Delhi Court September 1995 Judgments
Home Cases Delhi 1995 Page 14 of about 167 results (0.022 seconds)S.K. Mahajan Vs. Oriental Bank of Commerce and anr.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 60(1995)DLT140; 1995(35)DRJ457
Vijender Jain, J. (1) This is a petition directed against the order of the respondent-Bank impugning the letter dated 31st October, 1985 fixing the pay of the petitioner as Rs.1173.25 paise. However, this figure is wrong, as has been stated by the learned counsel appearing for the respondent at the outset of the hearing of this petition, this should be read as Rs.1495.10 paise. (2) Various contentions have been raised by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Mr.R.K.Singh. The petitioner, admittedly, is an ex-serviceman and under the scheme of the Government for rehabilitation of the ex-servicemen, the petitioner applied for re-employment with the respondent-Bank and was appointed on 17.10.1984. According to him, at that time the Third Bipartite Settlement was in operation and his pay is to be protected on the basis of the said Bipartite Settlement as well as Government of India instructions, which have been issued from time to time to protect the pay scale of such category ...
Tag this Judgment!Swarn Kanta Mehra Vs. Vinay K. Mahendra
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 60(1995)DLT290; 1995(35)DRJ41
Arun Kumar, J. (1) This is yet another case in which inspire of the fact that the premises was let out under Section 21 of the Delhi Rent Control Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act), after obtaining permission of the Controller, the respondent/tenant has continued in possession of the premises till date though the period of limited tenancy expired on 30th April 1983. (2) Briefly the facts are that the appellant is the owner/landlady of a double storey house bearing No.G-211, Naraina Residential Scheme, Naraina Vihar, New Delhi. The appellant was occupying the first floor of the said property. She applied to the Controller on 20th April 1979 under Section 21 of the Act for permission to let out the ground floor of the said property at a monthly rent of Rs.1150.00 exclusive of water and electricity charges for residential purposes to the respondent with effect from the date of permission for a period of four years. On 26th April 1979 statements of the appellant as well as the respon...
Tag this Judgment!Balwant Singh and ors. Vs. Indraprastha Builders Pvt. Limited and anr.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 60(1995)DLT136
Arun Kumar, J. 1. The point involved in the present case is in a very narrow compass. It is: Can a plaintiff having withdrawn his suit under Order 23 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure seek revival of the suit through application under Section 151 of the Code? Briefly, the facts are that the appellants filed the petition for eviction of the respondents tenants on the ground contained in Clause (a) to the proviso to Sub-section (1) of Section 14 of the Delhi Rent Control Act onthe ground of non-payment of rent on 2nd September, 1987. On 9th January, 1991, the learned Counsel for the petitioners (appellants herein) made the following statement before the Additional Rent Controller:'Present: Counsel for the petitioners. Statement of Shri S.S. Malhotra for petitionersAs the agreed rate of rent is Rs. 30,000/- p.m., the petition be dismissed as withdrawn.'On the basis of the said statement, the Addl. Rent Controller passed the following order on the same day'In view of the statement of t...
Tag this Judgment!Elpro International Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1996)(81)ELT598TriDel
1. Shri R.N. Banerjee addressed arguments on the application for rectification of error. To begin with the learned Counsel submitted that there is infirmity in the present two Member Bench hearing the ROM against the final order passed by a Bench consisting three Members. It was argued that a smaller Bench cannot hear to rectify or review the decision of the larger Bench. The learned Counsel argued that in the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Pandurang v. State of Maharashtra, reported in AIR 1987 Supreme Court 535, the Supreme Court has held that what can be done only by at least two judges cannot be done by one judge. Tribunal decision in the case of Shree Laxmi Textile Mills v. Collector of Central Excise, reported in 1993 (66) E.L.T. 459 (Tribunal) was also cited to support the argument that the same Bench should hear the rectification application. It was argued by the learned Counsel that on behalf of the Applicant Rule 31A of CEGAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 was relied ...
Tag this Judgment!Alpine Industries Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1997)(92)ELT53TriDel
1. M/s. Alpine Industries, New Delhi manufacture product named Lip Salve. This product, which is supplied exclusively to the Ministry of Defence for use by members of the Defence Forces, was classified by the manufacturer under sub-heading 3003.20 of the Central Excise Tariff without payment of duty. The Department was, however, of the view that the product should be classifiable under Heading 3304.00 leviable to duty @ 105% ad valorem. A show cause notice was, therefore, issued proposing reclassification and consequently recovery of duty. After considering the reply and hearing the party, the Principal Collector, Central Excise, New Delhi, held that the product was not a medicament classifiable under Heading 3003.20 as claimed by the manufacturer, but the product was classifiable under Heading 3304.00. He, however, extended the benefit of Notification No. 339, dated 22-8-1986 and correspondingly confirmed the demand of duty.2. The Order of the Collector was passed on 26th October, 19...
