Delhi Court December 1997 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.
Dimple (P) Ltd. Vs. Harish Kumar Aggarwal and Another
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-19-1997
Reported in: 1998IAD(Delhi)449; 71(1998)DLT318; 1998(44)DRJ558; 1998RLR139
ORDERMohd. Shamim, J.1. The petitioner through the present petition see is quashment of the order dated August 2,1989 passed by respondent No.2 under Section 19(1)(a) of the Slum Areas (Improvement & Clearance) Act. 1956 (hereinafter referred to as the Act for the sake of conveniance) whereby permission was granted to respondent No.1 to institute eviction proceedings against M/s Dimple (P) Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the petitioner for the sake of brevity).2. Brief facts which gave rise to the present petition are as under: that the petitioner was inducted as a tenant in the year 1957 in the first floor of the property bearing No.1564, Ishwar Niwas, Bhagirath Place, Chandni Chawk, Delhi (hereinafter referred to us the disputed property) by shri Ishwari Prashad, father of respondent No.1. The said Shri Ishawri Prashad filed a petition, bearing petition No. ESN/5043/85, in the court of the Competent Authority (Slum) for grant of permission to initiate eviction proceedings against th...
Rajesh Arora Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-19-1997
Reported in: 1998(44)DRJ799; 1998(101)ELT246(Del)
Arun Kumar, J.1. The petitioner entered into an agreement dated 30th, October, 1992 for purchase of a car manufactured abroad with one Rajan Sabharwal, a person of India origin. Rajan Sabharwal was settled in Australia for a long period and returned to India on 11th August, 1992 with the intention of permanently settling down in this country. The consideration for the car had already been paid aboard. The car was cleared by the customs authorities at New Delhi after payment of the customs duty on 5th June, 1993. The petitioner had obtained the delivery of the car in view of his agreement with Rajan Sabharwal.2. According to the petitioner he is a dealer in imported cars and there being no restrictions under the rules regarding further sale of the car in question, he approached one S.P.Bagla, a dealer in purchase and sale of imported cars for arranging its further sale. The car had been taken to the premises of S.P.Bagla for this purpose. As ill-luck would have it there was a raid on 11...
Rita Khurana Kamla Devi and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-19-1997
Reported in: 1998IIAD(Delhi)745; 1998(44)DRJ654
ORDERAnil Dev Singh, J.1. This is an application moved by the defendants under Order 7 Rule 11 read with section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure for rejection of the plaint.2. Briefly stated the facts are that the defendants executed a lease deed dated December 1, 1990 in favor of the plaintiff in respect of commercial premises bearing No. 121 in Indra Prakash Building situate at 21, Barakham-ba Road, new Delhi, measuring 431 sq. ft. Under the lease deed the plain-tiff was required to pay to the defendants a monthly rental of Rs.12,068/-. The lease was initially for a period of three years commencing from Decem-ber 1, 1990 and ending on November 30, 1993. Clause 4(a) of the deed makes provision for renewal of the lease on the same terms and conditions subject to the rent being increased on each renewal by 20% over and above which was payable immediately prior to the respective renewal. Clause 8 of the deed contemplates execution of a fresh lease deed in favor of the lessee for the t...
Air Commodore V.K. Sharma Vs. Union of India
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-19-1997
Reported in: 1998(46)DRJ37
ORDERDalveer Bhandari, J.1.Air Commodore V.K. Sharma, the petitioner, has approached this court with the prayer that the respondents be directed to consider the case of the petitioner for seniority and promotion to the rank of Air Vice Marshal before giving promotion to respondent no.4, G.V. Bhatt. He has also prayed that the proceedings wherein Air Commodore G.V. Bhatt has been cleared for promotion be quashed because according to the petitioner, respondent no.4 cannot be retrospectively promoted in the 1989 Board. 2. Brief facts as disclosed in the pleadings and which are necessary to dispose of this writ petition are recapitulated as under:- The petitioner joined the Indian Air Force as Pilot officer on 26.12.1965. He was promoted as Wing Commander in 1984. The petitioner was awarded Vashisht Sewa Medal on 26.1.1996. Thereafter, the petitioner was promoted to the rank of Group Captain. It is mentioned in the petition that for three available vacancies to the rank of Group Captain fo...
Air Commodore I.J.S. Boparai, Vm Vs. Union of India and Others
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-19-1997
Reported in: 1998(44)DRJ1b
Mahinder Narain, ACJ.1. The appellant Air Commodore I.J.S. Boparai, VM, has filed this Letters Patent Appeal, as he is aggrieved by an order dated 3.4.1997, passed in Civil Writ Petition No.4868 of 1996 by Hon'ble Single Judge of this Court (Dalveer Bhandari, J.) whereby the said writ petition filed by the appellant seeking quashing of the order of his retirement dated 23.11.1995 was dismissed. 2. The appellant before us in the said writ petition had prayed that the respondent be directed to promote him to the rank of Air Vice Marshal w.e.f. 1995 when he was first considered with notional seniority. 3. According to the appellant he had joined the Indian Air Force in the year 1962-63, and got promotion due to him in the usual course up to the level of Air Commodore in the Air Force. 4. The appellant says that certain remarks in the annual reports of the appellant are the basis of his being not promoted to the rank of Air Vice Marshal. It is the contention of the appellant that these rem...
