitulated as under :- (3) The Petitioner and Respondent No. 2, while working with the M.C.D. (Respondent No.1) appeared in the test for selection to the post of Translator in the grade of Rs. 550-900 (prerevised) from their substantive cadre. In the test, the Petitioner obtained 99 marks while Respondent No. 2 obtained 98 marks and 478 accordingly in the merit list, issued by the Respondent Mcd, the Petitioner was shown at Seriall No. 3 while the Respondent No. 2 at Seriall No. 4. On the basis of the selection, mentioned above, the Petitioner and Respond...