Delhi Court May 1996 Judgments

Satya Prakash Vermani Vs. Govt. of N.C.T. of Delhi and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 63(1996)DLT150

M.K. Sharma, J. (1) This writ petition is directed against the order dated 31.3.1996 issued by the Principal, Birla Vidya Niketan, Pushp Vihar, Sector Iv, New Delhi, informing the petitioner that it would not be possible for the management to renew the contract of the petitioner which was expiring on 3.5.1996. By the aforesaid letter the Principal requested the petitioner to explore other possibilities of his employment elsewhere. The petitioner was given appointment by order dated 11.7.1995 for teaching assignment in the Birla Vidya Niketan, Pushp Vihar, Sector- Iv, New Delhi. The petitioner was appointed to the post of teacher at a consolidated pay of Rs. 3,600.00 . Under the said letter it was made clear that the said appointment of the petitioner was purely temporary on ad hoc basis effective from 13.7.1995 to 3.5.1996. The aforesaid offer of the School Authority was accepted by the petitioner without any reservation and he joined the post and was serving in the school till the afo...

Samiullaha @ Haji Vs. Union of India

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 64(1996)DLT112; 1996(38)DRJ661

M. Jagannadha Rao, J. (1) The petitioner is detained under the Cofeposa pursuant to an order of detention dated 31.7.1995. The order was executed on the same day. This writ petition has been filed on 2nd September, 1995. Various points have been raised on behalf of the detenu. One of the points is that the detenu, through his lawyer, has sent 7 copies of representation to the jail authorities on 21.8.1995. The representations were unsigned and addresses to which the copies were to be sent were no doubt not mentioned. Thereafter, the Superintendent, Tihar Jail, wrote a letter on 24.8.1995, to the petitioner's Advocate stating that the unsigned letter of the Advocate with 7 copies of the unsigned representation were received and that the Advocate was requested to specify the names of authorities to whom the representations were to be forwarded. All the 7 copies were thereforee returned to the counsel to do the needful. Thereafter, the counsel addressed a letter dated 24.8.1995 to the Sup...

Radha Jewellery Vs. Collector of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1996)(87)ELT677TriDel

1. Appellant is absent and is not represented in spite of notice of hearing. We have heard Shri Malik, SDR and perused the records.2. Appellant imported four machines with certain accessories. The invoice showed separately the price of each machine together with the respective accessories. The Bill of Entry separately declared the value of accessories. The Assistant Collector charged duty on the machines with the accessories at the rate of duty prescribed for machines. Duty was paid and the goods cleared. Subsequently, appellant applied for refund on the ground that duty on the accessories should have been calculated at the rate admissible for the machines based on the Accessories (Condition) Rules, 1963. The Assistant Collector and the Collector (Appeals) rejected this claim. Hence, the present appeal.3. According to Rule 2 of the aforesaid Rules, accessories of or for any article when imported alongwith the article shall be chargeable at the same rate of duty as that of article if t...

Associated Soapstone Vs. Collector of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2002)(146)ELT324TriDel

1. This appeal arises from the Order-in-Appeal dt. 11-3-1986 passed by the Collector (Appeals), New Delhi. The question that arises for consideration is as to whether "Dharmada" charged by the appellants on the goods is required to be added to the assessable value. Both the authorities have held that the "Dharmada" recovered by them for charitable purpose and not retained by them is required to be added to the assessable value. In this connection the Learned Consultant brought to our notice the judgment rendered by the Tribunal in the case of Mohan and Co. v. Collector of Central Excise, as reported in 1987 (30) E.L.T. 624 (T), wherein the Tribunal has taken a view in the light of the Supreme Court's judgment rendered in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax v. Bijili Cotton Mills Pvt. Ltd. (1979 ITR. 116) that "Dharmada" charity receipts charged by the assessee from the customers are meant for charitable purpose and hence it does not form part of the normal price so as to be chargea...

Namo Narayan Agarwal Vs. Wealth Tax Officer

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi

1. Both these appeals involve consideration of some common points, hence, we find it convenient to dispose of these appeals by this common order.2. The assessee has raised the following identical grounds in these two appeals : "1. That the CWT(A) erred on facts and in law in upholding the action of the AO in including value of agricultural land in the taxable wealth of the appellant. 2. That the CWT(A) erred on facts and in law in observing, inter alia, that the land was not agricultural land on the date of valuation and that no agricultural operations were carried on during the period preceding the date of valuation. 3. That the CWT(A) erred on facts and in law in confirming the valuation of the agricultural land at Rs. 38,59,083 when the land had been declared surplus under the Urban Land (Ceiling & Regulation) Act, 1976." 3. The WTO, Bareilly, determined the value of land (amount receivable from Bareilly Development Authority) at Rs. 38,59,083 as against the assessee's claim th...

Assistant Commissioner of Income Vs. Snia Fibre Spa (Snia Fibre Spa V.

