Delhi Court April 1998 Judgments
Home Cases Delhi 1998 Page 15 of about 161 results (0.020 seconds)Dcm Ltd. Vs. M.C.D. and ors.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1998IIIAD(Delhi)289; AIR1998Delhi348; 73(1998)DLT227; ILR1998Delhi284
ORDERArun Kumar, J.1. This writ petition is directed against an order dated 11th August, 1997 passed by the Joint Assessor and Collector, Karol Bagh Zone, Municipal Corporation of Delhi, determining the rateable value of the property of the petitioner at Rs.15,17,52,000/- per annum w.e.f. 1.4.1993. The existing rateable value of the property of the petitioner was Rs.6,44,890/-. The same was proposed to be revised to Rs.15,17,52,000/-, vide a notice dated 29th March, 1994 under Section 126 of the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act). The reason for amendment of the rateable value given in the notice is 'plot, after demolishing of the structure for development'. The notice called upon the petitioner to file objections, if any, against the proposed rateable value within 35 days of the service of the notice. In response to the said notice of the Corporation for revision of the rateable value the petitioner filed objections dated 5th May 1994. Copies of the n...
Tag this Judgment!Kulbhushan Sobti and ors. Vs. Food Corporation of India and anr.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1998IIIAD(Delhi)666; 73(1998)DLT310
Y.K. Sabharwal, J.1. Aggrieved by the impugned order dated 19th February, 1998, passed by a learned Single Judge on application of writ petitioners seeking interim directions, pending the decision of their writ petition, (CW.2047/97) the writ petitioners are in appeal before us. 2. The appellants are employees of Respondent No.1 - Food Corporation of India (FCI). The Writ Petition No. 2047/1997 was filed by them in May, 1997 seeking quashing of Zonal Seniority List dated 14th May, 1996 for the post of Assistant Manager (General) (for short AM(G)) and also praying that the Zonal Seniority List dated 12th March, 1993 shall be continued and future promotions for the post of Deputy Manager (General) made on the basis of Seniority List dated 12th March, 1993. The main grievance, as set out in the writ petition, is that the FCI has by-passed given a go-by to the service rules and regulations governing the service conditions of the Assistant Managers as also to the judgment dated 18th March, ...
Tag this Judgment!Kanahi Ram Vs. Kartar Singh
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 72(1998)DLT740; 1998(46)DRJ453
S.N. Kapoor, J.1. Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 have filed is No. 5750/97 seeking rejection of the petition under Section 20 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 (hereinafter called the 'the Act') under Order 7, Rule 11, CPC on ground that the partnership firm not being registered, the petition is barred by Section 69(1) of the Partners Act, 1932.2. Before considering the objection, firstly, relevant facts in brief are require to be taken note of.3. The petitioner and the respondents entered into a partnership agreement on 8th February, 1990 in relation to cinema business including canteen and cycle stand or by any other source by using the cinema building belonging to the partnership firm. The petitioner has claimed rendition of accounts relating to cycle stand and the canteen of Kalyan Cinema from 1986 onwards and to pay share of the petitioner to the extent of 31.66%. The petitioner further seeks reference of the petition under the arbitration clause which reads as under:'15. That any dispute or ...
Tag this Judgment!Uttam Singh Duggal and Co. Ltd. Vs. Union of India (Uoi)
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1998(46)DRJ1
C.M. Nayar, J.1. This judgment will dispose of the objections filed by the respondents-Union of India under Sections 16, 30 and 33 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 against the Award dated August 14,1995.2. The brief facts of the case are that the claimant entered into an Agreement with the respondents Union of India for work of Main Athletic Stadium at Lodhi Road Complex, New Delhi SH: Structural Framework Group II vide agreement No. EE/CI/AG/80-81/2. The disputes and differences arose between the parties and Mr.S.S. Juneja, Arbitrator in the Ministry of Urban Affairs & Employment, New Delhi was appointed by the Chief Engineer (NDZ) I, CPWD, New Delhi under his letter No.F(43)83 A&C; (NDZ) dated July 16, 1991 as sole arbitrator to decide and make the Award regarding the disputes falling within the purview of Clause 25 of the Agreement execluded between the parties. The claimant filed the statement of claims and the respondents filed the counter statement of facts along with counter claims ...
Tag this Judgment!Abhay Tuli Vs. Lt. Governor and ors.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1998IIIAD(Delhi)745; 1998CriLJ3217; 73(1998)DLT333; 1998(46)DRJ806; ILR1998Delhi345
Mohd. Shamim, J.1. These are six writ petitions bearing Crl. W. Nos. 458/97 (Abhay Tuli V. Lt. Governor & Ors.), Crl. W. 453/97 (Deepak Kaushal v. Lt. Governor & Ors.), Crl. W. 455/97 Parvesh Kumar Gujral v. Lt. Governor, and Ors.), Crl. W. 457/ 97 (Subhash Chand Wadhwa v. Lt. Governor, and Ors.), Crl. W. 647/97 (Harmohinder Singh v. Union of India and Ors.), Crl. W. 648/97 (Bhagwant Singh v. Union of India and Ors.), whereby the petitioners have sought quashment of the detention orders dated May 26, 1997 (Annexure A) passed against them under Section 3(1) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange & Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 (hereinafter referred to as the Act in order to facilitate the reference). Two of the petitioners also namely, Abhay Tuli and Bhagwant Singh also want quashment of the declarations made against them on June 24, 1997. It is proposed to dispose of all the six writ petitions by a common judgment and order as the common questions of law and fact are li...