Tag this Judgment!Bharat Woollen Mills Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1996)(88)ELT60TriDel
1. In April, 1978, the Assistant Collector of Central Excise visited the premises of the appellants herein and drew representative samples of goods purchased by the appellants from M/s. Swadeshi Polytex Ltd. under cover of Gate pass No. 0289, dated 21-10-1973. On chemical examination, the goods were found to contain characteristics of polyester tow and could not be considered as uncut waste as claimed by the appellants. 180 bags containing 2850 kgs. of alleged polyester fibre tow were seized on the ground that they had been cleared to the appellants without payment of appropriate duty leviable thereon by mis-declaration , as Polyester waste entitled to concession under Notification No. 53/72, dated 17-3-1972. The Dy. Collector of Central Excise, Kanpur issued a show cause notice dated 7-10-1978 proposing confiscation of the entire quantity of polyester tow. The defence of the appellants inter alia was that the seizure of 2850 kgs. comprising 1789 kgs. bought from M/s. Swadeshi Polytex...
Tag this Judgment!Deputy Commissioner of Wealth-tax Vs. L. R. Talwar.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: [1995]55ITD385(Delhi)
Per J. K. Verma, AM - All these three appeals filed by the revenue involve common issues and hence they are being disposed of by a common order for the sake of convenience.2. Brief facts giving rise to these appeals are that the assessed is the owner of shares of two Private Limited Companies known as M/s. Talwar & Khullar Pvt. Ltd. and M/s Talwar Silver Brass Co. Pvt. Ltd., Moradabad. The assessed had disclosed the value of these shares for these three assessment years as under :Assessment yearValue of shares as returnedValue of shares as assessed1983-84Rs. 1,02,500Rs. 59,24,8491986-87Rs. 1,03,000Rs. 34,49,4611987-88Rs. 1,03,000Rs. 39,41,2463. During the course of assessment proceedings the assessed had explained to the Assessing Officer that the valuation of the shares had been done according to the report of M/s B. L. Khandelwal & Co., Chartered Accountants, New Delhi, who had valued the shares of M/s Talwar & Khullar Pvt. Ltd. on yield basis by relying upon the decision of the Honb...
Tag this Judgment!J.K. Synthetics Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Delhi
Reported in: [1996]220ITR502(Delhi)
Dr. M.K. Sharma, J.1. The assessed has filed this petition under section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter called 'the Act'), seeking to refer the following questions stated to be questions of law, to this court for its opinion, relevant to the assessment year 1982-8 : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was : (1) correct in law in confirming the disallowance of Rs. 3,65,000 under the provisions of section 40(c) in respect of the payments made to five directors of the company in excess of the limit of Rs. 72,000 prescribed by the provisions of the said section (2) justified in not allowing deduction of Rs. 79,935 from chargeable income being sundry credit balances written back in respect of four parties holding that the assessed had received benefit in respect of the amount and also that there was no cessation of liability (3) justified in upholding the disallowance of Rs. 77,405 out of building repairs ...
Tag this Judgment!Subhash Chander Chhabra Vs. Food Corporation of India and ors.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1995IIIAD(Delhi)1090; 60(1995)DLT147
P.K. Bahari, J.(1) In this writ petition, the petitioner has sought quashment of departmental enquiry initiated against the petitioner vide memo dt. June 2, 1994 and also for quashing the adverse remarks recorded in his A.C.R. for the year 1986 and a writ of mandamus requiring the respondents to grant promotion to the petitioner to the post of Assistant Manager from which date his juniors had been promoted and also for regularising the period of his service from 19th August 1987 to 31st August 1990 and to pay his salary and other allowances for that period and also for placing the petitioner in Selection Grade with effect from 1st December 1987 with consequential reliefs.(2) Facts leading to the filing of the present petition, in brief, are that the petitioner joined the Food Department of Government as Watchman in 1964 and was promoted to the post of AC-III (Depot) in 1968 and to the post of AG-II (Depot) in 1970 and AG-I (Depot) in 1971. In 1985. he was posted at AG-I (Depot) at Food...
Tag this Judgment!Anil Kumar Nahar Vs. Samantha Neelu Nahar
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 59(1995)DLT812
K. Ramamoorthy, J.(1) The plaintiff-husband and the defendant-wife were married on 7.2.1987. On 29.2.1988 their son was born. Unfortunately, difference of opinion had arisen between the husband and wife. thereforee, they found it not possible to live together. The son, who is now 7 years old, is with the husband plaintiff. The plaintiff-petitioner has filed a petition for dissolution of marriage under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act before the District Court, Delhi and it is pending. In the meantime, the husband has filed this suit praying for the grant of injunction restraining the defendant, her agent or servant from taking away the child from the custody of the plaintiff and/or removing the child of the plaintiff outside the jurisdiction of this Court.(2) The question relating to custody of the child is now pending before the District Court in the matter for dissolution of marriage. The apprehension of the plaintiff is that the defendant-wife is trying to remove the child from ...
Tag this Judgment!