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi

1. Both the Revenue as also the assessee are in cross appeals against common order dt. 30th Aug., 1989, of the learned CIT(A) for the two assessment years. These appeals are consolidated and disposed of by this common order for the sake of convenience.2. The only ground of appeal taken by the Revenue is that the learned CIT(A) erred in directing that r. 26 of the IT Rules be applied for the purpose of computing the income of the assessee. The assessee has taken the following additional ground in its Appeal No. 7061 before us, which is linked with the ground taken by the Department : "That the CIT(A) having held that the rate of exchange for conversion should be as on the date of deduction of tax, erred in directing that the same be adopted as on the date of remittance." Since the above additional ground of appeal taken by the assessee does not require investigation into the facts and is purely legal in nature the same is allowed to be raised.2.1 The relevant facts are that the assesse...

All India Garments Non. Quota Manufacturers Exporters Association and ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: ILR1997Delhi433

Y. K. Subharwal, J.(1) The challenge in this writ petition is to a press release issued by the Government of India, Ministry of textiles on 28th November, 1995 announcing New Garment Quota Policy for 1996-98. After the issue of the press release the Government has also issued requisite notification. Under this new changed policy, it was announced that (he garment quotas would be allotted under the following system : 1. Past Performance Entitlement (PPE)-80% 2. First Come First Served Entitlement (FCFS)-20%(2) Under the long-term policy fur Garment export for 1994-96 published in notification of Government of India, Ministry of Textiles dated 4th September, 1993, the allotment of quotas was as under: A. Past Performance Entitlement (PPE)-70% (of which high value entitlement)--10% B. Manufacturer Exporter Entitlement (MEE)'20% (of which Mee for newcomers)--2% C. Non-Quota Exporters Entitlement (NQE)-10% (of which Noe for handloom garments)-2%(3) The new policy is under challenge to the e...

indana Spices and Food Indus. Ltd. Vs. Indian Charge Chrome

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 1996IIIAD(Delhi)443; [1997]89CompCas570(Delhi); 1996(38)DRJ1

Vijender Jain, J.(1) This is a petition filed by the petitioner on the basis of inter-corporate loan to the sum of Rs.l50 lakhs, which was advanced to the respondent and further sum of Rs.32 lakhs, which was advanced to the respondent in January, 1992. This petition was filed on 20.12.1994. Notice to the respondent was issued on 15.3.1995. As reply was not filed within the stipulated period, the petition was admitted on 21.8.1995 and citation was ordered to be published in Delhi Gazette, 'Statesman' (English) and 'Vir Arjun' (Hindi) for 4.12.1995. In the meanwhile, an application was filed by the respondent i.e. Ca No-738/95 with the prayer that order regarding advertisement be stayed and further the proceedings be also stayed and the respondent be allowed to file reply and reply filed along with may be ordered to be taken on record. However, no reply in terms of the prayer, as mentioned along with Ca 738195, was filed by the respondent for obvious reasons.(2) From the tenor and conten...

Siddhant K. Mishra Vs. University of Delhi

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 1996(37)DRJ633

J.K. Mehra, J. (1) By the present petition, the petitioner who was an adhoc Lecturer in Sri Aurobiodo College (Evening),has impugned the selection of Lecturer of Applied Psychology, a subject which he has been teaching as adhoc Lecturer since October, 1993 at the same college. His grievance is that there were three ad hot Lecturers, two of whom have been regularised on being selected by the Selection. Committee, which had called 45 persons including the said three adhoc Lecturers for interview. The petitioner was not selected and in preference to him, one Dr. Mahesh K.Darolia was selected. The main ground of attack Is that the officiating Principal, respondent No.2 was not well disposed towards the petitioner because the petitiener's real brother one Mr. R.K.Mishra,who imp leaded as respondent No.6, is the President of the respondent College Staff Association and the said Association had passed' a resolution, under the leadership of said brother of the petitioner, condemning the existi...

Neeta Kohli Vs. Director of Education

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 63(1996)DLT144; 1996(38)DRJ175; (1996)IILLJ1237Del

M.K. Sharma, J. (1) In this writ petition the petitioner has sought for a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to treat the petitioner as a regular confirmed employee of respondent No.2 and to be in continuous employment since 6.7.1993. The petitioner was appointed as a Librarian by respondents 2 & 3 in the pay scale of Rs.1200- 2040. The said appointment of the petitioner was purely on a temporary basis and was for a fixed period which came to be extended from lime to time. The last appointment of the petitioner was issued on 6.7.1995. The said appointment letter stated that the petitioner was offered an appointment as Librarian on temporary basis for a period up to 14.5.1996 in the pay scale of Rs.l200-2040. The petitioner submitted representations to respondents No. 1 & 2 on various occasions requesting them to regularise her services as Librarian in the school, since she was working as Librarian in the said school continuously from 6.7.1993. However since the re...