Delhi Court November 1998 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.
Universal Chemical (India) Vs. Collector of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Nov-17-1998
Reported in: (1999)LC235Tri(Delhi)
1. This appeal arises from order-in-original dated 13-7-1992 passed by Collector of Central Excise, Bombay-Ill. He has dropped the duty demand of Rs. 7,95,960.84 under proviso to Section 11A(1) of Central Excises & Salt Act, 1944 with show cause notice dated 30-10-1991, being not sustainable. However, he has ordered confiscation of 9,300 kgs. of the precipitated barium sulphate, valued at Rs. 1,20,900/- seized on 3-5-1991. However, he has granted an option to redeem the same on payment of a fine of Rs. 50,000/-. He has also imposed a penalty of Rs. 2,00,000/- under Rule 173Q of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 for contravention of Rules 174 and 173G(4) in respect of the excisable goods seized on 3-5-1991.2. The facts of the case are that the appellants filed declaration on 1-5-1991 under Notification 11/83 (N.T.) for exemption from licensing control, claiming full exemption from payment of duty under Notification No. 23/55, dated 29-4-1955 for their product 'Precipitated Barium Sulp...
Ralson Carbon Vs. Collector of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Nov-17-1998
Reported in: (1999)(108)ELT608TriDel
1. Shri Dharminder, clerk c Ms. Ginny Bedi, learned Advocate, submitted a photo-copy of the form c declaration under Section 89 of the Finance Act, 1998 in respect of Kar Viva' Samadhan Scheme, 1998 and mentioned that the appellants have made declaration under Kar Vivad Samadhan Scheme and requests permission t withdraw the appeal.2. The permission to withdraw the appeal is granted and accordingly the appeal" stands dismissed as withdrawn....
J.K. Thakur Vs. Delhi Administration and Others
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-17-1998
Reported in: 1998VIIAD(Delhi)362; 1998(47)DRJ751
ORDERVijender Jain, J. 1. Aggrieved by the order dated 22.9.1987 terminating the services of the petitioner, the petitioner has filed this writ petition. The petitioner was employed as a daily wager on 18.6.1980 at Group D post. It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner right from the date of his appointment was given the duties attached to the post of Assistant Grade III. The petitioner has been representing to the respondent that he may be given the daily wage according to rates applicable to the post of Assistant Grade III. It has also been contended by Mr. Gupta, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that petitioner submitted representations after representations for grant of Assistant Grade III to the petitioner, which was rejected by the respondent. On the representation dated 5.1.1985 of the petitoner respondent admitted that on account of paucity of Assistant Grade III, the petitioner was deployed on diary dispatch work. As a matter of fact in the counter affi...
Ram Kishan Vs. State and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-17-1998
Reported in: 1999IAD(Delhi)384; 76(1998)DLT726; 1999(48)DRJ336
C.M. Nayar, J.1. This judgment will dispose of an appeal which arises out of the judgment dated August 28, 1993 passed by Additional District Judge, Delhi in Probate Case No. 640/1993.2. The appellant filed a petition under Section 276 of the Indian Succession Act for the grant of probate in respect of the Will dated October 8, 1981 alleged to have been executed by late Smt. Sirya Devi wife of Munna Lal, alleged to be paternal grand-mother of the appellant who expired on December 9, 1981. The deceased was a resident of C-7, Rana Pratap Bagh, Delhi and in the petition only Mool Chand son of Shri Ghasi Ram respondent No. 2 was imp leaded as a party. The relationship of respondent No. 2 with the deceased was not disclosed nor there was any averment made in the petition that deceased had left behind any other heir or near relation who would be interested in the property after her death. On objection being taken by respondent Mool Chand, the appellant filed an application under Section 151 ...
Usha Spinning and Weaving Mills (Ex-workmen) Ass. and ors. Vs. Usha In ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-17-1998
Reported in: 1999IAD(Delhi)437; 1999(48)DRJ653; [1999(82)FLR586]; (1999)IILLJ425Del
ORDERY.K. Sabharwal, J.1.The question to be determined in this appeal is whether the settlement recorded by the Deputy Labour Commissioner, Faridabad is binding on the appellants or not. The appellants claim that they were not members of the Union which had entered into the settlement with respondent No.1 and, thereforee, they are entitled to pursue their remedies under Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short' the Act') and the settlement in question is not binding on them. It would also have to be examined whether the settlement was arrived at during conciliation proceedings or dehorse said proceedings. But first the brief facts : 2. On a creditor's winding up petition, M/s. Usha Spinning & Weaving Mills Ltd. (for short 'the company') was ordered to be wound up in terms of the order passed on 6th November, 1986. CA.878/93 was filed by M/s. Usha Rectifier Corporation (I) Ltd. under Sections 391(1), 393, 394 and 466 of the Companies Act submitting a Scheme for Revival of the Company un...
