Delhi Court December 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.
Archana Garg Vs. Rajpur Road Transport Authority and Others
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-08-1998
Reported in: AIR1999Delhi95; 1999(48)DRJ375
ORDERAnil Dev Singh, J.1. On 12th November, 1996 the petitioner purchased Premier Padmini Car bearing registration No. DL-1C-B-0902 from Smt. Vinita Kumar. On 27th November, 1996 the petitioner submitted to the respondents an application in forms 29 and 30 for transfer of ownership of vehicle in her name. The registration certificate after requisite changes was not handed over to the petitioner even after removal of the deficiency in the application pointed orally by the respondents. 2. The petitioner who is residing at Sidharth Extension, had to visit the office of respondents No. 2 to 4 located at Rajpur Road several times. She was subjected to mental tension, agony and physical inconvenience. The registration certificate which was applied in the year 1996 was handed over only in February 1998 after a period of more than one and a half years that too after the petitioner approached this Court. Since there was nothing to deny, the respondents did not even file a counter affidavit. The...
N.C. JaIn and ors. Vs. Indian Oil Corporation
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-08-1998
Reported in: 1999IAD(Delhi)748; 77(1999)DLT108; 1999(49)DRJ112
M.S.A. Siddiqui, J.1. By this Order I propose to dispose of the plaintiff's application under Order 12, Rule 6, CPC for judgment on admissions. 2. The plaintiffs have filed this suit for eviction of the defendant from the suit premises bearing No. C-1/52, Safdarjung Development Area, New Delhi and for recovery of Rs. 93,60,000/- as damages for use and occupation from 15.6.95 to 14.6.97 besides pendente lite and future mesne profits at the rate of Rs. 5 lacs per month. Briefly stated, the plaintiffs' case is that by the agreement of lease dated 8.6.83 the suit premises were let out to the defendant for a period of three years with effect from 15.6.83 with an option to extend the same once for further period of three years subject to increase of rent by 15%. hereafter, the lease was renewed from time to time and as per terms of the last lease dated 26.3.93 the defendant's tenancy expired on 14.6.93 by efflux of time. The defendant did not vacate the suit premises after expiry of the leas...
Probal Roy Vs. S.K. Bhowal
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-08-1998
Reported in: 1999IAD(Delhi)644; 77(1999)DLT229; 1999(48)DRJ95; 1999RLR180
C.M. Nayar, J.1. The present petition is directed against the Order dated 21st January, 1997 passed by the Additional Rent Controller, Delhi allowing the petition of the respondent under Section 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') and dismissing the objections of the petitioner under Section 25-B of the Act. The learned Additional Rent Controller assessed the bona fide requirement of the respondent by taking into consideration the family of the respondent which comprised of the respondent his wife, two sons aged 29 and 21 years respectively. The respondent was residing in tenanted premises and required his own premises for use of his residence as well as residence of the family members dependent upon him and no other reasonably suitable accommodation was available. The learned Counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that the premises were let out not by the respondent but by one person namely Shri B.K. Kundu who also had become o...
C.C. Vs. Bright Opticals and Scientific
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Dec-07-1998
Reported in: (1999)LC1009Tri(Delhi)
1. M/s. Bright Opticals & Scientific Instruments Pvt. Ltd. imported programmers for Pace Maker (Time Switches). The goods were classified under Heading No. 91.07 of the Customs Tariff. The goods were cleared out of customs charge. Subsequently, the importers lodged a refund claim on the ground that the goods in question were eligible to the benefit of Notification Nos. 30/88 and 108/99 (sic). By two separate orders, the Collector of Customs (Appeals), Bombay allowed the appeals holding that these goods were light-sensitive time-switches used for street lighting. The Revenue in the present appeals had pleaded that there was no dispute that the goods imported were classifiable under Section XI of the Customs Tariff. The appellants have not challenged the classification under Heading No. 91.07 and that the goods classifiable under Chapter 91 were not eligible for exemption under Notification No. 30/88-Cus.2. When the matter was called, none appeared for the respondents. The notice fo...
Ashwani and Associates Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Dec-07-1998
Reported in: (1999)(105)ELT40TriDel
1. In this case, the Applicant is aggrieved by imposition of penalty of Rs. 20,070/- in terms of Sections 76 and 77 of the Finance Act, 1994 for failure to pay Service Tax within the stipulated period and failure to submit the return within time as required under Rule 6 of the Service Tax Rules, 1994 and Section 70 of the Act. The Applicant's contention is that since Service Tax was introduced only with effect from 1-7-1994 on services rendered by Stock Brokers (the applicant is a Stockbroker), he could not clearly understand the provisions regarding the working out of the amount of taxable service etc., and for this reason, there was a delay in paying the tax and submitting the return which was deposited voluntarily as soon as the value of taxable service was confirmed. He submits that the penalty is not warranted in this situation and prays for dispensation with the pre-deposit requirement.2. The Id. DR, Shri Panchatcharam reiterates the findings contained in the impugned order.3. O...
