Delhi Court October 1996 Judgments

Gurpal Singh Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 1997(1)Crimes412; 65(1997)DLT472

N.G. Nandi, J. (1) $THE petitioner/accused in this petition under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code pray for a direction to the Trial Court to decide the question regarding the admissibility of the documents as per application of the accused dated 29th March, 1995 in Sessions Case No. 54 of 1994, Annexure 'A', since vide order dated 8th May, 1995, the Annexure 'A', since vide order dated 8th May, 1995, the learned Trial Judge ordered that the application by the accused dated 29th March, 1995 would be considered Along with the final arguments. Perusal of the application suggests that the accused prayed for deciding the admissibility of the documents before the final arguments heard in the matter. (2) It is stated by Counsel for petitioner/accused that the documents referred to in the application dated 29th March, 1995 have been exhibited subject to the objections raised by the defense during the trial. Learned Counsel for the respondent states that there cannot be any objection...

S.K. Jetly Vs. Delhi Electric Supply Undertaking and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 65(1997)DLT655

K.S. Gupta, J.(1) Petitioner has filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, inter alia, on the allegations that he joined as Inspector with the respondents some time in 1970 and on 17th July, 1986 was promoted to the post of Superintendent (Technical). Sometime in September, 1991 he was summoned, purportedly as a witness by the Vigilance Department. The concerned vigilance officer ascertained from him about the details, which had led to certain discrepancies in the stock of copper scrap, Pvc cable, Frit tape, Pvc and black tape. It is alleged that on 29th December, 1992, a Departmental Promotion Committee was convened to consider the promotion of Superintendents within the zone of consideration to the post of Assistant Engineer. The petitioner's name was also on the panel. The Departmental Promotion Committee, for the reasons best known to it, did not promote the petitioner despite his having an excellent service record. About 23 officers junior to him were promote...

Mehar Elahi Vs. Verha Mal

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 1997IAD(Delhi)25; 64(1996)DLT641; 1997RLR75

J.K. Mehra, J.(1) This appeal arises out of an order passed by the Rent Control Tribunal holding that the petition for fixation of standard rent of the respondent was within time and fixing of Rs. 75.00 as standard rent in place of Rs. 175.00 which was the rent being paid by the respondent right from the inception of his tenancy. (2) The facts, in brief, of this case are that the respondent filed a petition for fixation of standard rent on 4.2.1972 on the basis of an alleged rent note dated 22nd February, 1971 accepting the attornment of lease in favor of the present petitioner w.e.f. I.I 1.70. The property in question was purchased by the present appellant on 31st March,1968 and at the time of purchase also the present respondent was in occupation of the shop and was paying a rent of Rs. 175.00 per month though to the tenant in his capacity as sub-tenant. (3) The matter w?s first heard by the Additional Rent Controller Shri Jaspal Singh (as he then was) for the purpose of fixation of ...

Sunil Mehra Vs. Baby Rashmi Mehra and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: I(1997)DMC149

M. Jagannadha Rao, C.J.1. The appeal is preferred by the 1st defendant against the judgment of the learned Single Judge in Suit No. 290 of 1989 dated 23.5.1996 and CM 855/96 is for stay of operation of the decree.2. The suit was filed in 1989 by Baby Rashmi Mehra and Mrs. Seema Mehra, minor daughter and wife of the appellant. While the appellant was imp leaded as the 1 st defendant, his father and four brothers were imp leaded as defendants 2, 3 to 6. The grandmother of the 1 st defendant was imp leaded as the 7th defendant.3. The appellant was married to the 2nd plaintiff (2nd respondent) on 22.2.1985 and it appears the 1st plaintiff (1st respondent) wasbornon24.12.1985. The reliefs claimed in the suit are :(1) decree for maintenance in a sum of Rs. 6,500/- p.m. for both plaintiffs and for periodical increase therefore; (2) decree for separate residence against 1st defendant consistent with status of plaintiffs;(3) decree for making provision for marriage expenses of 1st plaintiff;(4)...

Collector of Central Excise Vs. Chitra Indus.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1997)(92)ELT571TriDel

1. In this appeal filed by the Revenue, the matter relates to the classification of the goods - "rotors and stators." The respondents M/s. Chitra Indus, were engaged in the manufacture of rotors and stators. These rotors and stotors were used in the manufacture of monoblock power-driven pumps. The assessees had claimed exemption in respect of these rotors and stators under Notification No. 65/86-C.E., dated 10-2-1986 (as amended) on the ground that their rotors and stators were parts of power-driven pumps which were primarily designed for handling water. The Asstt. Collector of Central Excise, Coimbatore, had classified these rotors and stators under Heading No. 85.03 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as the Tariff) which covered "parts suitable for use solely or principally with the machines of Heading Nos. 85.01 and 85.02". Heading No. 85.01 covered "Electric motors and generators (excluding generating sets)." Electric generator sets and...

