Delhi Court March 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.
P.D. Yadav Vs. Union of India
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-04-1997
Reported in: 1997IIAD(Delhi)901; 66(1997)DLT832; 1997(41)DRJ172
M. Jagannadha Rao, J.(1) These two writ petitions arising under the Navy Act, 1957 have been referred to a Full bench for being disposed of Along with Cwp 2813/94, 2866/90 and 4706/94 arising under the Indian Army Act, 1950. We have today delivered one judgment in Cwp 2813/94 and another judgment in Cwp 2866/90 and Cwp 4706/94 taken up together. Those cases arose under the Army Act. As the points in these two writ petitions before us arise under the Navy Act,1957, we are delivering a separate judgment. (2) We shall briefly refer to the facts in each of these two writ petitions. (3) In Cw 402/93, the petitioner is Ex-Lt. P.D. Yadav. He joined the Navy as a Sailor in April, 1965, and was commissioned in October, 1980. He was charge-sheeted in January 1990 and tried by a General Court Martial on 5 charges under Sections 43, 47 and 48 of the Navy Act, found guilty of the 2nd, 3rd, 4th and 5th charges and given a sentence of dismissal on 26.2.90. One year and 4 months later, he was given a ...
N.D. Sharma Vs. Union of India
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-04-1997
Reported in: 70(1997)DLT226
M. Jagannadha Rao, J. (1) The petitioner joined as a Sepoy in the Army on3.12.1958 and was discharged on 4.1.1959 after 34 days of service. He rejoined on9.2.1960 and worked as Sepoy up to 13.6.1969 for 9 years, 4 months and was commissioned on 14.6.1969, promoted as Captain on 22.1.1979 and was 'dismissed' from service under Section 18 of the Army Act on 11.1.1980. This order was modified on 3.3.1980 as an order of 'termination'.(2) Petitioner, according to the respondent did not have qualified service for pension (20 years) but was only entitled to gratuity. So far as his gratuity is concerned a cut of 5% was imposed by an order dated 25.8.1980. The petitioner filed writ petition C.W.P. 1644 of 1982 challenging the termination and also the cut of5% in gratuity. The writ petition was dismissed on 22.3.1985 and petitioner filed LPA 116/85 which was disposed of on 19.8.1986 upholding the rejection of pension but directing full gratuity. The order of termination was not disturbed. In oth...
A.K. Malhotra Vs. Union of India
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-04-1997
Reported in: 66(1997)DLT792; 1997(41)DRJ353
M. Jagannadha Rao, C.J. (1) In Cw 2813/94, initially an order of reference was made by Anil Dev Singh, J requesting that the matter may be considered by a larger Bench. Later, other cases were tagged on to Cw 2813/94. It will be sufficient to refer to the facts and points raised in Cwp 2813/94. (2) The facts : (3) The petitioner was born on 20.5.1938. He later entered Army service and was commissioned in the Army (ASC) on 12.6.60 and was promoted to Selection grade rank of acting Brigadier in December, 1986 and he retired from service on 31.5.90 on attaining the age of superannuation i.e. 52 years in terms of Rule 16A (5)(a) of the Army Rules, 1954. The prescribed minimum period of qualifying service for a person to seek retirement is 20 years and for retiring gratuity is 10 years in respect of commissioned officers in the Army. The petitioner says he earned a right to pension and gratuity by 31.5.90 and also became entitled to leave encashment of 150 days of annual leave. The said det...
Om Builders and Engineers (P) Ltd. Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Incom ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-04-1997
Reported in: (1997)58TTJ(Del)213
ORDERSMT MOKSH MAHAJAN, A.M. :These two appeals filed by the assessed for asst. yrs. 1984-85 and 1985-86 are against respective orders of the learned CIT(A). As these contain common issues, these are consolidated and disposed of by passing a common order.2. Taking up the assessees appeal in ITA No. 4606/Del/1989 we find that the first ground relates to additions of Rs. 2,47,286 and Rs. 2,65,638 on account of cash credits in the account of S/Shri Anil Gupta and Ajay Gupta. The facts in brief as explained by Shri C. S. Aggarwal are that on examination of the accounts of the assessed it was found that there were cash credits in the accounts of these two parties namely S/Shri Anil Gupta and Ajay Gupta. Both are sons of director Shri O. P. Gupta. Despite evidence filed before the AO the same was not accepted and the additions were made in the hands of the company. The learned CIT(A) upheld the additions giving reasons in para 3 of his order. While doing so he totally ignored the facts broug...
T.i. Cycles of India Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Mar-03-1997
Reported in: (1997)LC155Tri(Delhi)
1. Appellant is absent, but has sent a request for disposal of the appeal on merits. We have heard Shri M. Ali, JDR and perused the papers.2. Appellant, engaged in the manufacture of cycle and cycle parts covered by erstwhile T.I. 68, was availing benefit of Notification No.201/79 dated 4-6-1979. Subsequently, appellant filed refund claim for Rs. 3,14,314.96, being the excess duty paid by the appellant on the finished product. The Assistant Collector sanctioned the refund claim partly allowing Cash refund only to the extent actual of Rs. 1,23,734.22, but made actual Cash refund in cash only of Rs. 89,89,366.87 and withheld cash repayment of the balance amount of Rs. 34,367.35 in view of the bar in the notification. Collector (Appeals) having dismissed the assessee's appeal, the present appeal has been filed.3. The heading of Notification No. 201/79 as amended from time to time purports to be as follows :- "Set-off of duty of excisable goods used in the manufacture of other excisable g...
