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.
D.P. Bambah Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-22-1998
Reported in: 1998IVAD(Delhi)240; 74(1998)DLT437
ORDERK. Ramamoorthy, J.1. The petitioner joined the Delhi Development Authority (for short DDA) as Junior Engineer. He was promoted as Assistant Engineer with effect from February 1977. He was further promoted to the post of Executive Engineer on current duty charge with effect from 04.07.1983. With effect from February 1986 he was regularised in the post of Executive Engineer.2. The next higher post is Superintending Engineer. For the purpose of being considered for the post of Superintending Engineer, the Executive Engineer should have served in that capacity for a period of seven years. The Departmental Promotion Committee was to be held on 26.07.1996. The petitioner was issued with the chargesheet on 25.07.1996. On 02.08.1996 the petitioner had filed the writ petition challenging the issue of chargesheet on the ground of delay.3. According to the petitioner the DDA with a view to promoting Mr.Sajjan, this method had been adopted. It was only Mr. Sajjan who was instrumental in charg...
Neelam Kumar Nanda Vs. Satish Kumar Nanda
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-22-1998
Reported in: 1998VAD(Delhi)514; 73(1998)DLT604; 1998(46)DRJ178
J.B. Goel, J.1. This is a suit for dissolution of the partnership and rendition of accounts. The case is that plaintiff and defendant have been carrying on business in radio and electronics under the firm name of M/s. Vijay Radio Corporation in partnership as per terms of the partnership deed dated1.4.1992, that the defendant has been misutilising the proceeds, benefits and the properties of the partnership firm to his own benefit and to the exclusion and detriment of the plaintiff; accounts are not being rendered and share of the plaintiff in the business has also not been given by the defendant; plaintiff has several times requested the defendant to dissolve the partnership firm, and render true and correct accounts. A notice dated24.4.1996 was also sent to the defendant requiring him to appoint an Arbitrator to adjudicate upon the disputes between the parties as provided in the partnership deed but that also has not been complied with; that the partnership business cannot be carried...
Ashwani Kapoor and anr. Vs. Union of India and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-22-1998
Reported in: 73(1998)DLT843; ILR1998Delhi378
Arun Kumar, J.1.The facts leading to the filing of the present writ petition are:The Delhi Development Authority (for short 'DDA') put up an advertisement on 7th June, 1989 in the newspapers announcing the auction of a plot for 2/3 Star Hotel at Pitam Pura, New Delhi. The plot was to be auctioned as per certain terms and conditions. There is no dispute between the parties about the terms and conditions of the auction including the fact that the auction was on the basis of perpetual leasehold rights and the provisions of the Delhi Development Authority (Disposal of Developed Nazul Lands) Rules, 1981 would be applicable. The material terms of auction for purposes of the present petition are:'(iv) The officer conducting the auction shall normally accept the bids subject to confirmation by the Competent Authority. The highest bid offered at the fall of hammer at the auction and the person whose bid has been accepted shall pay earnest money, a sum equivalent to 25% of his bid either in cash...
Girdhar Lal M. Pittie Vs. Appellate Authority for Industrial and Finan ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-22-1998
Reported in: 1998IVAD(Delhi)668; AIR1998Delhi400; [1998]94CompCas225(Delhi); 75(1998)DLT132; 1999(48)DRJ280
ORDERY.K. Sabharwal, J.1. The challenge in this petition is to the order dated 23rd December, 1997 passed by the Appellate authority for Industrial & Financial Reconstruction (AIFR). By the impugned order, the Appeal of the petitioner against the order dated 18th March, 1997, passed by Board for Industrial & Financial Reconstruction (BIFR) was dismissed on the ground that the appeal was time-barred. The period for limitation for preferring appeal is 45 days from the date on which a copy of the order sought to be impugned is issued.The conclusions reached by AIFR may be re-produced as under:-'14. Counsel for the Respondent No.2 and 12 relied on M/s. S.R.F. Ltd. v. M/s. Garware Plastics and Polyesters Ltd. AIR 1995 SC 22 and contended that the proceedings before the Board have to be expeditiously disposed of and it cannot be allowed to be used as dilatory tactics for a potential sick company. The counsel submitted that it is a case where scheme has been sanctioned and thereafter much pro...
Dr. Bir Singh Vs. All India Institute of Medical Sciences
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-22-1998
Reported in: 73(1998)DLT830; 1998(46)DRJ143
M.K. Sharma, J.1. In the present writ petition the petitioner has prayed for quashing of the action of the respondents for filling up 7 posts in the level of Additional Professor and Associate Professor through the process of direct recruitment and also for quashing the interviews held on 16th, 17th and 18th of March, 1998 for selection to the said posts.2. The respondent Institute was established and incorporated under Section 3 of the All India Institute of Medical Sciences Act (hereinafter called the Act). Section 5 of the Act declares the Institute to he an Institution of National importance. Section 4 sets out the composition of the Institute. Section 10 of the said Act deals with constitution of the Governing Body and other Committees of the Institute. The Governing Body is the Executive Committee of the Institute and is empowered to exercise such powers and such functions as the Institute may by regulations made in that behalf confer or impose upon it. Section 11 of the Act deal...