Prasar Bharati Broadcasting Corporation of India Vs. Shri Suraj Pal Sh ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-07-1998
Reported in: 1999IAD(Delhi)268; 77(1999)DLT269; (1999)ILLJ1306Del
ORDERCyriac Joseph, J.1.The petitioner in this writ petition challenges an order passed by the Central Government Industrial Tribunal, New Delhi on 23.5.97 in L.C.A. No. 308/89. The impugned order was passed on an application filed by the workman under Section 36 of the Industrial Disputes Act objecting to the appearance of an advocate on behalf of the management. By the impugned order the objection of the workman was upheld by the Central Government Industrial Tribunal holding that the representative of the management Shri Anil Sehgal being a legal practitioner could not be allowed to appear in the case on behalf of the management. The contention of the petitioner-manage-ment in this writ petition is that Shri Anil Sehgal was an Additional Standing Government Counsel and hence he was entitled to appear before the Industrial Tribunal on behalf of the management. According to the petitioner, an Additional Standing Government Counsel is not a legal practitioner to whom sub-sections (3) a...
Rajinder Singh Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-07-1998
Reported in: 1999(49)DRJ500
Vijender Jain, J. 1. Rule. 2. Counsel for the petitioners state that petitioners were offered re-employment by the respondent. Counsel for the petitioners states that petitioners are not interested in joining the Border Security Force.3. On 1st December, 1998 I have heard the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the writ petitioners as well as Mr. Madan Lokur, learned Addl. Solicitor General of India. At the outset my attention was drawn to a Division Bench judgment of this court in Kuldip Singh v. Union of India (CW 915/94) decided on 29.8.1995. As the respondents did not prefer appeal against the said judgment to the Supreme Court, said judgment has become final. I seems that after the judgment in Kuldip Singh's case, a letter was issued by the respondents dated 27.12.1995 wherein it was decided that in terms of the provisions contained in Rule 19 of the BSF Rules, 1969 and based on the approval of Ministry of Home Affairs, in future authorities who accept the resignation of the...
Ashok Chawla Vs. Union of India (Uoi)
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-07-1998
Reported in: 2000(53)DRJ4
D.K. Jain, J.1. By this application under Section 482 Cr.P.C, the petitioner seek a direction to the passport authorities to renew his passport No. A-4555319 or issue a fresh passport with its normal duration and for deletion of endorsement made on the passport already issued to him, in order to enable him to visit England by virtue of the permission granted by this Court vide order dated 9 January 1998.2. The grievance of the petitioner is two fold, namely, (i) that when he approached the British Visa Council for requisite VISA to that country, they declined to issue the VISA in view of the endorsement made by the passport authorities that the further renewal should be granted on this passport without prior approval of this office. This passport is valid travel United Kingdom only', and, (ii) since the passport was valid only up to 19 August 1998, he applied for renewal of the same but his. form was not accepted by the said authorities.3. To appreciate the grievance of the petitioner,...
Brij Mohan Tayla Vs. Union of India (Uoi)
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-07-1998
Reported in: 49(1999)DLT67; 1999(49)DRJ67
Manmohan Sarin, J. 1. This is ah appeal preferred against the Judgment of the learned Additional District Judge dated 28.9.1979, deciding the reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') bearing LAG No. 23/78. The Land Acquisition Collector had, vide Award No. 6-B/74-75 dated 28.9.1970, awarded compensation @ Rs. 800/- per bigha for the lands in Block 'A' and Rs. 200/- per bigha forthe lands in Block 'B', belonging to the appellant in Village Oldanpur, Delhi. The notification under Section 4 of the Act in respect of the said village was issued on 13.11.1959 while the declaration under Section 6 of the Act was issued on 9.8.1966.2. The learned Additional District Judge enhanced the compensation to Rs. 5,750/-per bigha for both the blocks. The appellant in the appeal claims further enhancement by Rs. 10,000/- per bigha, i.e. Rs. 15,750/- per bigha, in addition to interest and solatium, as permissible under the statute.3. Appellant had also...
Collr. of Cus. and C. Ex. Vs. Natraj Ceramics and Chem. Indus.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Dec-04-1998
Reported in: (1999)LC124Tri(Delhi)
1. This is an appeal filed by the department against the Collector (Appeals') Order.2. The Registry has issued a notice for today's hearing but nobody has appeared on behalf of the respondents. The respondents have, however, filed written submissions dated 7-10-1998. We have therefore, gone through the records. Heard ld. DR and perused the written submissions of the respondents.2(i). Ld. DR stated that the respondents are manufacturers of fire bricks and mortar etc. They were availing relaxation of not filing Price List in terms of Rule 173C(11). The price of mortar captively consumed was shown by them as less than price charged by them from other customers/buyers. The respondents had thus paid less duty by undervaluing the goods, the products consumed captively. Therefore a show cause notice dated 26L12-1991 was issued to the assessee demanding the differential duty.2(ii). The respondents had contended, inter alia, that for determining the value of assessable goods with reference to ...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- Next ›
- Last »