Badra Estate and Industries Ltd. Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Mar-03-1997
Reported in: (1997)(93)ELT46TriDel
1. The impugned goods declared by the appellants as Coffee Huller were claimed to be eligible to benefit of Notification No. 390/86-C.E., dated 29-7-1986 as amended. Customs Authorities however, held that Notification No. 390/86 exempts coffee huller or peeler-cum-polisher and the impugned machine, in addition to hulling, also serves the function of de-stoning and pneumatic separator and, therefore, the benefit of notification which exempts coffee huller cannot be extended to the impugned goods.3. Ld. DR reiterates the departmental arguments and submits that it is not a simple coffee huller but a complex machine which not only performs the function of hulling but also a destoner and pneumatic separator.4. We have heard ld. DR and perused the records of the case.Notification 390/86 exempts coffee huller or peeler-cum-polisher. It also exempts coffee grader, UV sorting machine for coffee, vipro Grader or Gravity separator for coffee. The appellants in their appeal memo have pleaded that...
Collector of Central Excise Vs. Poona Dal and Besan Mills
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Mar-03-1997
Reported in: (1997)(92)ELT509TriDel
1. The respondents in this appeal were marketing a product known as "Pacudamix" in gunny bags of 20 kgs. and 80 kgs. containing a mix of gramflour and maize flour in the proportions of either 70:30 or 55:45.A show cause notice was issued alleging that these products were dutiable under Chapter Heading 2107.91 and demanding duty for the back period amounting to Rs. 32,32,599/-. Before the Collector, a plea was made that these products were not classifiable under Chapter 21 but would fall under Chapter 11 as products of the milling industry and would attract duty at nil rate. The Adjudicating Collector after examining the product accepted the contention and dropped the proceedings. The Revenue have come up in appeal against this order.2. We have heard Shri Satnam Singh, SDR for the Revenue and Shri G.Shiva Dass, Advocate for the Respondents.3. In deciding the issue before him, the Collector sampled the contested goods as well as other products admittedly falling under Chapter 21 and dec...
Equipment Conductors and Cables (P) Ltd. Vs. Union of India
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-03-1997
Reported in: 1997(41)DRJ229
(1) The Arbitrator passed the Award on 31st December, 1990. The claimant had filed objections. The argument of learned counsel for the claimant is that the Arbitrator while considering the claims had not taken into account the effect of the Circular issued by the Government of India and whatever the claim was made by the claimant was only in accordance with the Circular issued by the Government of India. The learned counsel submits that the reference to the Claim No. 2 as against a claim of Rs. 63,928.80 that the Arbitrator had allowed to the extent of Rs. 43,211.60 being the two per cent of the price of the balance price which has not been paid to the claimants. Claim No. 3 relates to the interest on the sums as claimed by the claimants in their Claims No. 1 and 2 was also disallowed by the Arbitrator. The learned counsel for the claimants submits that having allowed the sum of Rs. 43,211.60 the Arbitrator ought to have awarded the interest on the sum claimed. (2) Claim No. 4 is for a...
National Small Scale Industries Corporation Vs. V.K. Agnihotri and ors ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-03-1997
Reported in: AIR1998Delhi12; 1997(2)ARBLR86(Delhi); 66(1997)DLT864
S.N. Kapoor, J.(1) The petitioner challenges an opinion given by the Sub- Judge, 1st Class on a reference from the Arbitrators that they could proceed with the reference.2.1. Arbitrators moved an application under Section 13(b) read with Section 41 and Section 28 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 (hereinafter called the Act for short) for opinion. The facts giving an occasion to the said application are : Mr. V.K. Agnihotri and Mr. Jai Prasad Aggarwal, two Advocates were appointed as Arbitrators by the two parties. Mr. P.L. Vohra, Advocate was appointed Umpire on 12.12.73. The Arbitrators entered on the reference. Four months lapsed. Thereafter, the petitioner informed the Arbitrators that they had become 'functus officio' and the petitioner also requested Mr. P.L. Vohra, Umpire to enter on the reference since time for making the award had expired. 2.2.On receipt of that letter thereafter the Arbitrator moved an application on the ground that there was no delay on the part of the Arbitrator...
Ashok K.R. Dogra Vs. Ashra Dogra
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-03-1997
Reported in: 67(1997)DLT91
M.S.A. Siddiqui, J.(1) This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 20.5.96, passed by the Guardian Judge, Delhi whereby the respondent's petition under Section 25 of the Guardian & Wards Act for custody of his minor son namely, Amit Kumar was allowed by the learned Judge. (2) The appellant is the husband of the respondent. The two it appears are not living together. After their estrangement, their 10 years old son Amit Kumar was in the custody of the appellant. The respondent filed petition under Section 25 of the Guardian & Wards Act in the Guardian Court asking for the custody of the son alleging that welfare of the child is in living with her and the appellant had neglected the child and did not take proper care of his educational needs. The petition having been allowed by the Guardian Judge the appellant has filed this appeal. (3) The learned Guardian Judge, after trial came to the conclusion that, (i) since 2nd February, 1993, when the respondent left her matrimonial home l...
- ‹ Prev
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 16
- 17
- 18
- 19
- 21
- 22
- Next ›
- Last »