Delhi Court July 1998 Judgments

Anup Razdan (Dr.) Vs. Union of India

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 1998VAD(Delhi)18; 74(1998)DLT627; 1998(46)DRJ336

ORDERK. Ramamoorthy, J. 1. The petitioner has prayed for quashing the nomination of respondents 3 to 6 for the MDS course against the seats reserved for Central Government nominees at King George Medical College, Lucknow for the Academic Year 1995-96. The writ petition was instituted on 10.11.1997. The case of the petitioner shortly stated is that Respondents 3 to 6 were not qualified to be nominated and they have allotted seat on extraneous consideration. The selection of the candidates made by preparing the merit list and nomination of the candidates and the allotment of specialised made in the order of merits. The petitioner is very much lower down in the list of selected candidates and thereforee, she cannot claim any right to be nominated. The petitioner has no locus standi to maintain the writ petition 2. Mr. Prashant Bhushan, the learned counsel for the petitioner raised several contentions relating to the nominations of the candidates from Delhi, when there is a college at Delh...

Suraj Woollen Mills Vs. Collector of Customs Bombay

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 1998IVAD(Delhi)504; 74(1998)DLT507; 1998(46)DRJ377

ORDERR.C. Lahoti, J.1. Statement of case under Section 130 of the Customs Act, 1962 has to be made to or called for by a High Court. Clause (b) of Section 131-C defines 'the High Court' to mean in relation to any State, the High Court for that State. However, still, which State or the High Court for which State is a question not answered by the provision of the Customs Act and has to be answered by this order.2. The petitioner Suraj Woollen Mills is carrying on its manufacturing activity of shoddy woollen fabrics, yarn and blankets situated in the industrial area of Panipat within the State of Haryana. In the year 1984-85 the petitioner imported wool waste from M/S. Oastwell Supplies Ltd, Bradford West, Yorkshire, England. The goods were to reach Bombay seaport. This transaction led to issuance of notice under Section 108 of the Customs Act from the office of the Intelligence Officer, DRI, Bombay to the petitioner and resulted into a penalty being imposed on the petitioner by the Colle...

S.K. Bansal (Dr.) Vs. Union of India and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 1998(46)DRJ490

ORDERK. Ramamoorthy, J.1. The petitioner has challenged the order of termination dated the 26th of February, 1993. 2. The facts necessary to be noticed are: The petitioner was working with the second respondent from 3.4.1984 as Geophysicist. According to the petitioner, on the 6th of July, 1984 he was transferred to Delhi from Dehradun. In 1987, the petitioner was transferred again to Dehradun. While he was working in Dehradun, he developed Kidney trouble and he was referred to All-India Institute of Medical Sciences, Delhi. On the 22nd of April, 1987, he was transferred to Delhi on compassionate grounds. His wife was employed in Delhi Administration School. He wanted to continue in Delhi but he was transferred on the 7th of November, 1987 to Bombay. On the 24th of November, 1987, he requested for cancellation of his transfer. In 1988, he was transferred to Delhi. In 1990, the petitioner was transferred to the Bombay Unit of the second respondent. By letter dated the 2nd of April, 1990...

Madhuresh Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 1998IVAD(Delhi)889; 75(1998)DLT39; 1998(47)DRJ173; 1998RLR506

Jaspal Singh, J.1. The petitioner had made a complaint to the Central Bureau of Investigation against Sita Ram Kesri, levelling serious charges of corruption. Feeling aggrieved by the enquiry conducted by the Central Bureau of Inves-tigation, he filed a writ petition. A Division Bench of this Court, after monitoring the 'status reports', declined, on March 4, 1997, to issue mandamus and disposed of the writ petition observing:- 'We hope and trust that Central Bureau of Investigation will complete its preliminary investigation of all aspects, which are before it in the light of principles laid by the Supreme Court to which we have referred to above.'Subsequent to the said order, petitioner, feeling concerned with press reports quoting the Director, Central Bureau of Investigation, to the effect that 'it was just an enquiry, which had been finished and report submitted to the Delhi High Court', wrote to the Director, Central Bureau of Investigation, seeking clarification as to whether th...

C.B.i. Vs. Shiv Kumar Singh and anr.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 1998CriLJ4131; 1998(46)DRJ611

Jaspal Singh, J.1. Can a Metropolitan Magistrate or, for that matter, a Special Judge transfer investigation to the C.B.I? This, precisely, is the question posed before us in a reference made by none else but one of us. A.K. Srivasatava, J. 2. Mr. A.K. Datta, who appears for the C.B.I. feels that in the absence of consent obtained under Section 6 of the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, neither a Metropolitan Magistrate nor a Special Judge has any such power and in support relies upon two judgments. One from this Court itself and the other coming from Karnataka High Court. 3. The judgment of this court is reported as C.B.I. v. Satpal & Ors. Crl. P.257/95 and 315/95. It comes from the pen of Hon'ble Mr. Justice J.K. Mehra and is dated May 22, 1997. It was observed therein that the C.B.I. being the creation of the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, consent of the concerned State Government would be required in accordance with Section 6 of the Act before assigning investigation...

