Delhi Court February 1997 Judgments

Rajesh Vs. State

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 1997IIIAD(Delhi)689; 66(1997)DLT791

Mohd. Shamim, J.(1) This is an application by the petitioner for release on bail. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has contended that the petitioner is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. There is absolutely no evidence against the petitioner. Uma Kant, Public Witness Public Witness 1 himself lodged report with the police with regard to the missing of the deceased. There is no mention in the said report about the petitioner as the person who took away the deceased. Petitioner has been in custody since 6th August, 1996. Learned P.P. on the other hand contended that Smt. Rani and Uma Kant saw the petitioner taking away the deceased from his house. Considering the above facts and circumstances I think the present case is a fit case for bail. Let the petitioner be released on bail of his furnishing a surety in the sum of Rs. 20,000.00 with a personal bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Court concerned....

Dewan and Sons Investments Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Delhi Development Authority

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 1997IIAD(Delhi)798; 1997(41)DRJ199

Lokeshwar Prasad, J.(1) The petitioner, named above, has filed the present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuing directions to respondent No.1 the Delhi Development Authority (hereinafter referred to as 'the DDA') to issue a 'No Objection Certificate' from the land use, location and ownership point of view as demanded by respondent No.2 - the Municipal Corporation of Delhi (for short 'the MCD'), for raising construction on property, bearing No. 15/7361 (Tel Mill Plot), Ram Nagar, Main Kutub Road, Delhi also described as Khasra No. 158/2, Qadim Sharif Estate, Kutub Road, Delhi in accordance with law prevalent in 1971 i.e. with Far 300 and also for a direction, directing the Mcd (respondent No.2) to sanction the building plans in respect of the commercial construction asked for on the above said property in accordance with the laws prevalent in the year 1971. (2) The facts relevant for the disposal of the present petition, briefly stated, are that it is...

Jaipal Singh Vs. Chairman, Delhi Transport Corporation and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 1997IIAD(Delhi)633; 66(1997)DLT691

Lokeshwar Prasad, J.(1) The petitioner, named above, has filed the present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, assailing Order dated the 16th June, 1995, passed by the Depot Manager, Delhi Transport Corporation (hereinafter referred to as 'the Corporation'), removing the petitioner from the service of the Corporation and the subsequent orders passed by the Appellate Authority and the Chairman-cum-Managing Director of the Corporation rejecting the appeals preferred by the petitioner against the above said order of his removal from service. 2.1.The facts relevant for the disposal of the present writ petition lie in a narrow compass. The petitioner was appointed as an Assistant Fitter in the Corporation vide order dated 17th July, 1985 and was posted as such in the Central Workshop Ii, Okhia, Phase-1, New Delhi. On 11th August, 1994 the petitioner was given two F.I. Pumps for overhauling/repairs. The petitioner repaired one F.I. Pump but refused to overhaul/repair the oth...

Kapila Uppal Vs. Kishan Dutt

Court: Delhi

Reported in: I(1998)ACC435; 1997ACJ600; 1997IIAD(Delhi)824; 1997(41)DRJ225

M.S.A.Siddiqui, J.(1) The appellant No. 1 and her husband late V.P.Uppal had filed the claim petition before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, New Delhi. During pendency of the claim, V.P. Uppal died and his LRs (Appellant Nos. 2 to 4) were brought on record. The appellants, aggrieved by the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal vide its award dated 4.7.1987 have preferred this appeal U/s 110-D of the M.V. Act. The respondents No. 1 & 2 have also filed cross objections against the impugned award. (2) The brief facts of the case are that on 27-5-1979 at, about 1.30 a.m. Dr. Atul Kumar Uppal was coming from Safdarjung Enclave on his scooter bearing No. DHZ-8432. The scooter was driven by Dr. Atui Kumar Uppal and Anil Kumar Kakkar was sitting on the pillion seat. When they were passing at Shanker Road, from the opposite direction, a D.M.S. van bearing registration No. DHG- 5770, which was being driven by respondent No. 1 at an excessive speed, rashly and negligently, came on t...

Kendriya Vidalaya Sangathan Staff Association Vs. Kendriya Vidalaya Sa ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 1997IIAD(Delhi)509; 66(1997)DLT538; 1997(41)DRJ208

Lokeshwar Prasad, J. (1) The petitioners, named above, have filed the present petition under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India assailing the validity of the amendments carried out in the Recruitment Rules (hereinafter referred to as 'the RRs') for appointment to the post of Internal Audit Officers, Account Officers, Accounts Officers(Cash) and Account-cum-Inspecting Officers of the Kendriya Vidalaya Sangathan and the two advertisements (Annexure P-5 & P-6), issued for filling up the vacancies in the above said cadres. (2) The facts relevant for the disposal of the present writ petition, briefly stated, are that petitioner No.1 is a Staff Association of the employees of Kendriya Vidalaya Sangathan, duly registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860 and also recognised by the Kendriya Vidalaya Sangathan. Petitioner No.2, who is a member of petitioner No.1 Association/Society, is working as a Superintendent of Accounts in the Kendriya Vidalaya Sangathan. Kendriya Vi...

