Delhi Court March 1996 Judgments

Dr. Parimal Roy Vs. All India Institute of Medical Sciences and Others

Court: Delhi

Reported in: AIR1996Delhi334

ORDER1. The petitioner has filed this petition against the All India Institute of Medical Sciences, Delhi. The petitioner is a sponsored candidate of the Government of West Bengal and is desirous of pursuing MD course in medicine or Obstretics and Gynaecology. The main grievance of the petitioner is that he has been grossly discriminated in the admission to the MD course in the foreign-cum-sponsored quota for the academic session of January, 1996 by the respondents.2. A detailed procedure for admission for sponsored candidates has been mentioned inthe prospectus of post-graduate courses session -- January, 1996 of the All India Medical Institute of Medical Sciences. The procedure is set out as under:'PROCEDURE FOR ADMISSION FOR 'SPONSORED' CANDIDATES (a) Candidates who are permanent employees of any Central, State Government or the Armed Forces can be sponsored by the respective Government or the defense Authorities. (b) All such 'sponsored' candidates will be invited by the AIIMS for ...

Naresh Kumar Vs. State

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 1996CriLJ4105

P.K. Bahri, J. 1. Appellant-Naresh has been convicted of offences punishable under Ss. 302, 324 of the Indian Penal Code and S. 27 of the Arms Act vide judgment dated May 20, 1992 and by subsequent order dated May 26, 1992, has been sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/- and in default to pay fine to undergo one year rigorous imprisonment on the first count and rigorous imprisonment for one year on the second count and rigorous imprisonment for three years and a fine of Rs. 1,000/- and in default to pay fine to undergo rigorous imprisonment for nine months on the third count with the direction that the substantive sentences of imprisonment shall run concurrently, by an Additional Sessions Judge, Delhi. He has come up in appeal in challenging his convictions and sentences. 2. The facts of the case, in brief, are that PW 4 Smt. Nirmala was married to appellant-Naresh in the year 1984. Her father Hari Ram was employed as sweeper with municipal authorit...

Poysha Indl. Co. Ltd. Vs. Collector of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1996)(86)ELT141TriDel

1. Appellant is absent in spite of notice of hearing. On the last date of posting the appeal was adjourned on the basis of appellant's letter.Nevertheless, appellant has not made arrangement for representation, nor is there any request for adjournment. We have heard Shri Vipin Handa, learned SDR and perused the papers.2. Appellant imported 595.689 M.T. of tin plate prime and presented 16 Bills of Entry for clearance as actual user under specific licence with expiry date 31-3-1987. Collector, after show cause notice and opportunity of personal hearing held that shipment was made on 13-4-1987 some days after the expiry of the licence and therefore, the import was not covered by any valid licence. The Collector also found that there was misdeclaration of value. Accordingly, the Collector ordered confiscation subject to redemption, fixed the redemption fine and directed demand of differential duty. This order is now challenged.3. There are two questions which arise now for consideration o...

S.N. Aggarwal Vs. State Bank of India and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 1996IIAD(Delhi)565; 63(1996)DLT865

Dalveer Bhandari, J.(1) This is an application under Order 23 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, filed on behalf of the respondent. It is prayed in this application that because of false assertions and misleading statements in this writ petition. Rule be discharged and the writ petition be dismissed with heavy costs. (2) The petitioner has filed the present writ petition challenging inter alias the order dated 17th August, 1994 passed by the Appointing Authority inflicting major penalty on the petitioner. (3) In this application, it is submitted by the learned Counsel for the respondents that the petitioner has filed an identical petition before this Court, i.e., Civil Writ Petition 4307/94 in which the petitioner has prayed for exactly identical relief. The prayer of the said writ petition reads as under : '(I)issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction quashing the order imposing major penalty on the petitioner vide respondent's letter No. VIGL/13...

R.C. Sood and Co. (P) Ltd. Vs. Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practi ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: [1996]86CompCas626(Delhi); 62(1996)DLT272; 1996(38)DRJ118

Anil Dev Singh, J.(1) RULE.(2) By this writ petition, the petitioners challenge the notice issued by the first respondent dated June 29, 1994 calling upon the petitioners to appear before it in connection with the application of the second respondent under Section 12-B of the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Act, 1969 (for short 'the Mrtp Act') claiming compensation from the petitioners. Briefly stated, the facts are as follows:-(3) The second respondent who is a member of Eros Garden Colony, Charmwood Village Suraj Kund Welfare Association, booked a flat with the petitioners in Eros Garden Colony, Charmwood Village. In the year 1993 possession of the flat was taken by the second respondent. On April 6, 1994 the second respondent filed an application before the first respondent Mrtp Commission under Section 12-B of the Act staling that the petitioners had indulged in restrictive trade practices in the mailer of sale of flat to the second respondent as a result of which he suf...

