Delhi Court December 1998 Judgments

Sampuran Singh Vs. Lt. Governor of Govt. of Nct Delhi

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

1. Applicant challenges the order of his dismissal from service, passed by the disciplinary authority following a departmental enquiry. The charge against the applicant was that while he was detailed for gas duty on 18.10.1989, he temporarily got involved in a criminal case in which a FIR No. 728/89 dated 18.10.89 was filed and he was alleged to have fired on a Toyota Car No. DDV 9347 occupied by S/Shri Narender Singh, Tejvir Singh and driver Arvind Kumar near ESI Hospital on Ring Road.2. It is stated in the order that the defaulter Constable along with his associates tried to slip away with his Maruti Car from the spot when a tempo driver named Surat Singh, an eye witness of the above incident, chased the Maruti Car and stopped after over-taking the same and in the meantime another person came out from the Maruti Car and took the revolver from the Ex. Constable and threatened the tempo drive of dire consequences. It is also stated that when the tempo driver took out an iron rod and c...

Rameshwar Dayal and ors. Vs. Union of India (Uoi)

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 1999(48)DRJ516

Arun Kumar, J. 1. This appeal under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) is directed against a judgment dated 3rd April, 1969 of the learned Addl. District Judge, Delhi in a reference under Section 18 of the Act. The land subject matter of this appeal comprising in area 43 bighas and 6 bids was falls in village Peepal Thala. The appellants Claim 1/3rd share in the said land. The notification under Section 4 of the Act for acquisition of a larger chunk of land was issued on 13th November, 1959. It was followed by a declaration dated 22nd November, 1962 under Section 6 of the Act. The Collector made his award on 22nd April, 1963 being Award No. 1570/63. The Collector divided the land under acquisition in two blocks. The land on the higher level near the village abadi was included in Block A while the remaining land was put in Block B. The Collector awarded compensation @ Rs. 1,500/- per bigha for the land falling in Block A and Rs. 1,000/- per bigha...

Wearwell Tyre and Tube Industries Vs. Collector of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1998)(105)ELT313TriDel

1. The appellants herein are aggrieved by the order of the Additional Collector of Central Excise, Indore, by which he has confirmed a duty demand of Rs. 61,528.08 on regular OK auto tyres removed without payment of duty during the period from December, 1984 to April, 1985 (show cause notice was issued on 11-11-1985) in the guise of ADV tyres which are exempt under a Notification. The order is challenged both on merits and on time bar.2. We have heard Shri Vibhuti Jha, learned Advocate and Shri Panchatcharam, learned DR.3. The challenge on merits is not sustainable in view of the Tribunal's Order in the case of Dunlop India Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise reported in 1990 (49) E.L.T. 228 in which it has been held that the tyres specially designed as aero tyres (for air crafts) cannot be treated as tyres for animal drawn vehicles and hence the benefit of exemption from duty under Notification 229/82-C.E., is not available since the tyres in question were admittedly designed as aero...

Continental Cargo Services Vs. Commr. of Cus.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1999)(108)ELT768TriDel

1. This application for stay of the operation of the impugned order of the Commissioner of Customs dated 20-11-1998 was taken up at short notice, in pursuance of the directions made by the Delhi High Court in disposing of C.W.P. No. 6097/98, dated 1-12-1998.2. Vide the impugned order, the Commissioner suspended the licence given to Shri Bhupinder Singh in his capacity as Custom House Agent, using the power vested in her under Regulation 21(2) of the Customs House Agents Licensing Regulations, 1984.3. Shri R.K. Anand, Senior Advocate appearing with Shri Sawhney, Advocate referred to the Calcutta High Court judgment reported in 1998 (104) E.L.T. 11 (Cal.) in the case of N.C. Singha & Sons v. Union of India. He stated that in identitical circumstances the High Court had not found favour with such suspension. He stated that the necessity for immediate action was not substantiated. The sequence was that the shipping bills were filed on 7-9-1998, the statement of the CHA was recorded on...

K. Neelakandhan Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

1. Applicant's OA 925/95 was rejected under Section 19(3) of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 as follows:-- "..... Therefore, on a careful perusal of the application and the connected, material on record, we do not find any substance in the application. For his grievance, if at all the remedy has been barred by limitation. The application is therefore, rejected under Section 19(3) of the AT Act." 2. The applicant moved SLP before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil No. 17259/ 95 against the aforesaid order and the Apex Court passed the following order:-- "The petition filed on behalf of the petitioner before the Central Administrative Tribunal has been dismissed on the ground of delay. During the hearing of the SLP it was pointed out that the new seniority which is being challenged by the petitioner is of May 12, 1994 and he had filed the petition before the Tribunal within one year from the date of publication of the new seniority list. According to us, in that situation the pet...

