Delhi Court September 1996 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
J.P. Gupta Vs. New Delhi Municipal Committee
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-13-1996
Reported in: 1996VAD(Delhi)78; 64(1996)DLT425
S.N. Kapoor, J. (1) The petitioner challenges 'various orders and resolutions of the Committee right from 1.4.1976 till 1.4.1981 fixing rateable value Rs. 23,976.00 ' and seeks mandamus commanding Ndmc charge the house tax calculated at the standard rate of Rs. 7,021.00 less 10% and further less 25%. (2) According to the petitioner, he purchased flat No. 307, Surya Kiran Building, 19, K.G. Marg, New Delhi for a sum of Rs. 81,400.00 full cost of the land of the share of the petitioner, in 1971-72. For the year 1972-73 rateable value was fixed at Rs. 19.980.00 less 10% Ndmc proposed revision to Rs. 26,640.00 . The petitioner filed objection. But rateable value was fixed at Rs. 23,974.00 . Repeated objections and protests proved futile. The committee vide notice dated 2.1.1981 demanded a sum of Rs. ll,949,30.00 being arrears up to the year 1980-81 vide Annexure-H. Feeling aggrieved present petition has been filed seeking above said reliefs. (3) The respondent Ndmc have contested the writ ...
T.K. Marwah Vs. New Delhi Municipal Committee and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-13-1996
Reported in: 1996VAD(Delhi)59; 64(1996)DLT549
S.N. Kapoor, J. (1) The petitioner seeks a writ of certiorari quashing the judgment and order of learned Additional District Magistrate (South and New Delhi) dated 30th April, 1982 confirming annual value in respect of property No. 14 (No. 14-P /A 18) Jor Bagh, New Delhi and a mandamus commanding the Ndmc to calculate the annual value in the manner provided under the Delhi Rent Control Act (hereinafter referred to as 'DRC Act' for short). (2) (I) According to the petitioner, the said property was constructed in the year 1955-56 at a total cost of Rs. 1,00,000.00 including cost of the land. The respondent fixed annual value at Rs. 20,857.00 with effect from 1.6.1958. Ndmc sought to increase it to Rs. 83,000.00 vide order dated 2/7.11.1970. This was set aside and the Ndmc was prohibited from recovering House Tax at an annual value higher than Rs. 24.000.00 up to 31st March, 1976. For 1976-77 again it was assessed at Rs. 83,000.00 It was further raised to Rs. 1,05,000.00 for 1977-78, 1978...
S. Raghunathan and ors. Vs. National Building Construction Corporation ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-13-1996
Reported in: 64(1996)DLT509
Devinder Gupta, J. (1) The grievance of the petitioners is that they are not being allowed the benefit of revision of pay scales and other allowances that were given on the basis of recommendations of the Fourth Pay Commission, while they were serving on deputation in Iraq and consequently have sought various directions against the reresponden to make payment from 1st January, 1986 till their repatriation to India on the basis of the Ccs (Revised Pay) Rules, 1986 and in accordance with the terms, as originally agreed upon at the time of deputation and payment of interest on the amount due from 1st January, 1986 till payment etc. (2) Facts in brief are that the petitioners, while posted as Engineers/Officers in the Central Public Works Department ( for short 'the C.P.W.D.') were sent on deputation to the reresponden-corporation and were posted on overseas projects being executed by reresponden-Corporation in Iraq. According to the petitioners, the order for placing their services at the...
Hira Lal Sharma Vs. Municipal Corporation of Delhi
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-13-1996
Reported in: 64(1996)DLT527; 1996(39)DRJ132
Dalveer Bhandari, J.(1) The petitioner who is an employee of the Delhi Electric Supply Undertaking, (hereinafter to be referred as D.E.S.U.) and also the General Secretary of the Delhi Electricity Workers Union has filed this petition for issuance of a writ of quo warranto, challenging the appointment of respondent no.2 R.K. Narayanan, to the post of General Manager, D.E.S.U. The appointment of respondent no.2 was approved vide Order dated 7.9.1995 and a subsequent order dated 22.9.1995, containing the terms and conditions of the appointment. (2) The petitioner has challenged the appointment of respondent no.2 primarily on two grounds. The main ground on which the appointment has been assailed is that according to Section 96 of the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957, no appointment to any category A post within the meaning of clause (i) of sub-section (8) of Section 90 shall be made except after consultation with the Union Public Service Commission (hereinafter referred to as the Co...
Jitender Kumar Verma Vs. the Registrar of Cooperative Societies and or ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-13-1996
Reported in: 1996VAD(Delhi)221; 64(1996)DLT479
S.N. Kapoor, J.(1) The petitioner by this petition seeks a writ of mandamus commanding the respondents to allot flat No. 41-C Ayodhya Enclave, Sector 13, Rohini, Delhi to the petitioner and not to allot the same to respondent No. 3 Shri Ram Pal. (2) According to the petitioner, he is a member of Delhi Niwas Cooperative Group Housing Society Limited since 12th June, 1982 and has been regularly depositing the amounts demanded by the society. He has made the entire payments for fiat No. 41-C and more than Rs. 3 lakhs stand paid. Only the installments of the loan which were payable by the year 2002 to Dchfs remain to be paid by the petitioner. He has also been assessed to House Tax. The respondent No. 3 has paid in all till date a sum of Rs. 68.077.00 . The last payment was made by him on 20th June, 1987. The respondent No. 3 Shri Ram Pal was expelled from membership on the ground, of non-payment and he had not paid any amount for the said flat No. 41-C. It is the only flat now available f...
