Delhi Court August 1998 Judgments

Guru Teg Bahadur Public School Society Vs. Delhi Development Authority ...

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...

Yaro Khan @ Ahmad Shah Vs. Foreigners Regional Registration Officer

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...

Mohd. Naim Sahel and ors. Vs. Foreigners Regional Registration Officer

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 1999(48)DRJ328

Devinder Gupta, J.1. The petitioners in this writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India have prayed for quashing of the order dated 7.7.1998 with further direction to the respondent not to deport them out of India.2. The petitioners are Afghan Nationals. It is claimed that they came to India from Afghanistan after the war in Afghanistan. Petitioners 2 to 5 claim that they came to India on 29.1.1991, followed by petitioner No.1, who is the husband of respondent No.2 and father of respondents 2 to 5, who came on 8.9.1992. They claim to be possessed of certificates issued by United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees dated 31.5.1991, stated to be valid up to 21.5.1999. It is also claimed that they have visas to stay in India valid till 21.5.1999, which was extended only on 21.5.1998 and they are also possessed of valid passports. Petitioner No.1 claims that he is carrying on medical practice. Only on 1.7.1998 some officers of the Foreigners Regional Registration...

Triveni Educational and Social Welfare Society Vs. Delhi Development A ...

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...

Mohammad Sediq Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

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...

M/S. National Auto Electric Works Vs. M/S. R.V. Technolinks (P) Ltd.

Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi

A.P. Chowdhri, President: 1. Brief facts of the case are that on 21.12.1994, the complainant placed an order for Amco N100 Car Battery with the National Auto Electric Works, opposite party No. 1. The said battery was manufactured by Amco Batteries Ltd. opposite party No. 3 and Jindal Motors, impleaded as opposite party No. 2 was its dealer, opposite party No. 3 being a sub-dealer of opposite party 2. The battery carried a Warranty against manufacturing defects for a period of 12 months. It was delivered to the complainant on 27.10.1995. In September, 1995 the battery started giving trouble and it stopped working on 27.10.1995. The complainant returned the battery to opposite party No. 1 who changed the chemical contents of the cells and having failed to pinpoint the defects sent the battery to the manufacturer, opposite party 3. On 17.11.1995 opposite party 1 informed the complainant that the battery had a minor crack and the same could be repaired with the help of a sealing material a...

Aneja Overseas Vs. Jt. Director, General Foreign Trade

Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi

A.P. Chowdhri, President: 1. M/s. Aneja Overseas, complainant, is a partnership firm registered with Apparel Export Promotion Council and as per Import Export Policy for the relevant period announced by the Government of India, the Exporters were entitled to Exim Scrip against exports made to Rupee Payment Area and General Currency Areas. During February, 1992, the complainant made exports of F.O.B. value of Rs. 38,69,900/- to Japan and as such became entitled to Exim Scrip of the value of Rs. 11,60,000/-. The complainant made an application dated 29.6.1992 for the issue of the said Exim Scrip of the value already stated enclosing necessary documents and details of exports made by it. It also deposited a sum of Rs. 1,742/- on 28th April, 1992 towards fee for the grant of the Exim Scrip. The complainant was issued token No. 4184. Further according to the complainant, Exim Scrip was required to be issued within 48 hours of the submissions of the application. In fact, the opposite party f...

Collector of Central Excise Vs. Raja Steel Works

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1999)(112)ELT1025TriDel

1. In this case, the Revenue is aggrieved by the order of the lower Appellate Authority holding that benefit of deemed Modvat credit is available to SSI unit of small scale even after crossing the ceiling limit of clearances of Rs. 75 lakhs in terms of Notification No. 1/93, dated 28-2-1993.2. The respondents have asked for a decision on merits and hence I have heard the learned DR and perused the records. It is found that the issue has been settled by the Tribunal in the case of Collector of Central Excise, Coimbatore v. Sri Venkateshwara Steel Industries reported in 1996 (86) E.L.T. 446. The Bench held that deemed credit under Ministry of Finance (Department of Revenue) Order No.TS/36/94-TRU, dated 1-3-1994 continues to be admissible to SSI units even after crossing the exemption slab of Rs. 75 lakhs when the unit starts paying duty at full rate. I further find that in a batch of cases, Collector of '- Central Excise, Chandigarh v. United Iron & Steel Rolling Mills and 6 Others,...

Cce Vs. Atlas Auto Industries and anr.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1999)(83)LC720Tri(Delhi)

1. In both these appeals filed by the Revenue the issue involved is whether element of excise duty is to be deducted from the assessable value for the purpose of levying Cess.2. Shri R. Santhanam, Ld. Counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondents submitted that the issue stands settled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CCE Patna v. Tata Engineering and Locomotive Co. in which it was held that calculation of 1/8% ad valorem of the Motor Vehicle for the purposes of the levy and collection of the cess must, therefore, be made as if it was excise duty that was being calculated and applying the provisions of the Central Excise and Salt Act for the purpose.3. Arguing on behalf of the Revenue the Ld. SDR leaves the matter to the decision of the Bench.4. We heard both sides. As the issue has been settled by the Supreme Court in the case of Telco (supra), following the ratio of the decision, we reject both the appeals filed by the Revenue....

Bezal Pharma Vs. Collector of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1998)(103)ELT449TriDel

1. In this case a duty demand of Rs. 32,920.24 has been confirmed on pharmaceutical products falling under Chapter 30 of the Schedule to the CETA, 1985 and a penalty of Rs. 10,000/- has been imposed on the appellants herein holding that they have violated the condition indicated at Col. No. 5 of SL. No. 24 of the table appended to the Notification 171/70, dated 21-11-1970. The period in dispute is April 1987 to April 1989.2. The appellants have asked for a decision on merits and in their written submissions, they had stated that the only non-observance of the condition of the Notification is that the appellants did not pack their control samples of the products in a form different and distinct from trade packing, but that this was due to the fact that the control samples had to be representative of trade packs, and were retained in the factory and there was no clearance of the samples from the factory.3. We have heard Shri Satnam Singh, learned SDR and perused the records.4. We find t...