Delhi Court July 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.
Empire Industries Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jul-27-1998
Reported in: (1998)(62)ECC417
1.2 The appellants herein imported four motors described as geared motors and sought clearance under OGL Appendix 6, List 8, S. No. 659 of April-March 1990-93 Policy which reads as under :- 1.3 The goods were declared in the Bill of Entry that these motors are for their Shrink Wrap Machine. They also claimed the benefit of Notification No. 59/87-Cus., dated 1-3-1987.2.1 Revenue, however, felt that the imported motors were not internally geared motors as claimed by the appellants but were squirrel cage type of motors, nor were they claimed to be explosion proof type. The reason for considering the imported motors as squirrel type was based on expert opinion which pointed out that in an internally geared motors housing of the motor unit and the geared unit is one and the same, whereas in the imported motors housings are separate. A show cause notice was, therefore, issued to the appellants on 8-8-1991 which resulted in the impugned order passed by the Additional Collector of Customs. Th...
Hindustan Adhesives Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jul-27-1998
Reported in: (1998)(104)ELT477TriDel
1. The appeal for the assessees was argued by Shri R.K. Agarwal, Consultant and Shri Y.R. Kilania appeared for the Revenue.2. In this case credit taken on 4 invoices issued by a registered dealer was disallowed on two grounds. The first was whereas the duplicate for transporter copy was required to be pink, the invoice was printed in pink ink. The 2nd observation that the registered person issuing the invoices had not given therein the details of the entries made in his R.G. 23D register. The claim of the appellants is that subsequently the details about the R.G. 23D entry was incorporated.Citing the Amal Rasayana case reported in 1993 (67) E.L.T. 133 (Tribunal), it was claimed that remedial defect had been remedied. As regards the defect in colour scheme, it was submitted that where the term "duplicate for transporter" was printed in pink, the invoice would be acceptable. Citing other case law, it was claimed that the substantive benefit could not be denied because of procedural laps...
N.C. JaIn @ Chandraswami Vs. C.B.i.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-27-1998
Reported in: 1998VAD(Delhi)109; 74(1998)DLT579; 1998(46)DRJ756
ORDERJ.B.Goel, J.1. By this petition the petitioner invokes the inherent jurisdiction of this court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (the Code) for seeking permission to go abroad.2. The petitioner along with others is facing trial on charges under Section 420/120B IPC. He was arrested on 2.5.1996 and was admitted to bail vide order dated 7.11.1996 of the Hon'ble Supreme Court [Criminal Appeal No. 1912/96 (S.L.P. Crl. No. 3377/96)]. The bail was granted inter alias subject to the condition that the petitioner will not leave the country. 3. This condition was, however, modified by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Crl. Misc. Petition No. 588 of 1998 in Crl. A. No. 1912/96 vide order dated January 29, 1998 to the effect that the petitioner will not leave the country unless permitted by the court on such conditions as the court may impose in that event when his application for permission to go abroad inter alias on the ground of treatment of his ailments was also declined on...
Anshu Yadav Vs. M.C.D., the Commissioner, Town Hall, Delhi
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-27-1998
Reported in: 1998VAD(Delhi)37; 1998(46)DRJ693
ORDERK. Ramamoorthy, J.1. The first respondent MCD, called for applications for appointment to the post of Primary Teachers in the schools run by it. The advertisement was made on the 16th of July, 1996 in the Hindustan Times. The advertisement, mentioned above, provided reservation for categories. The last date for submitting the applications was fixed as 31.7.1996. On the 30th of July, 1996, the petitioner made her application. She had mentioned in the application that she belonged to OBC category. The advertisement stated that:-'Note: Candidates seeking reservation as ST/SC/OBC/ex-S/OH may submit the prescribed certificate from the competent authority in support of their claim with applications. The reservation policy to the categories of SC/ST/OBC/ex-S and physically handicapped candidates shall be followed in accordance with the latest policy of Central/Delhi Govt.'2. Admittedly, the petitioner did not send any OBC Certificate along with the application. According to the petitione...
Kavita Devi Vs. Commissioner of Police and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-27-1998
Reported in: 1998IVAD(Delhi)842; 74(1998)DLT524; 1998(46)DRJ520
ORDERN.G.Nandi, J.1. This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India read with Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code (hereinafter referred to as 'the Code') concerns itself with the non-registration of the F.I.R. for the offence under Section 376 I.P.C. on the basis of the complaint dated 22.2.1998 and the transfer of the investigation of the case to any other authority except the police officers of Police Station Naraina, New Delhi. 2. The facts emerging from the petition are that the petitioner is the aunt of one Meenakshi and were staying together in the Jhuggi of the petitioner situated opposite B-247, Naraina Vihar, New Delhi; that on 22.2.1998 at 3.30 a.m. the petitioner heard her husband scolding somebody outside the jhuggi. She got up and came out of the jhuggi and found her husband scolding their niece Meenakshi outside the jhuggi; that on asking, the petitioner was told by her husband that Meenakshi was with Gaurav son of Kuldeep Singh in the adjacent j...