R.D. Gupta (Deceased) Vs. United Commercial Bank

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 1998IVAD(Delhi)928; 74(1998)DLT596; 1998(46)DRJ259

ORDERK. Ramamoorthy, J.1.The petitioner was an employee of the United Commercial Bank. The disciplinary authority after framing the charges against the petitioner, imposed punishment of withholding of two increments of pay for the years 1984 and 1985 with cumulative effect and the period of suspension was directed to be treated not on duty. The disciplinary authority also directed the payment of Rs.6,630/- to be restored to the bank, if it was already not done. Mr.A.K.Singla, the learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the said amount was restored to the bank before the charge-sheet was issued on the 21st of October, 1983. 2. The General Manager, as reviewing authority, exercising power under Regulation 18 of the United Commercial Bank Officer Employees' (Conduct) Regulations, 1976, issued a show-cause notice on the 13th of September, 1984 directing the petitioner to show cause as to why he be not removed from the services of the bank which shall not be a disqualification fo...

Kuldeep Art Press Vs. Govt. of Nct of Delhi

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 1998(46)DRJ468

K. Ramamoorthy, J.1. The industrial disputes between the petitioner management, and the third respondent Ram Gopal, workman, was referred to the Labour Court-IV for adjudication by the first respondent. In his statement of claim before the Conciliation Officer, dated 31.3.1987, the workman, Ram Gopal, states his case and the same could be easily stated in the following terms:2. He had been working in the petitioner press from 8,2.1980 and on 12.12.86 when he reported for duty for that day, the petitioner, management, refused to give him to work. Such an action on the part of the management amounted to terminating the services without notice and, thereforee, the action of the petitioner, management, was illegal and it was an unfair labour practice. He was entitled to be reinstated with all back wages. According to him, he sent registered letter dated 12.2.1987 making his demand valid by another registered letter dated 27.2.1987. The petitioner, management, sent a reply dated 9.3.1987 ac...

Pal Peugeot Ltd. Vs. Gora Mal Hari Ram

Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi

A.P. Chowdhri, President: 1. Broad facts of the case are that a number of persons who had booked the order for Peugeot 309 cars and deposited Rs. 25,000/- each on account of the booking. The cars were not delivered in time and those persons cancelled the booking and claimed refund of the amount alongwith interest, etc. 2. Having failed to receive the refund, they approached District Forum-II by separate complaints. Some more persons joined them with the same grievance lateron and the total number of such complainants became 249. Impleaded as opposite parties were M/s. Pal Peugeot Ltd. and Prem Nath and Sons Pvt. Ltd. as opposite party Nos. 1 and 2 respectively. 3. The District Forum directed the Managing Director and in his absence the man next in position to appear before it on 3.6.1998 to make a definite statement with regard to repayment. Aggrieved by the order, the opposite parties have preferred this appeal. 4. We have heard Mr. Meet Malhotra, Advocate for the appellant, Mr. T.C. ...

Ramesh Wadhera Vs. Commissioner of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1999)(112)ELT632TriDel

1. Arguing the stay petition for waiver of pre-deposit of penalty of Rs. 10 lakhs imposed on Shri Ramesh Wadhera, Shri Naveen Malhotra, ld.Counsel submits that the goods were intercepted from a truck; that one Joginder Singh who stated that he was the driver and other person Narender Pal Sharma, who stated to be the cleaner of the truck were found there; that the statement of Shri Joginder Singh, Driver and cleaner Shri Narender Pal Sharma was recorded, who inter-alia stated that the goods belonged to one Shri Ramesh Wadhera and Mahinder Babu.He submits that on the strength of this statement proceedings were started against his client; that his client's statements were recorded in jail, who was in the meantime detained under COFEPOSA; that SCN was sent to his client in the Jail; that whatever reply he could muster on the basis of his memory reply was sent to the SCN that personal hearing was also fixed for one day; that notice of personal hearing was sent to his residential address an...

Gupta Steels Vs. Collector of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1999)(113)ELT721TriDel

1. The issue involved in this case is granting of exemption under Notification No. 208/83 to the appellant. The dispute is in respect of inputs purchased by the appellants from ship breaking activity. The adjudication order has denied the appellants exemption in respect of materials purchased from the ship breaking activity after new Tariff came into force from 1-3-1986 on the ground that the goods in question had paid duty under Tariff Heading 72.15 and not under the tariff headings mentioned under Column (2) Serial No. 2 of the Table to the said notification. In respect of purchases from dealers before new Tariff came into existence, exemption has been denied on the ground that no evidence has been produced to show that re-rollable scrap obtained out of ship breaking was duty paid prior to December, 1985, even though certain invoices of J.K. Entt. and other iron and steel merchants shows payment of duty under protest.2. Arguing the appeal, Shri K.K. Anand, ld. Advocate submitted tha...