Delhi Court March 1998 Judgments
Home Cases Delhi 1998 Page 9 of about 261 results (0.099 seconds)Raptakos Brett and Co. Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1998)(60)ECC649
1. The appellants herein filed a classification list for their products "Fructodex in Water" and "Fructodex Saline" and claimed 1% exemption from duty for control samples in terms of Notification 171/70, dated 21-11-1970. Since control samples were not packed in a packing different from normal packing, a show cause notice dated 28-2-1991 was issued to them proposing denial of the benefit of the Notification. On the same issue, a notice was issued on 14-1-1991 proposing recovery of differential duty of Rs. 11,188/- on control samples. The Assistant Collector of Central Excise held that since the condition of the Notification at SI. No. 24 of the Table annexed thereto is not satisfied because the Notification requires samples to be packed in a form distinctly different from the regular trade packing, the appellants were not entitled to the benefit of the Notification. He, therefore, approved the classification list without extending the benefit of the Notification and also confirmed the...
Tag this Judgment!Farooq Vs. the State
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1998CriLJ2407; 1998(45)DRJ266
JudgmentA. K. Srivastava, J.1. This petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for setting aside order dated 11.11.97 passed by Mr. D.S. Paweriya, Additional Sessions Judge, Delhi, in Crl. A. No. 3/97 and order dated 19.11.97 passed by Mr. Gurdeep Singh Saini, Metropolitan Magistrate, Delhi. Copies of the aforesaid two orders are on the record at pages 4 to 8 and pages 9 to 10 respectively. 2. The facts of the case are that the four petitioners herein were convicted and sentenced under Sections 365, 452, 380 and 448 IPC in a case arising out of FIR 872/78 by orders dated 7.7.90 and 26.7.89 respectively. An appeal against the conviction and sentence being Crl.A. 3/97 was filed by the convicts. That appeal was taken up for hearing by Mr. D.S. Paweriya, ASJ. It appears that during the course of hearing of the appeal, the learned Addl. Sessions Judge was told that no fine was imposed under Sections 365, 380 and 452 IPC though these sections make it mandator...
Tag this Judgment!Mahender Pal Singh Vs. Union of India
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1998IVAD(Delhi)272; 74(1998)DLT138
ORDERK. Ramamoorthy, J.1. On the 6th of November, 1984, the petitioner was examined by the Medical Board and the following report was given about his physical condition:-'1. Certified that I/We have carefully examined No.761010117 NK RO Mahinder Pal Singh, S/o Late Shri Babu Ram in the Base Hospital No.1, CRPF, New Delhi. His age by his own statement is 35 years and by appearance about 35 years. I(We) consider No.761010117 NK RO Mahinder Pal Singh S/o late Shri Babu Ram to be completely and permanently incapacitated for further service of any kind in the Department to which he belongs in consequent of Head Injury (Effect of) (here state disease or cause). His incapacity does not appear to me/us to have been caused by irregular or intemperate habits.'2. That he had served on the date when he sustained injury for eight years and seven months is common ground. The petitioner claimed pension on the basis of the medical report because he was not in a position to serve in view of his ill-hea...
Tag this Judgment!K.L. Goswami Vs. M.C.D.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 72(1998)DLT642; 1998(45)DRJ145
Dr. M.K. Sharma, J.1. In this writ petition the petitioner has sought for a writ of mandamus to the respondent directing it to promote the petitioner to the post of Deputy Director (Horticulture) with effect from 26.8.1986.2. The petitioner was promoted to the post of Assistant Superintendent (Garden) in the year 1969. In 1979, the said post of Assistant Superintendent (Garden) was re-designated as Assistant Director (Horticulture). A Departmental Promotion Committee was constituted by the respondent for considering the names of eligible candidate for promotion to the post of aforesaid Deputy Director (Horticulture) from Assistant Director (Horticulture). The said Departmental Promotion Committee met in the month of July, 1986 and on 14.7.1996 the Departmental Promotion Committee constituted a panel. The petitioner who was working as Assistant Director (Horticulture) was also an eligible candidate for such promotion as Deputy Director (Horticulture) and accordingly his case was also co...
Tag this Judgment!Thane Belapur Industries Association Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1998(102)ELT258(Del)
ORDERR.C. Lahoti, J.1. The petitioner, an association of industries, has filed this petition mainly seeking the quashing of the circular No. F-296/46/97/CX-9 dated 14.1.1998 issued by the Central Board of Excise and Customs, also seeking setting aside of consequential OR 'follow-up' orders issued by the subordinate officers of the Central Excise to various industries at various places. The impugned circular is a telex message addressed to all Chief Commissioners/ Commissioners of Central Excise throughout the country. It reads as under :-'T E L E X ToAll Chief Commissioners of Central ExciseAll Commissioners of Central Excise FromB.P. Verma Member ( Central Excise),CBEC, New Delhi F.No.296/46/97-CX.I(Pt)(.) You may recall that vide telex of even number dated 11.11.97 special check was ordered for MODVAT by all field formations (.) Reports received in this regard has disclosed misuse of MODVAT to the extent of Rs.133 crores, out of which Rs. 27 crores have been reversed/realized (.) I...
