Delhi Court February 1997 Judgments

Surendra Pal Singh Vs. Union of India

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 1997IIIAD(Delhi)936; 1997(41)DRJ374; (1997)IILLJ326Del

Dalveer Bhandari, J.(1) The short controversy involved in this writ petition is, as to whether the date of birth of the petitioner is 21.1.1939 or 21.1.1941 (2) The minimum facts which are necessary to dispose of this writ petition are recapitulated as under:- (3) The petitioner, who is a Railway employee has prayed in this petition that the order dated 16.1.97 be quashed. The order reads as under:- 'Shri S.P. Singh, ASC/Prosecution is retiring from Railway service on 31.1.97 on attaining the age of superannuation. In order to arrange his settlement dues, no demand certificate in favor of the above named officer may please be sent to this office urgently.' (4) The writ petition of the petitioner came up for admission hearing before this court on 30.1.1997. It was submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the correct date of birth of the petitioner is 21.1.1941 whereas inadvertently, it has been recorded as 21.1.1939 in the high school certificate. He also submitted that ...

Hind Samachar Ltd. Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax. (Dy. Cit V. ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: (1997)58TTJ(Del)201

ORDERR. M. MEHTA, A.M. :Both these appeals were heard together and are disposed of by means of a consolidated order.2. Taking up for consideration the assessees appeal the first ground pertains to a disallowance of Rs. 15,000 out of Shagan expenses. This was in fact the disallowance made by the AO on the ground that the same had not been incurred in connection with the business of the company, but was more in the nature of personal expenditure of the directors. On further appeal, the CIT(A) confirmed the disallowance on more or less identical grounds.3. Before us the learned counsel, at the outset, stated that he was pressing the ground only in respect of an expenditure of Rs. 4,606 as detailed on p. 26 of the paper-book. According to him the payments were no doubt to individuals, but those who were intimately connected with the company in one capacity or the other. A perusal of the details shows that some of them are related as advertisers, others as bankers and one of them in the pos...

M/S. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. M/S. Prakash and Company

Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi

A.P. Chowdhri, President: 1. Brief facts of the case are M/s Prakash and Co., complainant for short, obtained a fidelity guarantee insurance policy in the sum of Rs. 50.000/-for the period 29.11.1991 to 28.11.92 from the opposite party in respect of one Mr. K.K. Gupta, Sales Officer, employed by the complainant. The case of the complainant was that the said employee embezzled a sum of Rs. 28,331.50 from the cash sale collections and further a shortage of stock in his charge as store-keeper amounting to Rs. 18,852.50 was found. The matter was re ported to the police of P.S. Kalkaji and a claim preferred for both the aforesaid amounts with the insurance company. The insurance company failed to settle the claim and hence the complaint. During the pendency of the complaint, the opposite party repudiated the claim by its letter dated 28.2.94. 2. The case was contested. On a consideration of the material before it the District Forum Held that the complainant was not entitled to recover the a...

Mrs. Saraswati Punjabi Vs. the Vice Chairman, Delhi Development Author ...

Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi

A.P. Chowdhri, President: 1. Brief facts of the case are that one Mr. Jhangi Mal got himself registered under the New Pattern 1979 Scheme of DDA for an MIG flat by depositing Rs. 4,500/- in 1979. He died on 26.5.1987 leaving behind a son named R.K. Punjabi and widow Smt. Saraswati Punjabi. The widow applied for transfer of registration in her name on 4.6.1987. She furnished NOC from the other heirs of Jhangi Mal, deceased, on 17.6.1987 and complied with other formalities on 8.9.1987. Some more documents, which she was required to produce, were furnished on 15.10.1987. 2. An allotment letter dated 31.7.1987 for a sum of Rs. 1,62,700/- to be paid on cash down basis, was issued in the name of the deceased Jhangi Mal. In the allotment letter, the name of Jhangi Mal was scored out and that of the complainant written in ink. The date of the correction is however, not mentioned. The last date upto which the payment of the disposal price was to be made was 20.10.1987, failing which the allotme...

inderjeet Alag Vs. Delhi Electric Supply Undertaking

Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi

A.P. Chowdhri, President: 1. The appellant, who was complainant before District Forum-II, applied for and was sanctioned 90 HP industrial load and 5 KW industrial light load for her business concern M/s. Ashu Electricals India situated in a portion of building C-157, Mayapuri, Phase-II, New Delhi. The complainant deposited a sum of Rs. 33,900/- besides a sum of Rs. 1,350/- as security and installation and other charges on 31.5.1989 and DESU, hereinafter referred to as the opposite party, laid the necessary cables and installed the meter at the site. The meter was not energised and on enquiry, the complainant was informed that the meter cannot be supplied power until the complainant cleared dues amounting to Rs. 3,29,367.79 outstanding against the landlord of the premises namely M/s. Anandsons Trade Linkers, hereinafter referred to as M/s. Anandsons, a partnership concern. Aggrieved by the decision, the complainant preferred a complaint before the District Forum. 2. The case was contest...