i.J.S. Boparai Vs. Union of India
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-19-1997
Reported in: 1998(44)DRJ1
S.K. Mahajan, J.(1) I have gone through the judgment prepared by my esteemed brother Hon'ble Mahinder Narain, Acting Chief Justice, but for reasons given in my judgment, I am unable to agree with the decision arrived at by him, as in my view the appeal is liable to be dismissed.(2) The appellant has challenged his non- promotion from the post of Air Commodore to that of Air Vice Marshal. His contention is that non- promotion is on account of some adverse remarks entered in his Annual Confidential Reports and the said remarks having not been communicated to him and an opportunity having not been given to make representation against the same, his non-promotion is vitiated. The second ground on which the order of the Government in not promoting him as Air Vice Marshal has been challenged is that the Chief of the Air Staff, namely, Air Chief Marshal S.K.Kaul as well as Air Chief Marshal S.K.Sareen had been harboring a grudge and were biased to the appellant which resulted in wrong projecti...
H.C. Misra and anr. Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-19-1997
Reported in: 71(1998)DLT293
Arun Kumar, J.(1) The petitioners filed the present writ petition challenging the acquisition of lands comprised in khasra No. 68 (12 bighas 8 biswas) 84 (9 bighas) 85 (8 bighas 5 biswas) and 478/496/87 min (11 bighas 3 biswas) situated within the revenue estate of Village Masoodpur, Delhi. The writ petition was admitted to regular hearing by this Court on26 the 0ctober,1979 and stay of dispossession of the petitioners from the lands subject matter of the writ petition was granted. The exparte interim order regarding stay of dispossession was confirmed till the disposal of the writ petition vide order dated 5th February, 1980. In the writ petition the case of the petitioners mainly rested on Section 55 of the Delhi Development Act. The land of the petitioners was notified for acquisition vide notifications dated 23rd January, 1965 and 26/28th December, 1968 under Sections 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, respectively. The petitioners claimed that the acquisition proceedings in this...
L. NizamuddIn Vs. Union of India
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-19-1997
Reported in: 1998IAD(Delhi)787; 1998(45)DRJ370
Usha Mehra, J.(1) Petitioner was recruited in the Indian Army on 3rd December, 1968. At the time of his enrolment in the Army he was considered medically fit and fixed in medical category 'AYE'. Petitioner successfully completed his training and passed out from the Training Centre on 4th March, 1970. He was thereafter posted to No.4 Wing Air Force, Agra. In December, 1972 he was reclassified as Leading Air Crafts-man and on 6th May, 1976 he was promoted to the rank of Corporal. In 1983 he was promoted to the rank of Sergeant. On 19th January, 1994 he was posted at Mysore on promotion to the rank of Junior Warrant Officer. It is at this place that he developed hearing loss because of the stress and strain of service. Medical checkup was carried out by medical authorities of the Air Force. Wherein it was opined that he was suffering from 'Sensor Neural Hearing Loss (bilateral)'. Accordingly, the petitioner was down graded in medical category to 'CEE' (permanent) by Air Force Command Hosp...
Collector of Central Excise Vs. Ashoka Gear Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Dec-18-1997
Reported in: (1999)(113)ELT534TriDel
1. The dispute in this case is as to the determination of rate of duty in terms of Notification No. 213/86-C.E., dated 25-3-1986. This notification continued to extend the benefit of notifications earlier available to goods falling under Tariff Item 68 in the old tariff and prescribed duty @ 25% when calculated with reference to any other notification providing partial exemption from payment of duty. The assessees claimed the effective rate of duty at 3% on the ground that the rate of duty earlier attracted on the goods falling under Tariff Item 68, was 12%. The Assistant Collector held that the rate of duty applicable would be 20% and calculated the effective duty payable by the assessees at 5%. In his Order-in-Appeal, the Collector, relying upon the declaration of the Board that this notification had retrospective effect, held that the effective rate of duty should be 3% and not 5%. Hence, the present appeal before us.2. We have heard Shri D.S. Negi, ld. SDR for the Revenue. Respond...
Unitech Metals Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Dec-18-1997
Reported in: (1998)(98)ELT628TriDel
1. These two appeals arise out of a common order and, therefore, they are taken up together for disposal.2. The assessees manufactured angles, shapes and section of iron or non-alloy steel cold formed or cold finished and sought classification under sub-heading 7216.20 vide classification list w.e.f. 1-3-1989. The Assistant Collector, after issuing a notice and after hearing the arguments of the assessees determined the classification of the goods as parts of structures under Heading 7308. The Collector (Appeals), having upheld this classification, the present appeal is before us.3. Shri V. Sridharan, ld. Advocate stated that his clients were manufacturing the same goods earlier when they were classified under Tariff Item Nos. 25 and 26 of the old CET. The department had sought to classify such products, which were admittedly used in residential, etc.structures under Item 68. He stated that in Order No. 639/86-B1, dated 6-10-1986, the Tribunal had determined that even if the goods are...
- ‹ Prev
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- Next ›
- Last »