Delhi Court November 1998 Judgments

Bhagirathi Iron and Steel (P) Ltd. Vs. Collector of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1999)(113)ELT678TriDel

1. Vide Stay Order No. S/49/98-D, dated 19-6-1998, the appellants were directed to deposit a sum of Rs. 15 lakhs towards duty within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of the order and report compliance on 1-9-1998. The assessees moved the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in Civil Writ Petition 4475/95 and the Court by its order dated 24-9-1998, set aside the stay order, stating that the application under Section 35F filed by the assessees shall be deemed to be pending and shall be taken up by the Tribunal for consideration afresh. We are, therefore, required to hear both sides on the stay application.However, with the consent of both sides, we proceeded to hear the appeal itself, after dispensing with the requirement of pre-deposit of duty and penalty for reasons recorded hereunder: 2. In this case a duty demand of Rs. 31,39,543.60 has been confirmed on a quantity of 3139.544 MTs of MS flats and bars alleged to have been manufactured and cleared during the period from 28-1-1993...

Constable Ravinder Kumar Vs. Additional Commissioner of

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

1. Applicant, Ravinder Kumar, a Constable in the Delhi Police is aggrieved by the penalty of forfeiture of his two years approved service permanently and the reduction of his pay by two stages for a period of two years with effect on the increments during and after the said period and the treatment to his suspension period as not spent on duty, imposed upon him as a result of departmental enquiry proceedings conducted against him by the respondents.2. He has impugned the disciplinary authority's order dated 4.8.92 (Annexure A-7), order the appellate authority dated 13.10.1992 rejecting his appeal (Annexure A-9), show cause notice dated 18.6.92 (Annexure A-5), charge dated 9,3.92 (Annexure A-3), summary of allegations (Annexure A-2) and the entire departmental proceedings in this OA. 3.1 The applicant while he was posted at the Railway Station Hazrat Nizamuddin on 15.11.91 was approached by a private citizen Shri K.R. Venogopal seeking assistance in hiring a TSR. On a complaint made by...

Pramod Kumar Rastogi Vs. Union of India and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 1999(49)DRJ506

ORDERK. Ramamoorthy, J.1.The petitioner has challenged the order of termination dated 17.12.1996 which was confirmed by the appellate authority on 03.06.1997. The case of the petitioner could be briefly stated thus. The petitioner was appointed as General Manager (Hotel Sales) as per the order dated 01.08.1996 and the Petitioner was declared selected by 7 - Member Selection Committee and he was offered appointment as General Manager (Hotel Sales). he petitioner was asked to joint duty by 30.08.1996. 2. On 28.08.1996, the petitioner joined as General Manager, in charge of Hotel Sales & Marketing Division at New Delhi. Before joining he had to fill in a form and that was done on 20.08.1996. On 17.12.1996, the Second respondent Corporation passed an order terminating the services of the petitioner on the ground that the petitioner was guilty of concealment of material information and thereforee by virtue of clause 13 of the offer of appointment, the respondent dispensed with the services ...

Parvinder Kaur Vs. Miss Kanwal Jit Kaur and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 78(1999)DLT385; I(1999)DMC621

D.K. Jain, J.1. This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India read with Section 482, Cr.P.C. is directed against the order dated 25th July, 1994 of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Delhi, dismissing petitioner's revision petition against the order of the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, dated 22nd October, 1992, declining to frame charge against respondents No. 1 & 2 under Sections 498-A and 406, IPC on the ground that the same was not only barred by limitation, it did not suffer from any infirmity as well. The petitioner complainant is the wife and respondents No. 1 & 2 are the two sisters-in-law (Nanads) of the complainant. The State has been arrayed as respondent No. 3.2. While the said two respondents were discharged, charge under the affronted sections was framed against the husband and father-in-law of the petitioner.3. The complainant was married to Tanvir Singh, s/o Ishar Singh on 20th March, 1991. It was a second marriage for both. The new marital life was...

Rakesh Chander Rastogi and anr. Vs. Appropriate Authority and anr. Overruled

Court: Delhi

Reported in: [1999]239ITR197(Delhi)

R.C. Lahoti, J.1. The petitioners are aggrieved by the order dated July 31, 1995, passed by the Appropriate Authority, Income-tax Department, New Delhi, under Section 269UD(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, ordering purchase by the Central Government of the property forming the subject-matter of an agreement to sell dated April 26, 1995.2. The property forming the subject-matter of dispute is No. 142, Madhu-ban, Delhi, having 330 sq. yards of land built-up areas of 2 floors with a mezzanine floor and basement.3. The property belongs to one Dr. S. K. Sama, who entered into an agreement to sell the said property in favor of the two petitioners for a consideration of Rs. 50 lakhs vide agreement dated April 26, 1995 (annexure P-1). Form No. 37-1 (annexure P-2), as required by Section 269UC of the Act signed by the vendor and vendees both were filed on April 28, 1995. The appropriate authority raised certain queries and then issued a show-cause notice calling upon the parties to the agreement...

Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Hansalaya Properties

Court: Delhi

Reported in: [1999]236ITR660(Delhi)

R.C. Lahoti, J.1. For the assessment years 1982-83 to 1986-87, the Revenue seeks a mandamus to the Tribunal for drawing up a statement ofcase and referring the following questions of law for the opinion of the High Court :'(1) Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench-A, New Delhi, was justified in directing to take value of assets on the date of dissolution of the old firm for purposes of calculating depreciation for the period relevant to the assessment years 1982-83 to 1986-87 ? (2) Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench-A, New Delhi, was correct in holding that for purposes of working out profit on the sale of flats adjusted value as worked out at the time of dissolution of the firm and reflected in the capital account of the partners of the newly constituted firm would form the basis for the period under consideration ? (3) Whether, on the facts an...

University of Delhi Vs. Ram Sagar and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 77(1999)DLT106; 1999(48)DRJ251

Vijender Jain, J. 1. This petition has been filed challenging the award of the Labour Court. TheDelhi Administration referred the following dispute for adjudication to the LabourCourt: 'Whether the service of Shri Ram Sagar has been terminated illegally and/or unjustifiably by the management and if so, to what relief is he entitled and what directions are necessary in this regard?'2. The Labour Court held that it was? not a case of willful abandonment of service by the workman and it went on further in holding that it was a case of termination of service without any show cause notice, pay in lieu of notice and compensation. Aggrieved by this award, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition. The award was stayed on 17th November, 1995 by this Court.3. Mr.Luthra, learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently contended that the award is perverse as the learned Labour Court has not taken into consideration the fact that respondent no.1-Ram Sagar was a daily wager and has not u...

R.D. Sagar Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and anr.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 1998(47)DRJ783

Manmohan Sarin, J.1. Petitioner, an Audit Officer in the Department of Posts & Telegraph, has filed this petition under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, for quashing of an order dated 9.9.1997, passed by the Central Administrative2. Tribunal, dismissing the O.A. filed by the petitioner. Petitioner in the said O.A. before the Central Administrative Tribunal had challenged the order dated 26.10.1995, passed by the Director of Estates, cancelling the allotment of General Pool Accommodation to the petitioner as also the notice of demand dated 2.8.1996 demanding penal rent/damages amounting to Rs. 43,981/-.3. Petitioner in this writ petition has also sought directions for regularization of the General Pool allotment of Quarter No. 488-A5, M.B. Road, New Delhi, on the normal license fee.4. The facts culminating in the filing of the present writ petition may be briefly recapitulated:(i) Petitioner was working as a Section Officer in the Posts & Telegraph Audit Office, Delhi. ...

Bhom Singh Taxak Vs. the State Trading Corporation of India Limited an ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 1998(47)DRJ597

K. Ramamoorthy, J. 1. The Petitioner who was working as Deputy Marketing Manager Grade-II, filed the writ petition claiming the following reliefs: i) To quash the seniority List dated 03.04.1989 (Annexure IV, be quashed and the Respondent No. 1 be directed to re draw the Seniority List of Deputy Marketing Manager Grade-I, to be based only on the basis of the length of Service in the Managerial Cadre, or from the date of entry into the Managerial Cadre (Annexure III) ; ii) Quash the S.T.C. (Officers') Promotion and Transfer Policy, 1985, and Modification in the said Policy by virtue of Circular dated 30.12.1988 in view of the above submissions made (Annexure III); iii) Quash the promotion order dated 25.06.1990, 31.12.1990, 10.02.1992 in view of the submissions made in the writ petition. (Annexure VI). iv) To assign the correct Seniority and Promotion to the petitioner by directing the First Respondent and granting prayer (i) to (iii) of the prayer in the present writ petition as als...

Rakesh Chander Rastogi Vs. Appropriate Authority

Court: Delhi

Reported in: [1999]106TAXMAN52(Delhi)

Lahoti, J.The petitioners are aggrieved by the order dated 31-7-1995 passed by the appropriate authority, Income-tax department, New Delhi, under section 269UD(I) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ('the Act'), ordering to purchase by the Central Government the property forming the subject matter of air agreement to sell dated 26-4-1995.2. The property forming the subject-matter of dispute is No. 142, Madhuban, Delhi, having 330 sq. yards of land and built-up area of 2 floors with a mezzanine floor and basement.3. The property belongs to one Dr. S. K. Sharma, who entered into an agreement to sell the said property in favor of the two petitioners for a consideration of Rs. 50 lakhs vide agreement dated 26-4-1995 (Annexure P-4) Form No. 37-1 (Annexure P-2), required by section 269UC of the Act signed by the vender and vendees - both were filed on 28-4-1995. The appropriate authority raised certain queries and then issued a show-cause notice calling upon the parties to the agreement to show caus...