Urmila Srivastava Vs. State

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 1998VIIAD(Delhi)517; 77(1999)DLT222; I(1999)DMC253; 1999(48)DRJ676

ORDERJ.B. Goel, J.1. This is a petition under Section 438 Cr.P.C. for anticipatory bail. The petitioner is the mother-in-law of the deceased.2. Briefly, the facts are that the deceased Amita was married to Pradeep, son of the petitioner on 23.1.1998 at Allahabad where the parents of both the parties are residing. The deceased had died an un-natural death on 10.7.1998 alleged to have committed suicide by hanging at house No. J-1/195, DDA Flats, Kalkaji, New Delhi where she was living with her husband. After receipt of information of her death her father Shri Suryadev Srivastava and mother Smt. Meera came to Delhi and made their statements before the S.D.M. Shri Sanjay Pandey to the effect that they had given good dowry in the marriage of her daughter spending about Rs. 4 lakhs, substantial amount of which was given in cash. But her in-laws were not satisfied with the same and from the time of marriage her in-laws had started expressing dis-satisfaction and annoyance on the ground that t...

Sanwal Ram Agarwal Vs. Smt. Gianwati

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 1999IAD(Delhi)581; 77(1999)DLT242; 1999(48)DRJ108

ORDERC.M. Nayar, J.1.This judgment will dispose of Civil Revision Petition Nos. 900/94 and 18/97. The first petition arises out of the judgment dated September 5, 1994 passed by Shri N.K. Goel, Addl. Rent Controller, Delhi by which an application of the petitioner for leave to defend was dismissed and an order of eviction was passed in favor of the respondent in respect of the tenanted premises. The second petition, Civil Revision 18/97 challenges the order dated November 8, 1996 dismissing an application of the petitioner for staying the proceedings under Section 14(1)(d) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') in view of the pendency of the first petition in this Court. The respondent filed an eviction petition against the petitioner under Section 14(1)(e) read with Section 25B of the Act in respect of the tenant-ed premises. Summons in the prescribed proforma were issued to the petitioner and an application under Section 25B(5) for leave to defend ...

K. Bhaskaran and ors. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: AIR1999Delhi150; 1999(48)DRJ12

ORDERAnil Dev Singh, J.1. This is a writ petition whereby the petitioners seek a direction to the respondents to announce Indian Kabaddi Team comprising of petitioners by clearing all the formalities at the earliest so as to enable them to participate in the 13th Asian Games at Bangkok which are starting on December 6, 1998.2. The genesis of this case is in a dispute between two factions of the fourth respondent Amateur Kabaddi Federation of India. While one faction is led by Shri Kuldeep Vats, the other faction is led by Shri J. S. Gehlot. Both S/Shri Vats and Gehlot were claiming to have been elected to the post of the President of the said association. The faction led by Shri Vats under the supervision of an observer of the Sports Authority of India selected the Kabaddi team comprising of the petitioners to represent India at the 13th Asian Games. According to the petitioners, various Kabaddi coaching camps were organized for them at different places as per the following details :--...

Collector of Central Excise Vs. C.M.i. Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1999)(105)ELT332TriDel

1. By the impugned order, the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals) dismissed the appeal of the Revenue holding that for non-compliance of Section 35E(4) of the Act read with Rule 214 of the Central Excise Rules, the application is also rejected on merits, learned Collector (Appeals) also held that there was no wrong exercise of the authority granted to the Collector under Section 35E(2) of the Act by him in this case. Being aggrieved by this order, the Revenue has filed the above captioned appeal.2. The facts of the case, in brief, are that the respondent herein is manufacturing wires and cables and other insulated electric cable, conductors and tele communication cables. A show cause notice was issued to the respondent asking them to explain as to why duty should not be collected from them inasmuch as in the process of manufacture of the product waste and scrap of plastic is generated out of the raw materials used for the manufacture of the final product. It was alleged that as the ...

Bharat Artificial Stone Works Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1999)(105)ELT325TriDel

1. The issues in this case are two; the first issue is the classification of the product and the second issue is the availability of exemption.2. The appellants are engaged in the manufacture of Flour Mills and Mill Stones (with frame works). They filed classification list effective from 1-4-1990 classifying their goods as parts of flour mills under sub-heading 8485.90 and claimed exemption under Notification No.111/88-C.E., dated 1-3-1988 as amended by Notification No. 141/88-C.E., dated 18-4-1988. The Department alleged that the product manufactured by the appellants was classifiable under sub-heading 6801.90 instead of Chapter 84. The main contention of the department was that Chapter Note 1(a) of Chapter 84 clearly excludes the mill stones, grind stones or other articles of Chapter 68 from Chapter 84. They proceeded further that the product will be classifiable under sub-heading 6808.90 by application of Rule 3(a) of Rules of Interpretation of the Schedule to the Central Excise Ta...