Bimla Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-17-1998
Reported in: 1998VIIAD(Delhi)489; 77(1999)DLT300; I(1999)DMC162; 1999(48)DRJ672
ORDERJ.B. Goel, J.1. This is a petition under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short the 'Code') for anticipatory bail. Petitioner is the mother-in-law of the deceased.2. Deceased Kamlesh was married to Narender on 8.5.1995. She was admitted in Safdarjung Hospital at 4.30 p.m. on 3.7.1998 with extensive burns all over her body. She succumbed to her injuries on 9.7.1998. The deceased had made a statement before the S.D.M. on 4.7.1998 at about 6.45 p.m. On the basis of her statement FIR No. 335/98 was registered at P.S. Vasant Kunj under Sections 498-A/307/34 IPC at 7.30 p.m. on that day.3. After that the offences were converted to Sections 498-A/307/34 IPC. Statements of father and brother of the deceased were also recorded by the S.D.M. Police also recorded their statements. 4. During investigation, Narender, husband of the deceased; Padam Kumar and Pankaj, two brothers-in-law (devar) of the deceased were arrested on 4.7.1998 who had made disclosure statements about t...
Kewal Krishan Vs. Lalit Kala Akadami and Others
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-17-1998
Reported in: 1999(48)DRJ342
ORDERVijender Jain, J. 1. In view of the fact that the petitioner has retired, I do not want to go into various issues regarding the applicability of 1983 rules with amendment or herwise.2. This writ petition can be disposed of on the limited point in view of the order dated 3rd July 1997 passed by acting Secretary of the respondent. The said order is as follows :-LALIT KALA AKADEMI OFFICE ...
M.S. Sokhanda Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-17-1998
Reported in: 1999IIAD(Delhi)546; 78(1999)DLT68
Arun Kumar, J.1. The petitioner was holding the post of Joint Secretary in the Ministry of defense. On 24th April, 1998 he applied for seeking voluntary retirement under Rule 48 of the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972 w.e.f. 16th May, 1998 (F/N). The request of the petitioner for voluntary retirement w.e.f. 16th May, 1998 was accepted by the Government on 8th May, 1998. On 12th May, 1998 the Government announced its decision to enhance the retirement age of Govern-ment servants from fifty eight years to sixty years. On the same day the petitioner applied seeking permission to withdraw his request for voluntary retirement. The request of the petitioner for permission to withdraw his notice of voluntary retirement was rejected on 16th May, 1998. The petitioner challenged the said rejection through an application filed before the Central Administrative Tribunal on 19th May, 1998. The Tribunal by its impugned judgment dated 16th July, 1998 dismissed the application of the petitioner. The petition...
Jai Bhagwan Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-17-1998
Reported in: 1999ACJ1185; 1999(48)DRJ697
J.B. Goel, J.1. Petitioner was convicted by learned Metropolitan Magistrate (M.M.) for offences under Sections 279/337/304A (wrongly mentioned as 338) of the IPC on 3.6.1995 and has been sentenced under Section 304-A IPC only to RI of six months and a fine of Rs.1,000/-. His appeal was dismissed by learned Addl. Session Judge (ASJ) on 7.9.1998. Petitioner challenges the legality, correctness and validity of this conviction and the sentence.2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the identity of the petitioner as the driver of the offending vehicle has not been established and no TIP was held. Secondly, the finding that the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of the petitioner is not reasonable and justified; relevant material and circumstances have not been considered; site plan has been wrongly relied to support the prosecution case and it rather proves that the accident had taken place due to rash and negligent act of the deceased driver of the car....
Sunil Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-17-1998
Reported in: 77(1999)DLT435; 1999(48)DRJ314
J.B. Goel, J.1. The petitioner has been convicted by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate (M.M.) for offence under Section 61 of the Punjab Excise Act (for short 'the Act') and sentenced to SI of one year and a fine of Rs. 1500/- vide judgment and order dated 17.1.1998 and 2.2.1998. His appeal has been dismissed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge (A.S.J.) on 1.8.1998. The petitioner challenges the legality and propriety of these judgments of conviction and sentence.2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the Moharar Malkhana with whom the case property was deposited has not been examined and PW-6 another Malkhana Mohrar examined has not deposed that the case property has not been tampered with. And thus the link evidence is missing and the conviction is not valid and legal. Reliance has been placed by him on The State of Rajasthan Vs . Daulat Ram : 1980CriLJ929 . It is also contended that all the 25 bottles alleged to have been recovered and seized should have been sen...
- ‹ Prev
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- Next ›
- Last »