Narendra Kumar Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-13-1996
Reported in: ILR1997Delhi111
(1) The petitioner's father Roshan Lal of Amritsar, was curlier detained on 19-12-1974 under Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act. 1974 (hereinafter called COFEPOSA). He has since died in 1980. The petitioner, who is his son, is A seeking the quashing of the detention order passed against his father by respondent 3 on 19-12-1974 under Section 3(1) of the COFEPOSA. Petitioner is also seeking the quashing of the order dated 29-5-78, passed by respondent 2 under Section 19(1) of the Smugglers & Foreign Exchange Manipulators (Forfeiture of Property) Act, 1976 (hereinafter called SAFEMA) against the properties of his late father and. mother and to restrain respondents from dispossessing the petitioner of the said properties at Amritsar. (2) While the detention order dated 19-12-74 was one issued against the petitioner's father the forfeiture relates to the properties of his father and mother, to whom notices under Safema were issued on 30-4-77 (Ex. P.5...
New India Assurance Co. and anr. Vs. Delhi Ahmedabad Roadways
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-13-1996
Reported in: I(1997)ACC337
M.K. Sharma, J.1. The present suit has been instituted by the plaintiffs against the defendant for recovery of Rs. 1,95,680 /-.2. It is stated in the plaint that the defendant is the common carrier of goods, who carries on the business of transportation of goods of its customers from one place to another for hire and reward. Several truck load consignments containing car components were consigned through the defendant from Kandla to Gurgaon and the said consignments were contracted to be delivered to the plaintiff No. 2 at their works which is located at Gurgaon on door delivery basis. The aforesaid suit consignments were tendered to the defendant for carriage at Kandla and were delivered at the works of the plaintiff No. 2 at Gurgaon. It is alleged that some of the packages out of each of the suit consignments were delivered by the defendant in badly damaged condition, and accordingly there was a loss to the plaintiffs which is sought to be recovered through the present suit.3. The de...
Devinder Sanitations Vs. Collector of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Sep-12-1996
Reported in: (1996)(88)ELT589TriDel
1. By the captioned appeal, the appellants have agitated the imposition of penalty and confiscation of goods.2. The facts of the case, in brief, are that the Central Excise officers visited the premises of M/s. Devinder Sanitation. It was learnt that Shri P.C. Gupta was running the above unit manufacturing sanitary fittings. It was noticed that Shri Gupta disclosed that the factory was bifurcated in the year 1977 by creating another unit in the name and style of M/s. S.B. Enterprises in the same premises. It was therefore, alleged that bifurcation of the unit was resorted to avail the benefit of exemption under Notification No. 105/80 as amended by Notification No. 77/80 with the intention to contain the aggregate value of clearances from the two units to remain within the exemption limit. Show cause notice was accordingly issued to the appellants asking them to explain as to why duty should not be demanded after clubbing the clearances of the two units and why penalty should not be i...
Collector of Central Excise Vs. Nektar Fruit Products
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Sep-12-1996
Reported in: (1996)(88)ELT421TriDel
1. The correct classification of the product known as "Sweet corn cream style", whether under subheading 1904.90 as confirmed by the Collector (Appeals) or under sub-heading 2107.91 as contended by the Revenue, is the issue for decision in this appeal which has been preferred by the Revenue against the order of the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), Madras.2. We have heard Shri A.K. Madan, learned DR and perused the records.None has appeared for the respondents inspite of issue of notice of hearing on 26-7-1996. The process of manufacture of the disputed item is as under : "The com cobs are received directly from the fields as a main/major raw material and the corn kernels are separated from the cob manually. The kernels are collected in aluminium vessels and properly cleaned, washed in water in a steam jacketed kettle. A portion of corn kernels are crushed in the mincer also. The minced com alongwith its liquid substance are added to kettle where in the whole kernels (uncrushed o...
Hindalco Industries Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Sep-12-1996
Reported in: (1996)(88)ELT519TriDel
1. All these appeals arise out of a common order dated 28-11-1991 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals) Allahabad. The brief facts are that the Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise, Mirzapur by an order dated 14-2-1990 denied the Modvat credit on the following inputs while approving their declaration under Rule 57G. The Assistant Commissioner vide order dated 30-4-1990 denied benefit of Modvat credit on the following inputs holding that these cannot be considered as inputs used in or in relation to the manufacture of final products by the appellants, namely Aluminium ingots, billets and products thereof: - 2. The orders of the Assistant Commissioner have been upheld by Commissioner (Appeals). The ld. Counsel Shri V. Sridharan appearing with the ld. Counsel Shri R. Nambirajan submitted that the High Chrome Grinding Balls are used as a grinding media in the process of grinding bauxite with caustic soda solution. The bauxite is very hard and abrasive. High Chrome gri...
- ‹ Prev
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 15
- 16
- 17
- 18
- 19
- Next ›
- Last »