Delhi Court May 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.
Rekha BhasIn Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-13-1998
Reported in: AIR1998Delhi314; 1998RLR415
Dalveer Bhandari, J.1. A public spirited citizen has moved this petition. On consideration of pleadings of the parties, the following main issues which arise in this petition are recapitulated in the successive paragraphs: (a) In order to mitigate sufferings of the traveling public, the Railway Reservation System be improved and necessary directions be issued. (b) To examine the propriety of the respondents Railways in distributing largesse's in the form of life time bonanza of unlimited free travel by first class Air Conditioned coach for the serving and retired members of the Railways Board and with their family members. (c) To examine the propriety of Railway Ministers admittedly issuing 7362 cheque passes in less than a year, i.e., (between 3.6.1996 to 1.6.1997) out of their discretionary quota. 2. In reply to the Court's notice to the respondents, an affidavit of Mr. V.N. Mathur, Executive Director, Passenger Amenities, Rail Bhawan, Railway Board, New Delhi was filed on 6.6.1997...
international Pharmaceuticals Vs. Union of India
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-13-1998
Reported in: 74(1998)DLT586; 1998(46)DRJ99; (1998)120PLR1
ORDERVijender Jain, J.1. This petition has been filed by the petitioner under Sections 10 and 11(5) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 read with Clauses 2 and 3 of the Scheme, 1996 framed by Delhi High Court, for appointment of Arbitrators. 2. A Contract was awarded to the petitioner for procurement of anti-Leprosy drugs for Rs.27.45 crores vide Agreement dated 29.3.1995 and the general conditions and terms contained in the bidding documents for procurement of these drugs under National Leprosy Eradication Programme (in short 'NLEP' ). The entire quantity of drugs under the contract were supplied by the petitioner. Subsequently, another offer was made for supply of additional quantity of same drugs valuing Rs.13.722 crores on the same terms and conditions as applicable to the earlier contract. The offer was accepted and a contract was executed dated 15.3.996. In the meanwhile, respondent cancelled the said agreement dated 15.3.1996 vide letter dated 10.7.1996 on the ground t...
K.K. Bhargava Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-13-1998
Reported in: 1998(46)DRJ110
Dalveer Bhandari, J.1. This Judgment will dispose of all the three Criminal Revisions as the facts in all these revision petitions are identical except that there is difference in period of default. 'In these cases, the Provident Fund Inspector complained against the petitioner that the petitioner failed to. deposit the provident fund contribution by the 15th of the following months provided under paragraph 138 of the Employees Provident Fund Scheme and they have committed offences under Section 14A and 14(1A) of the Employees Provident Fund Act, 1952 read with paragraph 76D of the Employees Funds Scheme, 1952. 2. The prosecution has examined two witnesses, namely Gopal Krishan, UDC (PW-1) and Shri D.V. Soni, Provident Fund Inspector (PW-2). As regards the applicability of the provisions of the Act and the Scheme is concerned, it has been fully proved by the testimony of PW-1, wherein he had stated that the establishment is covered under the provisions of the Act and the Scheme. This f...
Collector of Central Excise Vs. Binny Ltd. (B and C) Mills
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: May-12-1998
Reported in: (2003)(158)ELT835TriDel
1. In this appeal filed by the Revenue, the issue involved is whether the Respondent M/s. Binny Ltd. were manufacturing terry towelling fabrics classifiable under Heading 58.02 or only terry towels classifiable under Heading 6301 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act.2. Shri R.S. Sanghia, ld. DR submitted that the respondents are manufacturing towelling fabrics as after cutting the towels. Out of the towel in fabrics, they undertake the process of hemming which has been recognised as process of manufacture as per Explanatory Notes of HSN.He further submitted that as per Explanatory Notes of HSN, Heading 58.02 excludes fabrics in piece which by the simple process of cutting along the defined lines indicated by the absence of weft threads, may be converted into separate fringed articles (Heading 63.02). He emphasises that the specific attention has to be paid to the word "cutting". As the respondents in addition to cutting are having the fabrics it cannot be called made up ar...
Collector of Central Excise Vs. Best Board Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: May-12-1998
Reported in: (1998)LC636Tri(Delhi)
1. Respondent is absent in spite of notice of hearing. We have heard Shri K. Srivastava, SDR for the appellant.2. There is no dispute that respondent was allowing cash discount to buyers who made payment within 2 days of delivery and that this discount was known to the trade and available to all buyers who satisfied the condition. It appears that apart from giving the discount to those buyers who made the payment within 2 days, respondent gave the same discount to other buyers also who did not satisfy the condition.On this ground the Assistant Collector directed deduction of cash discount to be allowed only in case where it was actually passed on.The Collector (Appeals) allowed deduction of cash discount on the ground that it was known to the buyers. This order is being challenged by the department.3. According to Shri K. Srivastava, SDR since cash discount was given even to buyers who did not make payment within 2 days, it would not be admissible for deduction. We do not agree with t...
