Court : Delhi
Reported in : 78(1999)DLT74; 1999(49)DRJ665
C.M. Nayar, J.1. The present petition is directed against the Order dated February 21, 1998 passed by Ms. R. Kiran Nath, Rent Controller Delhi. The petitioner filed a petition under Section 14C of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') against the respondent/tenant on the ground that the petitioner was an employee in Delhi Vidyut Board and was due to retire w.e.f. April 30, 1998. The learned Judge has interpreted the provisions of Section 14C of the Act and held that the petitioner cannot be said to be an employee of Delhi Administration as he was an employee of Delhi Vidyut Board and, consequently rejected the petition. Section 14C of the Act reads as under :'14C. Right to recover immediate possession of premises to accrue to Central Government and Delhi Administration employees. (1) Where the landlord is a retired employee of the Central Government or of the Delhi Administration, and the premises let out by him are required for his own residence, suc...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : 75(1998)DLT507
K. Ramamoorthy, J. 1. Guru Teg Bahadur Public School Society has filed the above said writ petition challenging the demand made by the DDA in its letter dated 15.4.1993 and prayed for other reliefs.2. The case of the petitioner could be briefly stated in the following terms. On 2.1.1990 the DDA allotted on perpetual lease hold basis a plot of land measuring 4 acres (2 acres for school building and 2 acres for play ground) for running a higher secondary school at Model Town (Zone C-19), New Delhi. In the letter it is stated that the rate fixed for two acres for building is @ Rs. 19 lakhs per acre and annual ground rent @ 2 1/2% per annum. In the allotment letter it is stated that cost of land demanded is provisional and the petitioner should give an undertaking that any increase in the cost of land as and when decided by the Government of India shall be payable by the petitioner. The petitioner was asked to pay Rs. 38,95,001/- (cost of land Rs. 38,00,000/- + ground rent @ 1/- p.a Rs. 95...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : 76(1998)DLT329; 1998(47)DRJ249
Devinder Gupta, J.1. In this writ petition, instituted on 19.5.1994, the petitioner, which is a Society registered under Society Registration Act, 1860, has sought the following directions:-a) pass an appropriate writ order or direction, directing the respondents to allot the balance portion i.e. 700 sq.mt. of the plot No.NS 22, Block No.M., Vikas Puri, New Delhi to the petitioner and in any case the area of 300 sq.mt. b) prohibit the respondents from putting to use the plot No.NS-22, Block No.M, Vikaspuri, New Delhi, to any use other than for setting up a Nursery School. c) directing the respondent No. 2 to formulate the policy, if not already in existence, in consonance with the specifications prescribed by the NCERT copy whereof is Annexure P-12 and to provide play grounds to all schools in the city of Delhi. 2. It is alleged that the petitioner applied to the Directorate of Education for its recommendation to Delhi Development Authority (DDA) for allotment of land for constructing...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : 1998VAD(Delhi)981; 76(1998)DLT450; 1999(48)DRJ413
ORDERArun Kumar, J.1.The short point for consideration in this writ petition is whether a co-operative society can deviate from the principle of seniority of its members in the matter of allotment of flats/plots. The Retreat Co-operative Group Housing Society Limited (hereinafter referred to as the Society) is a group housing society as its name suggests. The object of the Society was to acquire land for development and construction of residential flats for its members. The Society acquired land at Patparganj, Delhi where it proposed to construct residential flats in two blocks. The first block of flats was to be constructed in Phase I and the second was to be constructed in Phase II. The flats to be constructed were of two types, type A having a covered area of 1,050 sq.ft. and type B having a covered area of 1,400 sq.ft. The petitioner is one of the founder members of the Society her membership number being 9. She had registered for a type B flat in Phase I on 17th October, 1979. The...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : AIR1998Delhi418; [2001]103CompCas161(Delhi); 75(1998)DLT889
Mohd. Shamim, J.1. Plaintiff through the present suit want to recover a sum of Rs. 3,54,217.04 including interest amounting to Rs. 1,24,200/- alleged to have been deposited with the defendants by way of advance price of certain machines, including a 300 tonne deep drying press.2. The case of the plaintiff briefly stated is as under : that the plaintiff are a limited liability company. Shri R. K. Bhalla is the Managing, Director of the said company and is, as such, competent to bring forward the present suit and to sign and verify the plaint. He has also otherwise been authorised to file the present suit through a resolution dated January 14, 1984.3. Defendant No. 1 had entered into a contract with the plaintiff for the supply of certain machines, including 300 tonne deep drying press oh 'no profit no loss' basis. The plaintiff in connection therewith deposited with defendant No! 1 a sum of Rs. 4,05,000/- by way of advance. Defendant No. 1 had oral discussions with the plaintiff on Octo...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : 1998(47)DRJ242