Baroda Machinery Manufacturers Vs. Collr. of C. Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. Appellants are absent in spite of notice. On last 3 occasions also appellants were absent though appellants had submitted written submission. We have heard Shri M. Ali, JDR and perused the papers.2. Appellants have failed to produce copy of the original order passed by the Assistant Collector without which it is difficult to unravel all the facts.3. The appeal memorandum indicates that the appellants are engaged in the manufacture of goods under erstwhile Tariff Item 68 of Central Excise Tariff and preferred a refund claim for Rs. 27,346.40 in respect of duty paid on bought out items and on certain design charges alleging that the duty had been paid on these items under protest. The basis of the claim was that no processing has been done on the bought out items by the appellants. Apparently Assistant Collector agreed with the appellants and allowed the refund claim. A copy of the order is not before us. Appellants have produced only a copy of the letter of the administrative office...

Hawkins Cookers Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1997)(92)ELT255TriDel

1. The appellants requested that the appeal may be decided on merits in their absence.2. The appellants are engaged in manufacture of pressure cookers.During the visit of Excise officers on 16-2-1995 certain excesses and shortages were found of finished goods and other materials. After adjudication the Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise, Allahabad ordered confiscation of 558 number of Pressure Cookers and 321.40 Kgs.of Aluminium scrap and ordered to be redeemed on payment of fine of Rs. 5000/-. The demand of Rs. 12,000/- of excise duty was confirmed on 100 Kgs. of aluminium scrap under the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 and penalty of Rs. 5,000/- was also imposed under Rule 173Q read with Rule 226 of Central Excise Rules, 1944.3. The appellants in their appeal memo contended that the factory is situated in the backward area in U.P. The duty on the pressure cooker was introduced first time in the year 1994. They further contended that the number of finished Pressure Cookers w...

Harish Sabharwal and ors. Vs. Lt. Governor of Delhi and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 70(1997)DLT405

C.M. Nayar, J.(1) This judgment will dispose of Civil Writ Petition No. 966/ 96, Mr. Harish Sabharwal & Ors. v. Lt. Governor & Ors., and Civil Writ Petition No. 2373/96, Mr. Pradeep Yadav v. Lt. Governor & Ors. (2) The brief facts of the case are that on December 18, 1995 an open advertisement was published in 'The Hindustan Times' inviting registration for admission to K.G. Class for Session 1996-97 for children of 4+ years as on April 1, 1996 from serving Air Force and Non-Air Force personnel. In response to the said public notice the petitioners registered their children by filling up the prescribed Forms on the basis of their eligibility for admission in 'Non-Air Force' category. THE detailed particulars of the petitioners' children in both petitions can be reproduced as follows: Name of the child Registration No. (a) Master Kunal Sabharwal NAF/175 (b) Kiku Lal NAF/025 (e) Nitesh Ahlawat NAF/173 (d) Jayant Sehgal NAF/425 (e) Nivediata Malik NAF/172 (f) Kashika Yadav (in Cw No. 2373...

Anand Lok Co-operative Group Housing Society Ltd. Vs. the Registrar Co ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 68(1997)DLT246

Devinder Gupta, J. (1) Writ petition 60 of 1987 was preferred on 6.1.1987 under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking to quash (a) order Annexure P-1 passed or. 4.12.1986 by the third respondent in exercise of powers conferred under Section 30(1) of the Delhi Co-operative Societies Act, thereafter referred to as the Act) directing the petitioner Society to hold fresh elections of the Managing Committee in accordance with provisions of the Act and the Rules framed there under within one month failing which action under Section 30(2) of the Act was sought to be initiated; (b) order Annexure P-2 dated 4.12.1986 passed by the second respondent in exercise of powers under Section 55 of the Act appointing Shri D.M. Khaneta, Deputy Registrar as an Enquiry Officer to conduct an enquiry into the affairs of the petitioner Society; (c) show cause notice Annexure P-3 dated 6.11.1986 as to why the allotment made on 27.7.1985 to its members may not be treated as cancelled; and (d) the ord...

Ravindra JaIn Vs. Natraj Albums Industries (Pvt.) Ltd.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 1997IAD(Delhi)420; 64(1996)DLT572; 1996(39)DRJ512

R.C. Lahoti, J.(1) Whether an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act seeking condensation of delay in filing an appeal must accompany the memo of appeal? If the application is not so filed does it cease to be maintainable merely because it was filed a few days after the filing of the appeal? These are the questions of law of day to day recurrence, which arise for decision in this appeal.(2) The order of injunction which is under appeal was passed on 24.5.96. On 25.5.96 an application for certified copy of the order was made. Copy was ready on 28.5.96. The last day of filing the appeal was 27.6.1996. The appeal was filed on 2nd July, 1996. It was not accompanied by an application seeking condensation of delay in filing the appeal. The registry raised a few objections including one of the appeal being barred by time and brought it to the notice of the appellant's counsel. The appeal was returned to the appellant's counsel for removing the defects and refiling the same within o...