Ram Kishan Vs. Municipal Corporation of Delhi

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 62(1996)DLT252; 1996(38)DRJ63

Dalveer Bhandari, J.(1) The petitioner has filed this application against the order dated 16th March, 1995 by which the revision petition Filed by the petitioner was dismissed. Brief facts which are necessary to dispose of this application arc recapitulated as under: The case of the petitioner is that a piece of land measuring 85 sq.yds. forming part of Khasra no.624, 278 situated in village Hauz Khas, New Delhi has in his possession for a long time. (2) It is submitted that the Mcd at the behest of Bhim Singh and Mangat Singh are trying to dispossess the petitioner from the land in question, and the petitioner was compelled to file a suit for permanent injunction against the MCD. On 27.11.93, the learned Sub Judge directed the parties to maintain status quo. Again on 17.2.1994, the learned Sub Judge passed the following order. 'PT.counsel for parties Defendant seeks adjournment Plaintiff has pressed for stay. As per the plaint, the plaintiff has already obtained status quo order with ...

Amar Nath Aggarwal Vs. Northern Railway

Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi

A.P. Chowdhri, President: 1. The appellant alongwith about 20 persons under-took a journey by Railway. On 24.5.91, when the Mahalaxmi Express in which they were travelling from Bombay to Vascodegama, two incidents of chain snatching took place. The train was stopped by pulling the alarm chain. The Guard failed to take any effective action. The members of the touring parties were so scared that they abandoned the tour programme in the middle putting the complainant who had organised the tour to great expense, inconvenience and mental agony. The complaint seeking various relief was instituted before District Forum-II on 1.11.93. By a short order dated 17.5.95 the complaint was dismissed as barred by limitation of two years. Aggrieved by the orders the complainant has preferred this appeal. 2. In spite of notice, no one has appeared for the respondent. We have heard the appellant who argued in person. 3. The Consumer Protection Act was amended by the insertion of Section 24-A w.e.f. 18.6....

Collector of C. Ex. Vs. Glass Lined Equipment Co. Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1996)(87)ELT185TriDel

1. These Revenue appeals are directed against common order-in-appeal No. 247-248/AHD-77-78/86, dated 28-11-1986. The issue that falls for determination is classification of glass lined equipment and fabrication. The respondents claimed that their product was classifiable under the then tariff item 68 and they were eligible for exemption under Notification No. 234/82-C.E., dated 1-11-1982. This claim of the respondents was upheld by Collector (Appeals) in the aforesaid order. Revenue are in appeal against this order or Collector (Appeals).2. Arguing for the Revenue the ld. DR submits that the products are mainly glassline equipment and fabrication and in the common parlance this cannot be termed as enamelware. Enamelware is something which can be readily sold across the counter. The products in the very nature are of big size and are not commonly known as Enamelware. In this connection, he submits that exactly same issue came up before this Tribunal in the case of Collector of Central ...

Collector of C. Ex. Vs. Swastika Knitting and Spg. Mills

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1996)(84)ELT30TriDel

1. This Revenue appeal is directed against Order-in-Appeal No.280-CE/CHG/87. The question that falls for determination is the classification of spun yarn containing a mixture of wool 50%, viscose 35% and nylon 15%. The Collector (Appeals) held in favour of the respondents on the ground that under the provisions of Note 2(A) of Section XI wool being clearly predominant the product would be rightly classifiable under 5103.10.2. Arguing for the Revenue, DR submits that under Note 2 (B)(iii) read with 2(C) the products are correctly classifiable under Heading 5506.29. Note 2(B)(iii) indicates that when both chapters 54 and 55 are involved with any other Chapter, Chapters 54 and 55 are to be treated as a single Chapter. Note 2(C) indicates that when the weight is equal in any yarn or fabric then such one of those fibres or yarns, as the case may be, the predominance would render such yarn or fabric fall under that Chapter or Heading of the Schedule which read with the notification would at...

H.T. Bhavnani Chemicals (P) Ltd. Vs. Collector of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1997)(92)ELT502TriDel

1. These appeals arise out of a common order dated 22-10-1991 passed by-the Commissioner of Central Excise & Customs, Baroda. Appellants, H.T. Bhavnani Chemicals, L.B. Fine Chemicals and Calibre Chemicals are three units located in the same plot in GIDC, Sarigam, Distt. Bulsar.Appellant, R/B. Chemicals & Agro Industries is another unit at Bombay.H.T. Bhavnani Chemicals manufacture potassium per sulphate, potassium iodate, and potassium bromate falling under Chapter 28 of Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. The other units produce potassium iodate.Appellant Ranjit Bhavnani, alongwith his wife, Mala Bhavnani, is the Director in all these units and Ranjit is also their Chairman. The registered office of all these units is at the same address at Nariman Point, Bombay. All of them hold Central Excise licences and are availing of exemption under Notification No. 175/86 for small scale industries based on value of clearances in a financial year. The authorised, issued and paid up capita...