Tag this Judgment!Rattan Baxi Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1999CriLJ477
ORDERA.K. Srivastava, J.1. The revisionist, Rattan Baxi, was convicted under Sections 279/337/304A, I.P.C. and was sentenced to two years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of rupees three thousand. Against that conviction and sentence, he filed Criminal Appeal No. 18/97 which was dismissed by Shri Suresh Chand Rajan, Additional Sessions Judge, Shahdara vide his Order dated 29-11-1997. Against the appellate Court's order this revision has been filed.2. The only point taken by the revisionist is that though right from the beginning, he had been agitating that he was not driving the bus when it got involved in the accident in question causing death of a lady but he had been convicted by the trial Court and his appeal has now been dismissed.3, Heard the learned counsel for the revisionist and the counsel for State.4. On perusal of the records it is to be found that in his statement under Section 313, Cr. P. C., the revisionist had categorically stated that he was not driving the bus. As suc...
Tag this Judgment!Gurkartar Steels (P) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (2001)(135)ELT534TriDel
1. The assessees were manufacturing steel ingots with the aid of Electric Arc Furnace and availing of the Notification Nos. 53/80-C.E.and also 144/77-C.E. In terms of Notification No. 53/80, the concessional rate of duty was available subject to certain proviso. The notification stated:- "Partial exemption to steel ingots produced by electric furnace. - In exercise of the power conferred by Sub-rule (1) of rule 8 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, and in suppression of the notification of the Government of India in the Ministry of Finance (Department of Revenue) No. 156/79-Central Excises, dated the 9th April, 1979, the Central Government hereby exempts steel ingots, falling under Item No. 26 of the First Schedule to the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 (1 of 1944), and manufactured with the aid of electric furnace, from so much of the duty of excise leviable thereon as is in excess of two hundred rupees per metric tonne: Provided that such steel ingots are manufactured from any of ...
Tag this Judgment!Shafiq Ahmed Vs. Commissioner of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1998)(103)ELT129TriDel
1. By Stay Order dated 3-4-1997, the Applicants were directed to deposit a sum of Rs. 25,000/- each as pre-deposit which is a condition for hearing of the Appeal.2. On 29-8-1997 when the matter was listed for mention, none appeared for the Applicants. The Bench also rejected the written application for extension of time for complying with the requirement of pre-deposit.Subsequently by order dated 29-8-1997, the Bench dismissed the Appeals for non-compliance with the statutory requirement of Section 129E of the Customs Act, 1962.3. In the Application for Restoration of the Appeals, the Applicants stated that the reason for non-appearance on 29-8-1997 was the requirement of performing the last rites of the Brother-in-law of the Applicant, Shri Shafiq Ahmed. The request for extension of time is also made in the same application for the reason that the Applicant cannot afford to pay the amount of Rs. 25,000/- which he has been directed to pay by the Stay Order.4. We have heard the ld. Cou...
Tag this Judgment!Sabharwal Mfg. Labs Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1998)(100)ELT39TriDel
1. This is a stay application filed w.r.t. the order-in-appeal passed by the ld. Commissioner of Appeals, Allahabad.2. Ld. Counsel stated that this matter had come up earlier on Board and an ad interim stay had been granted on 2-3-1998 as the department wanted to call for comments in view of the applicant's submission that the Commissioner (Appeals) had travelled beyond the show cause notice and beyond his jurisdiction.3. Ld. DR stated that they have informed the concerned officers accordingly but are yet to receive the response.4. Ld. Counsel stated that on that very day it had been indicated that the matter would come up again on 2-4-1998 and therefore the hearing of the stay application may be concluded before the A.C.5. As sufficient time had already been allowed to the department it was decided to proceed further in the matter.6. Ld. Counsel drew attention towards the show cause notice and order-in-original. He stated that demand was issued on the ground that the item in question...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of C. Ex. Vs. R.K. Machine Tools Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1998)(104)ELT21TriDel
1. The assessees manufactured track shoes which were component parts of battle tanks and cleared them to the Defence Factories in terms of Notification No. 165/87-C.Ev dated 10-6-1987 following the procedure set out in Chapter X of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. The material was later subjected to rigorous tests by the buyers during which some of the material was damaged/destroyed. The RT 12 Return of the assessee for the period May, 1990 to September, 1990 showed that such material amounting to Rs. 98,735/- was destroyed in tests. Vide show cause notice dated 22-11-1990 duty was demanded on this value. The Assistant Collector held that where the goods were destroyed during testing, they should not be deemed to have been used as O.E. parts in the tanks. He held that the goods were fully manufactured when they were cleared. He also observed that as per contract between parties the payment was to be made for the samples destroyed during testing also. On this observation he confirmed th...
Tag this Judgment!