Collector of Central Excise Vs. Majestic Auto Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1997)(93)ELT534TriDel

1. Respondent, manufacturer of two-wheeler motor vehicles falling under Chapter Heading 8711 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 was availing Modvat credit on inputs. The dispute in this appeal relates to the period from 6-7-1992 to 20-7-1992. Notice was issued to the respondent stating that Modvat credit was not available to the respondent for the reasons indicated in the notice and proposing reversal of the Modvat credit under Rule 57-1 of the Central Excise Rules (for short, the Rules). The respondent resisted the notice.However, the Assistant Collector confirmed the demand except in regard to a minor portion. Collector (Appeals) set aside the order on the ground of limitation except in regard to a minor portion. Department being aggrieved by the finding that the bulk of the claim is barred by limitation has filed this appeal.2. Rule 57-1 of the Rules deals with recovery of credit wrongly availed of or utilised in an irregular manner. The rule as it existed prior...

Himachal Futuristic Vs. C.C.E.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1997)(92)ELT648TriDel

1. The above appeal has been filed against the order of the Collector of Central Excise, Chandigarh, disallowing Modvat credit of a sum of Rs. 85,53,993/- taken by the appellants on certain testing equipments during the month of April, 1994 in accordance with the provisions of Rule 57U of the Central Excise Rules, 1944.2. The brief facts of the case are that the appellants herein are engaged in the manufacture of digital microwave radios to be supplied to the Department of Telecommunications, for the purpose of establishing telephone communcation links. The appellants imported certain machines/equipment and claimed the benefit of Modvat in terms of Rule 57Q. The details of the equipment on which Modvat was claimed are as under :--------------------------------------------------------------------------------B.E.No. Date Commodity Chapter Amount of Pt.II Entry No.& Heading RG 23 C Date--------------------------------------------------------------------------------18194-3-1994 Test s...

Walchandnagar Industries Ltd. Vs. Cement Corporation of India

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 1997IIAD(Delhi)929; II(1997)BC1; [1997]89CompCas519(Delhi); 66(1997)DLT547

M. Jagannadha Rao, C.J.(1) This is an appeal by the plaintiff in Suit No. 2195/92 against the order dated 7.8.1996 in is No. 8932/92 vacating the interim injunction dated 15.6.92. The is was for temporary injunction restraining the respondent from invoking two Bank guarantees No. G. 76/1337 and G. 78/448 dated 6.12.82 and 9.4.84 respectively. The suit was one Filed by the appellant under Section 20 of the Indian Arbitration Act, 1940. (2) The 1st respondent namely, the Cement Corporation of India invited tenders regarding supply, supervision of erection and commissioning of two numbers of Cement Mills at Tandur, State of Andhra Pradesh. On 9.11.82, a Letter of Intent was issued in favor of the appellant in respect of two cement plants. Though a formal contract was to be executed between partics, none was executed as appellant failed to give technical details which were to be incorporated in the contract. Clause 2.0.0 of the Letter of Intent contemplated the appellant supplying material...

Prem Chand Ramesh Chand Vs. Delhi Development Authority

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 1997IIAD(Delhi)629; 66(1997)DLT110; 1997(41)DRJ195; 1997RLR275

Y.K. Sabharwal, J.(1) This judgment will dispose of a bunch of writ petitions involving common questions and filed more than a decade and a half ago seeking issue of appropriate writ restraining respondent / Delhi Development Authority (DDA) from demolishing the structures of the petitioners. The interim orders restraining Dda from carrying out any demolitions and dispossessing the petitioners are continuing since 1980.. Arguments were addressed in C.W. 730/80 (M/s. Prem Chand Ramesh Chand v. Dda & another) and, thereforee, we will notice the facts of this case which lie in a narrow compass. (2) The petitioner who claims to be the owner and in possession of structures / godowns bearing No. 27 on land out of Khasra No. 197 and situate in Revenue Estate, Village Haiderpur, Delhi, has, inter alia, pleaded in the writ petition that the land on which the godowns have been constructed has neither been acquired under any provisions of law nor the area has been declared as 'Development Area' a...

Ramesh Kumar Vs. Municipal Corporation of Delhi

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 1997IIAD(Delhi)489; 66(1997)DLT397; 1997(41)DRJ13

Dalveer Bhandari, J.(1) The petitioners were Working as Junior Clerks with the respondent Mcd for more than five years. A circular dated 28.5.1993 was issued in which consent/option was taken from the Junior Clerks who have rendered at least Five years of service for filling up the posts of Meter Readers in the same pay scale on deputation basis.(2) It is clearly mentioned in the circular that the period of deputation will be one year in the first instance and shall not exceed three years in any case, after which they may be repatriated as Junior Clerks.(3) It is also mentioned in the circular that the Junior Clerks posted as Meter Readers by transfer on deputation basis shall not be entitled to any additional financial benefit or transfer duty allowance for discharging the job of Meter Readers.(4) It is also mentioned in the circular that the Junior Clerks so posted by transfer on deputation basis as Meter Readers shall not be eligible for promotion to the vacancies of Meter Reading I...