Devinder Gupta, J.1. The petitioner has challenged the order dated 5.5.1998 passed by respondent No.1 in exercise of powers conferred by Sub-section (2) of Section 3 of the Foreigners Act, 1946 directing that the petitioner shall not remain in India and shall depart from India as soon as possible and in any case latest by 15.5.1998.2. It is claimed by the petitioner that he was born in Gauhati on 10.1.1950. His mother died when fee was just 9 months old. His father came from Pakhtoonistan and left him to fend for himself. The petitioner took odd jobs to eke his existence and over the years made some savings and started money lending business firstly at Guahati and then at Delhi. While at Gauhati he made an application before the Superintendent of Police and Registration Officer for the grant of Indian Citizenship on which Superintendent Police, Kamrup furnished a certificate on 25.4.1962 certifying that the petitioner was a Pakhtonistan National and had applied to Government of Assam f...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : 1998VIIAD(Delhi)693; 1999(1)Crimes484; 75(1998)DLT224; 1998(47)DRJ121
J.B. Goel, J.1. This appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence both dated 6.8.1992 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Delhi in FIR No.84/90, P.S. Paschim Vihar whereby the appellant has been convicted for an offence under Section 18 of the NDPS Act (for short 'the Act') and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 10 years and a fine of Rs. One lakh and in default of payment of fine further simple imprisonment for one year. 2. The appellant was provided an amices Curiae. Learned amices Curiae has contended that the conviction is invalid and unjustified on the material available on record. He has raised several legal pleas besides challenging the reliance placed by the Trial Court on the oral testimony.3. Briefly the facts are that a police party led by Ran Singh, Sub-lnspector posted at Crime Branch, Dev Nagar Along with police officials, namely, Gurmeet Singh, Sub-Inspector, Sandeep Kumar, Sub-Inspector, Jai Bhagwan and...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : 1998(47)DRJ74
Devinder Gupta, J.1. On 12.5.1998 the petitioner filed this petition. Besides praying for (a) quashing of the order dated 5.5.1998 (annexure-P.1) passed by the Foreigner's Regional Registration Officer asking the petitioner to leave India on or before 15.5.1998 and not to enter thereafter; and (b) declaring Clause (c) of Sub-section (2) of Section 3 of the Foreigners Act, 1946 as ultra virus of the Constitution; the petitioner has prayed for other reliefs, which read:- '(a)quash the order No. 1942/For (S.O.V.) dated 5.5.98 passed by respondent No.2 asking the petitioner to leave India on or before 15.5.98 and not to enter India thereafter, as the same is contrary to law. (b)permit the petitioner to continue to stay in India, as he is not able to return to Afghanistan in the prevailing circumstances; (c)quash clause (c) of sub-section (2) of Section 3 of the Foreigners Act, 1946 (Act XXXI of 1946) as ultra virus and unconstitutional because the same is vocative of the principles of na...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in : (1999)(107)ELT794TriDel
1. This is an Appeal against the finding of the Collector of Central Excise (Appeal) holding that the appellants were not entitled to 10% more than what has already been paid as duty by their New Rohtak Road unit. The Asst. Collector passed the Order-in-Original, which was appealed before the Commissioner (Appeals). The Asst. Collector had held that in fact the demand notice amount was inclusive of the notional credit of Rs. 45,552.77 which the firm had availed along with Modvat credit while it was not allowed to be availed by the said firm against inter-transfer of goods/components from Anand Parbat unit to Naraina Unit.2. The facts, in brief, are that the Appellants have 2 units-one at Naraina Industrial Estate and the other at New Rohtak Road, Anand Parbat. The Unit at Naraina is engaged in the manufacture of parts and accessories of Motor Car, Scooters, Tractors and Trucks. The unit at New Rohtak Road (Anand Parbat) supplies components for use to the unit at Naraina Industrial Est...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in : (1999)LC462Tri(Delhi)
1. Appellant, being aggrieved by the Order-in-Appeal No. 132/89, dated 17-7-1989 passed by the Collector (Appeals), Calcutta confirming the Order-in-Original 65/88, dated 22-12-1988 rejecting the refund claim filed by the appellant, has filed the present appeal.2. M/s. Bharat Heavy Electricals Ltd. (for short, BHEL) required two numbers of special wagons for transporting heavy duty transformers.They issued a purchase order and subsequently an amendment of purchase order with the appellant for supply and assembly of the wagons. The assembly was carried out by the appellant using a consignment of components imported by BHEL from Sweden, wheel sets imported by the appellant from abroad as also some items manufactured by the appellant.Apparently, at the instance of the Central Excise Department, appellant paid central excise duty on the clearance of wagons allegedly manufactured by the appellant and subsequently filed refund claim on the ground that the appellant was not manufacturer of w...
Tag this Judgment!