Tag this Judgment!Ram Nath Vs. the State
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1998CriLJ2622; 1998(45)DRJ269
Dalveer Bhandari, J.1. This criminal appeal and revision arise from the judgment of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Delhi dated 11.4.1977. In order to appreciate the entire case, basic facts which are necessary to dispose of this appeal re recapitulated as under:2. On 15.12.1974 at about 9.30 p.m., the appellants in furtherance of the common intention had caught hold of Shakti Bharat and Ved Prakash near the School building in Subhash Nagar area and had caused them injuries with a sharp edged weapon and thereby committed offence punishable under Section 307 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.3. Shakti Bharat (PW-7) has stated that a theft had taken place at the shop of his brother Chander Prakash seven or eight days before the alleged incident. The matter was reported to the police and the police was informed that the appellants and their brother Roshan Lal and a few others were suspected to have committed the theft. The police searched the house of Roshan Lal. It is ...
Tag this Judgment!B.K. Ahuja Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1998VAD(Delhi)657
Dr. M.K. Sharma, J.1. The petitioner has filed the present writ petition praying for a direction to the respondents to pay to the petitioner his voluntary retirement dues for 10 years amounting to Rs. 1,48,200/- and also an amount of Rs. 25,029/- towards balance earned leave for 76 days. The petitioner has also sought for payment of interest on the aforesaid amount @ 24% per annum.2. The petitioner initially joined the Fertilizer Corporation of India as an Industrial Engineer. The petitioner made a request to the respondent No. 4 to release him from their service so as to enable him to join the respondent No. 2 with continuity of service. On his request and on agreement and consent of both the managements of the respondent No. 4 and respondent No. 2, the services of the petitioner was placed at the disposal of the respondent No. 2. The petitioner was working as a Chief Manager with the respondent No. 2 and finally went on voluntary retirement with effect from 3.6.1992. Accordingly the ...
Tag this Judgment!State Vs. Shiv Lal
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1998IIAD(Delhi)981; 1998CriLJ3910; 72(1998)DLT567; ILR1998Delhi240
ORDERDalveer Bhandari, J.1.Brief facts necessary to dispose of this reference are recapitulated as under:- A judgment dated 23rd September, 1980 was pronounced by the learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, News Delhi, in a case arising out of FIR No.74/80, Police Station Lajpat Nagar, New Delhi,wherein it was observed that the Assistant Sub Inspector Shiv Lal willfully and knowingly gave false evidence and also fabricated false evidence with the intention that such evidence would be used in the proceedings against the accused in that case. In view of these facts, the learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate decided to summarily try the accused Shiv Lal under the provisions of Section 340 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 2. A notice was given to accused Shiv Lal asking him to show cause as to why he be not tried and summarily punished under Section 340 of the Code. A search memo was falsely fabricated by the ASI knowingly the same to be a false document. This fabric...
Tag this Judgment!Mohd. Aslam Khan Vs. Union of India (Uoi)
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 72(1998)DLT776; 1998(45)DRJ294
Dalveer Bhandari, J. 1. The petitioner has preferred this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and has prayed inter alias that the writ of habeas corpus and declaration be issued quashing the detention order dated 12.8.1996 issued by the Joint Secretary, Government of India under Section 3(1) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities 1974. The order has been issued with a view to prevent the petitioner from smuggling goods and also preventing from engaging and transporting, concealing and keeping smuggled goods. The learned counsel for the petitioner has challenged the detention order on various grounds. The first ground which has been taken by the learned counsel for the petitioner is delay in disposal of representation.2. In reply to the writ petition, a detailed counter affidavit has been filed by Mr. K.L. Sharma, the Joint Secretary, COFEPOSA in the Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue, Janpath, New Delhi. In the co...
Tag this Judgment!Udayjeet Parkash Vs. S.S. Arora and ors.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 73(1998)DLT701; 1999(1)RLR93
K.S. Gupta, J. 1. Plaintiff has filed is 10475/97 under Order XII, Rule 6 read with Order XXXIX, Rules 1 & 2 and Section 151, CPC for passing a decree of injunction directing defendants 2 to 6 to cancel the share certificates and issue fresh share certificates in respect of the equity shares mentioned in Annexures A, B, C & D and 2100 equity shares mentioned in Annexure E and to deliver the same to the plaintiff. 2. Mr. Atul Jain appearing for contesting defendant No. 7 has chosen not to file any reply to the application. 3. I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties. 4. Suit was filed inter-alia alleging that the plaintiff purchased equity shares as mentioned in Annexures A, B, C & D annexed to the plaint. On 10.11.1993 defendant No. 1 agreed to disburse loan of Rs. 1.5 lacs to the plaintiff against the security of the shares as detailed in Annexure A & B of the value of about Rs. 2.5 lacs. Accordingly, the plaintiff pledged with defendant No. 2 shares as noted in both the said ...
Tag this Judgment!