Collector of C. Ex. Vs. Ghazipur Engineering Industries
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: May-12-1998
Reported in: (1999)(112)ELT485TriDel
1. The respondent is absent in spite of notice of hearing, but has sent a request for decision of appeal on merits. We have heard Shri M. Ali, JDR and perused the papers.2. The respondent engaged in the manufacture of Oscillating Table fan with regulator filed a price list in part IV declaring the assessable value as Rs. 305.25 per unit and produced a copy of the agreement with M/s. Jay Engineering Works Ltd. It was seen that the buyer M/s. Jay Engineering Works Ltd. was supplying components and raw materials to the respondent at mutually agreed prices and all the table fans produced by the respondents were affixed with the brand name of the buyer and were being sold to the buyer at the declared price. The Supdt. of Central Excise by his letter dated 10-5-1988 required the respondent to file price list in part IV treating buyer as related person. The respondent waived show cause notice. After granting respondent opportunity of personal hearing, the Assistant Collector passed the Order...
Ansar Alam and ors. Vs. Municipal Corporation of Delhi and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-12-1998
Reported in: 1998VAD(Delhi)148; 73(1998)DLT706
ORDERM.S.A. Siddiqui, J.1. On 30th June, 1989, applications were invited to fill up the posts of 60 Assistant Engineers (Civil) in the Engineering Department of the MCD. The essential qualifications for the post were a): degree in Civil Engineering, b): two years professional experience. Age was not to exceed 30 years (relaxable for government servants and employees of the M.C.D.). In all 412 candidates, departmental as well as those sponsored by the Employment Exchange were called for interveiw. A list (Annexure-A) of these candidates giving their names, date of birth, qualifications, percentage of marks, period of experience and marks allotted for qualifications, experience and interview was prepared. 60 candidates who scored 16 or more marks were selected. Forty-four candidates were placed in the waiting list/reserved list for appointment against vacancies remaining unfilled due to non acceptance of offer of appointment or failure to join duty. Some of the unsuccessful candidates fi...
Sarjit Singh Saharan (Lt. Col.) Vs. Union of India
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-12-1998
Reported in: 1998IVAD(Delhi)435; 74(1998)DLT145; 1998(46)DRJ355
ORDERK. Ramamoorthy, J.Catch WordsMentioned IN1. The petitioner joined the Indian Army in the rank of Lieutenant and he was working on the date of filing of the writ petition as Lt. Col. He has now sought the following reliefs:a) Quashing the impugned order of Government of India vide their letter No. 36501/23/AC/89/MS/COMPL/3271/D(MS) dated 9th August, 1996 as well as any un-communicated adverse/advisory/remarks in the Confidential Report by IO/RO/SRO/OR Head of the Department; and b) Issue writ of Mandamus to hold fresh selection Board for promotion to 2. In April 1992, the petitioner made a statutory complaint praying for setting aside the following ACRs:a) The complete ACR of 1985-86 including the assessment of IO, RO, SRO and NSRO (if any). b) The complete ICR for the period o1 Jun 86 to 22 Sep 86 including the assessment of the RO, SRO and NSRO (if any).3. By an order dated 9th August 1996 that was rejected by the Government of India. In para 6 of the writ petition the petition...
Corporation Bank Vs. M/S. Rama Industries and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-12-1998
Reported in: 1998VAD(Delhi)583; 73(1998)DLT724; 1998(46)DRJ797
J.B. Goel, J.1. The claim made by the plaintiff in the suit is admitted and a statement has been made that the suit may be decreed but have claimed concession in interest. The only point thus left is about the rate of interest after the institution of the suit.2. Briefly, the facts are that plaintiff a Banking Corporate Body filed this suit for recovery of Rs. 5,67,285.72 p. on 22.5.1986. Defendant No. 1 is a partnership firm and defendants 2 to 5 are its partners. The defendants for promoting their business had approached the plaintiff Bank for Cash Credit facility and for that purpose the defendants had submitted application dated 13.10.93. Cash Credit facility of Rs. 2,50,000/- was sanctioned for which various documents including a promissory note and the deed of hypothecation of their goods. The defendants duly availed this facility. Another facility of Rs. 40,000/- was allowed on 19.11.1983. When the defendants had represented that they had to discharge the liability of Haryana St...
Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Flex Lamination
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: May-08-1998
Reported in: (1998)(102)ELT574TriDel
1. The short point for determination in these appeals is whether the Gravure Printing Cylinders captively used by the assessee for printing laminated plastic film are intermediate products in the process of manufacture of printed laminated plastic film, though exempt under Notification No. 67/91 and whether the inputs that go into the manufacture of GP Cylinders shall be admissible to Modvat credit or not.2. Shri S. Srivastava, ld. JDR submits that GP Cylinders are captively used in the manufacture of printed laminated plastic film. He submits that Notification No. 67/91 exempts such cylinders as are used captively. He, therefore, submits that once these cylinders for sale are exempt, they will be covered by the provision of Rule 57C meaning thereby that no Modvat credit will be admissible to the inputs used in the manufacture of these cylinders. He refers to the decisions of this Tribunal in the case of Shivaji Works Ltd. v. C.C.E. - 1990 (50) E.L.T.50 and Mysore Kirloskar Ltd. v. C....
- ‹ Prev
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 15
- 16
- 17
- 18
- 19
- Next ›
- Last »