Kochhar Construction Works Vs. Delhi Development Authority and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-22-1998
Reported in: 74(1998)DLT118; 1998(46)DRJ638
S.N. Kapoor, J.1. The petitioner M/s Kochhar Construction Works filed a petition under Sections 14, 17 and 29 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 for filing the award given by Shri K.K.Reddy dated 29lh August 1994 and making it rule of the court. 2. Delhi Development Authority, the respondent filed objection against the award vide is 1858/95.3. Relevant fads in brief are as follows:3.1 The petitioner entered into a contract with the respondent No.1 for the work of construction of 84 LIG DUS at D-l/C Janak Puri, New Delhi vide agreement No. 73/EE/HDV1I 81-82. Certain disputes arose and in terms of the arbitration Clause, the matter was referred to Shri K.K. Reddy who gave the award.4. The award is being challenged by the objectors DDA basically on the ground that learned Arbitrator has only indicated conclusions reached by him and failed to give any reasons or to disclose his thought process or the basis for awarding various amounts in respect of claim No. 1 (items 2,3 & 4) and claim Nos. 8, 9...
Yalif Lam Industries Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: May-21-1998
Reported in: (1998)LC628Tri(Delhi)
1. The captioned two appeals arise out of the same order, therefore, they were heard together and are being disposed of by this common order. (i) Clubbing of clearances of M/s. Ya Alif Lam Industries and M/s. Union Steel Industries. (ii) the seizure and confiscation of the goods found unrecorded in RG 1 register.3. The facts of the present case leading to the present appeals are that the show-cause notice was issued to the appellants asking them to explain as to why the clearances of the two units should not be clubbed together for determining their eligibility for exemption under Notification No. 175/86-C.E. as amended and why Central Excise duty amounting to Rs. 2,77,054.51 should not be demanded from them. They were also asked as to why the goods found in excess should not be confiscated and why penalty should not be imposed. The appellants submitted that insofar as clubbing of the production of the two units is concerned, the units are independent partnership concern; that there w...
Collr. of C. Ex. Vs. Maharashtra Electronics Corpn.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: May-21-1998
Reported in: (1998)LC626Tri(Delhi)
1. The order passed by the Collector (Appeals) challenged in Appeal No.E/5464/91-A disposed of four appeals filed by the present respondent against four different orders passed by the Assistant Collector. The department has filed only one single appeal against the order passed by the Collector (Appeals). This is not regular as the department should have filed four appeals. We are therefore, treating this appeal as an appeal against the order allowing one of the appeals filed before Collector (Appeals) by the respondent and relating to file No. V-2(85) 321 /BI/ 90. Similarly the order passed by the Collector (Appeals) 54/791 disposed of two appeals filed by the present respondent against the two orders passed by the Superintendent on RT 12 return. The department has, however, filed a single appeal against this common order, we, therefore, treat this appeal as having been filed against the appellate order in so far as it related to the File No. B2(85).2. Appellant, engaged in the manufa...
Gravity Instruments Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Collector of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: May-21-1998
Reported in: (1998)(104)ELT353TriDel
1. These are 14 applications for restoration of appeals filed by M/s Gravity Instruments Pvt. Ltd. and 13 others.2. Appearing for the applicants, Shri H.M. Ahmedi, ld. Advocate submits that he has been instructed by the applicants to appear for them and the formal vakalatnama engaging him in the matter would be filed in due course.3. The ld. Advocate refers to the restoration of appeal application filed by the applicants, dated 27-1-1998 in which the circumstances under which their appeals were dismissed by the Bench on 23-10-1997 has been explained. Ld. Counsel explained that the address to which the notices for hearing were sent were the factory addresses of the applicants. Since the applicants had changed their addresses, the notices could not be received. The Advocates engaged by the applicants could not also contact them for the said reason.3. Further, ld. Advocate also referred to the copies of TR 6 challans, dated 22-2-1990,22-8-1989 and 16-2-1990 showing deposit of Rs. 6,70,00...
Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Raj Iron Foundry
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: May-21-1998
Reported in: (1999)(110)ELT537TriDel
1. M/s. Raj Iron Foundry had paid central excise duty at the rate of 15% ad valorem as against the rate of 10% ad valorem as applicable to the Pipes of Cast Iron classifiable under sub-heading No. 7303.00 of the Central Excise Tariff on 16-3-1995 under several invoices. Their customers pointed out that the applicable rate under Notification No.41/94-C.E., dated 1-3-1994 was 10% ad valorem on realising the mistake, M/s. Raj Iron Foundry issued Credit Notes to their customers and during the same month of March, 1995 took the credit of Rs. 16,480/-. The proceedings were drawn against them and it was contended by the Revenue that the assessee should have applied for refund and that it was not proper that the Credit should have been taken by them without any permission from the Excise-Department. The Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Allahabad referred to the Self-removal Procedure Instructions and took a view within the same month the assessee could take the Credit of duty paid in...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- Next ›
- Last »