Dhanpatmal Virmani Vs. J.D.Kapoor
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-27-1998
Reported in: 1998VAD(Delhi)79; 74(1998)DLT556; 1998(46)DRJ550
ORDERK. Ramamoorthy, J.1. The management of a school is represented by the petitioners 1 & 2(hereafter called the 'management'). The management has filed the writ petition challenging the order of the Delhi School Tribunal dated the 5th of September, 1995. Besides challenging the order of the tribunal, the management has also challenged the constitutional alidity of Delhi School Education Act, 1972 and also the order of the Director of Education dated the 31st of August, 1989, by which the Deputy Director of Education had not approved the penalty of removal imposed on the fourth respondent Shri Radhey Shyam Gupta. The facts necessary for the disposal of the writ petition could be stated very briefly in the following terms: 2. The management directed disciplinary action against the respondent No.4 and the management held an inquiry and, eventually, imposed the penalty of removal from service and on the 16th of September, 1988, as per the provisions of the Delhi School Education Act, 197...
Commander V.S. Batra Vs. Chief of the Naval Staff, Naval Headquarters( ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-27-1998
Reported in: 1998VAD(Delhi)91; 74(1998)DLT810; 1998(47)DRJ130
ORDERK. Ramamoorthy, J.1. The petitioner has challenged in the writ petition the charge-sheet issued by the Commanding Officer on the 27th of August, 1997 and also the convening of the Court Martial on the basis of the charge-sheet.2. The petitioner was working in the Indian Naval Ship Circars Additional for Material Organisation as Controller of Material Planning in Visakhapatnam between 1993 and the 2nd of August, 1994. From the third of August, 1998, he had been working in Delhi. A draft charge-sheet was issued against the petitioner and he filed his objections and later on final charge-sheet was issued on the 27th of August, 1997. The petitioner, on the 2nd of September, 1997, made a representation to the Directorate of Personnel Services (Discipline and Vigilance Section) stating that the department cannot issue any charge-sheet against him. There was no conspiracy and the convening of the court martial was barred under Section 79 of the Navy Act, 1957.3. On the 29th of September,...
Delhi Wakf Board Vs. Devinder Kumar Sharma
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-27-1998
Reported in: 74(1998)DLT620; 1998(46)DRJ504
C.M. Nayar, J.1. The present Second Appeal arises out of the judgment dated February 12, 1996 passed by Senior Civil Judge, Delhi by which the Order of the Trial Judge dated April 20, 1995 was set aside and the matter was remanded to the Trial Court for affording opportunity to the parties to lead evidence to decide the case including the plea of bar to the suit under Section 56 of the Wakf Act. The respondent/plaintiff filed a suit for permanent injunction against the appellant/defendant with a prayer that the defendant/appellant be restrained from taking forcible possession of the properly as referred to in the plaint. The Trial Judge framed the preliminary issue relating to the bar of jurisdiction under Section 56 of the Wakf Act 'Whether the suit of the plaintiff is maintainable in the present form ?'2. Section 56 of the Wakf Act reads as under :-'Section 56 :- No suit shall be instituted against the Board in respect of any act purporting to be done it in pursuance of this Act or o...
Khazan Chand Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-27-1998
Reported in: 1998(47)DRJ688
K. Ramamoorthy, J.1. The petitioner was appointed as Station Master for mini train vide Office Order No. 38 dated the 25th of February, 1992, The order reads as under:-'Shri Khazan Chand who is presently performing the duties of Station Master is appointed to the post of Station Master in the pay scale of Rs. 1200-30-156()-EB-40-2040 w.e.f. 10th Jan., 1992. Shri Khazan Chand will undergo the requisite training of Station Master being provided by Northern Railway.Shri Khazan Chand will be on probation for a period of two years with effect from the date of appointment.'2. On the 8th of January, 1994, the petitioner was reverted to his original post. The order reads as under:-'Shri Khazan Chand who was appointed as Station Master w.e.f. 10.1.92 in the pay scale of Rs. 1200-2040 and put on probation for a period of two years vide Office Order No. 38 dated 25th February, 1992, is hereby reverted to his original post of Peon with immediate effect.'3. The third respondent gave a notice on the...
Mittal Castings Ltd. Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-27-1998
Reported in: (1998)62TTJ(Del)591
ORDERB-11. JAIN, A.M.:This appeal by the assessed arises from the order of the CIT(A), New Delhi for asst. yr. 1992-93. Following grounds have been raised:' 1. That on the facts and circumstances of the case, and in law the CIT(A) New Delhi, briefly 'the CIT(A)' erred in partially upholding disallowance of interest debited to P&L; a/c. on account of non-charging of interest on the amount advanced.2. That on facts and circumstances of the case and in law the CIT(A)-VH, New Delhi, erred in upholding the disallowance of power expenses of Rs. 96,78,827.3. That the orders passed by authorities below are bad in law and void ab initio. '2. In the first ground briefly the facts are that the appellant company claimed deduction of interest amounting to Rs. 16,37,881. This payment was made to the financial institutions. The assessed sold its plant and machinery in the month of September, 1991, for Rs. 1,38,90,000. The advances made have jumped from Rs. 55,97,055 to Rs. 1,32,52,585. These advances...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- Next ›
- Last »