B. Behl Vs. Unit Trust of India and Others

Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi

A.P. Chowdhri, President: 1. Brief facts of the case giving rise to this appeal are that Mr. B. Behl, complainant for short, applied for 2000 Master Gain -1992 of Rs. 10,000/- each on 17.5.1992. He submitted a cheque for Rs. 20,000/- alongwith the application. The units were to be issued by the respondent by 30.9.1992. The complainant, however, failed to receive the units. In June, 1993, the complainant received only 200 units against 2000 units applied for by him. He wrote several letters and telephone calls but to no purpose. He filed a complaint before District Forum-II on 26.11.1993. The remaining 1800 units were received alongwith opposite party's letter dated 22.11.1993. 2. On a consideration of the matter District Forum-II held the delay caused in sending the allotted certificates to constitute deficiency in service. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case damages amounting to Rs. 2,000/-were awarded. Dis-satisfied with the order, the complainant has pr...

S. Harinder Singh Chadha Vs. S.L. Builders (P) Ltd. and Others

Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi

A.P. Chowdhri, President: 1. Brief facts of the case are that Mr. Harinder Singh Chadha, complainant for short, is the owner of property No. A-l, Friends Colony, New Delhi. There existed a single storeyed house on the plot. The complainant entered into a building development agreement with M/s. S.L. Builders (P) Ltd., opposite party-1, of which Mr. A.K. Jaju, opposite party-2 is a Director. On 3.3.1992, the building was to be further constructed and altered in accordance with the sanctioned building plan. The construction was to be completed within a period of 18 months from the date de facto possession was handed over to the opposite parties. Dejure possession was to continue with the complainant throughout. The opposite parties deposited a security deposit of Rs. 7 1acs with the complainant. The amount was not to carry any interest and it was made to ensure due compliance of the terms of the agreement by the opposite parties. It was to be returned to the said promoters/developers on ...

Gem Electro Mechanical Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Collr. of Cus.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1997)(93)ELT141TriDel

1. This appeal is directed against Order-in-Appeal dated 9-1-1989 of Collector of Customs (Appeals). The appellants imported a consignment of dumate wire and claimed exemption under Notification 345/86 which allows exemption in case of dumate wire if used in the manufacture of glass to metal seal. The claim was rejected by Asstt. Collector on the ground that appellants are registered for manufacture of lead in wire and that lead in wire and glass to metal seal are two different commodities. Collector (Appeals) upheld the order.2. Arguing for the appellants the ld. Advocate submits that Notification 345/86 grants exemption subject to the condition that in respect of impugned goods "an Officer not below the rank of Joint Director in the Directorate of Industries of the Government of the State or such other specified officer certifies that the goods in question are required for the purpose specified in the Notification and the Importer executes a Bond binding himself to pay on demand dut...

Willard Storage Battery Ltd. Vs. Commr. of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1997)(93)ELT291TriDel

2. Arguing in support of the miscellaneous application the Ld. Advocate submits that the impugned goods, viz., magic eye, to be fitted in a battery as a measuring instrument and the impugned goods all long were being classified under CTH 9031.80. He draws our attention to the particulars of Bill of Entries indicated at Page 5 of the Appeal. He submits while, at this stage, he is not asking for decision on merits but is only praying for early hearing because a wrong classification under CTH 8507.90 resorted to by the Department after altering an established practice has seriously affected not only their domestic market but also export market. He has also filed an affidavit in support of his contention. Drawing our attention to page 2 annexed to the affidavit, he submits that during 1994-95,11,000 batteries with magic eye and during 1995-96,12,000 batteries were exported. During 1996-97, however, they failed to export even a single battery because of the price differential created by a ...

Prominent Plastic Industries Vs. Collector of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1997)(93)ELT299TriDel

1. The facts of the case leading to the present appeal are that the appellants are engaged in the manufacture of P.V.C. Compounds. They filed a C/List effective from 1-4-1993 claiming the benefit of Notification No. 14/92-C.E., dated 1-3-1992 and the assessment of their goods at 35% ad valorem. The Asstt. Collector, held that the appellants were entitled to the benefit of Notification No. 1 /93, dated 28-2-1993 and therefore, amended the C/List disallowing them the benefit of Notification No. 14/92-C.E., dated 1-3-1992. Against this decision, the appellants filed an appeal before the ld. Collector (Appeals) who confirmed the order of the A.C. holding that Notification No. 1/93 which irrespective of their declaration in C/List determines the duty liability of the appellants. The ld. Collector (Appeals) also held that though Modvat is a different scheme, its liability is interdependent on the dutiability of the goods.2. Shri Naveen Mullick, ld. Advocate submits that the appellants in th...