Delhi Court September 1998 Judgments
Home Cases Delhi 1998 Page 3 of about 234 results (0.036 seconds)Madan Lal Vs. Union of India and anr.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1998VIIAD(Delhi)65; 4(1998)CLT368; 75(1998)DLT750
K. Ramamoorthy, J.1. The fact that the respondents held Court Martial against the petitioner and that the punishment of dismissal was passed is not in dispute. The petitioner claimed pension for the service rendered by him. The learned Counsel for the petitioner relied upon the judgment of this Court reported in Shambhu Prasad Vs . Union of India and Another, : 55(1994)DLT194 wherein this Court had held that 'when there is no order by the Court Martial directing the stoppage of pension of Non Commissioned Officers would be pension to commissioned under Regulation 113 (a)'. Mr. Sanjeev Sachdeva submitted that in view of the judgment of the Supreme Court reported in Union of India v. K.K.L.D. Azad, (1995) 4 Sca 711 : (1995) 5 S.L.R. 225. The decision of this Court referred to above is not longer good law and thereforee, the petitioner would not entitled to any pension unless there is an order by the President granting pension. 2. There are two Regulations which are relevant in the Regula...
Tag this Judgment!Oriental Structural Engineers Ltd. Vs. Rites and anr.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: AIR1999Delhi303; 1999(48)DRJ234
ORDERP.K. Sharma, J.1. This is a petition under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, filed by the petitioner praying for filing of the arbitration agreement in this Court and to refer the claims of the petitioner as set out in paragraph 20 of the petition to an independent arbitrator to be appointed by this Court. The aforesaid claims sought to be referred by the petitioner relates to claim of the petitioner of an amount of Rs. 16,21,149/- on account of short payment for lead in earth work items and also for payment of interest at 18% per annum on the aforesaid amount from the date of completion of work up to the date of payment and Rs. 10,000/- towards cost of the arbitration proceedings.2. The petitioner entered into a contract with the respondent No. 1 for extension of runway 147 32 for a length of 485 on at C. A. Bhubaneswar, under contract dated 28-4-1989. The aforesaid work was executed by the petitioner in terms of the agreement and completed the same on 15-...
Tag this Judgment!Raman Nath Sethi Vs. State and anr.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 77(1999)DLT164
S.N. Kapoor, J.1. Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner. 3. I have very carefully gone through the impugned judgment Seeing the power of attorney, the powers given there under no exception can be taken to the impugned order. Consequently, I do not find any merit in this petition. It is dismissed accordingly....
Tag this Judgment!Rungta Irrigation Limited Vs. National Building Construction Corporati ...
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 76(1998)DLT635
S.N. Kapoor, J.1. Heard the learned Counsel for the appellant.2. In this case 'the applicant furnished a Bank guarantee for a sum of Rs. 1,02,000/-. It appears that the said Bank guarantee was valid till 24th July, 1997. The respondent vide its letter dated 14.7.1997 asked the appellant as under :'It is regretted that you could not fulfill your commitments as per conditions stipulated in tender and work order. We are, thereforee, forced to complete the work at your risk and cost being this project a time bound and Supreme Court monitored as well. In view of this we have no option but to direct your banker to encash the Bank guarantee. However, if you still wish to settle our issues mutually we have no objection but in which case you have to first of all extend your Bank guarantee immediately for further six months and settle all issues including completion of balance work and final measurements etc. latest by 28.7.1997. You may please apprise us with your option immediately with the re...
Tag this Judgment!Hesham Badawy Mehmoud Pushkarna Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1998(47)DRJ270
Devinder Gupta, J.1. The petitioner, a foreign national who on 15.8.1998 was deported out of country has tiled this petition on 24.8.1998 supported on the affidavit of his wife Amani Ibrahim, another foreign national. Direction is sought in the writ petition to quash the order dated 10.8.1998 passed by the Foreigners Regional Registration Officer placing certain restrictions on the petitioner's movement; quit notice dated 12.8.1998 requiring the petitioner to leave India latest by 15.8.1998. Consequent directions are sought against the respondents to bring the petitioner to India and allow him to resume and complete his studies.2. The admitted facts are that the petitioner an Egyptian National arrived in India on 12.9.1989 on a student visa and got himself registered with the Foreigner Registration Officer. His stay had been extended from time to time. Lastly, on 16.1.1998 his stay was regularised till 31.8.1999, when he was granted Research Visa.3. The petitioner's case is that after ...
Tag this Judgment!Fateh Singh Vs. Sudha Sharma and anr.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 76(1998)DLT307; 1999(48)DRJ228
S.N. Kapoor, J.1. This appeal has been preferred against the judgment of the First Appellate Court confirming the judgment and decree of the learned Civil Judge dated 19.8.1995.According to the plaintiff-appellant he let out to the defendant-respondent premises No.19/112, having an area of 50 sq.yds. in Khasra No. 207/200, Nimmri, known as West Moti Bagh, Sarai Rohilla, Delhi w.e.f. 1.1.1993 at the rate of Rs. 3,500/- per month consisting of one big hall on the ground floor and one big room on the first floor. One month's rent was paid in advance. There was no formal rent agreement. The defendant-respondent did not pay the rent for the month of February, 1993. On 18th March, 1993 the plaintiff-appellant found that the defendants have started making some additions and alterations in the tenanted premises against the terms of tenancy and started demolishing original structure. The defendant did not pay any heed to his request not to do the same. The plaintiff appellant filed a suit.2. Th...
Tag this Judgment!Nihon Nirman Ltd. Vs. Union of India (Uoi)
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1998(103)ELT488(Del)
ORDERR.C. Lahoti, J.1. Though the learned Counsel for the respondents has made appearance on advance notice in view of the short controversy arising for decision, which is purely legal, the parties are heard finally.2. RuleD.B.3. The petition is directed against the orders dated 17-2-1998 and 22-6-1998 passed by CEGAT disposing of the petitioner's prayer under Section 35F of the Central Excises Act, 1944.4. The petitioner is manufacturing white cement. The classification list filed by the petitioner and accepted by the respondents describes the petitioner's product as 'Rapid Hardening Portland Cement (White)'. The relevant period is February, 1991 to March, 1992.5. The petitioner has paid excise duty @ Rs. 225/- per tonne to be covered by Central Excise Tariff Heading 2502.20. However, proceedings were initiated against the petitioner for recovering differential amount of duty by alleging that the excise should have been paid by the petitioner under Entry 23(ii), the product of the pet...
Tag this Judgment!Collector of Customs Vs. Shibani Engg. System
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1999)(106)ELT220TriDel
2. The respondents herein imported 5,000 pieces of taper roller bearings having part No. 32211 of (55 mm dia). They claimed assessment of the said goods under Tariff Heading 84.82 with benefit of exemption under Notification No. 113/81-Cus. claiming that the imported bearing were parts of power operated coal briquetting presses meant for compacting cellulosic waste material into fuel briquettes.3. The original authority denied the benefit of said notification holding that the said bearings are general purpose bearings which can be used on any machine having outer diameter of the 55 mm. and therefore, it is a part of general use and not a part of coal briquettes press. It was, therefore, held that it was not entitled to the benefit of Notification No. 113/81-Cus.4. In an appeal the respondents herein succeeded before the lower appellate authority. The lower appellate authority has held as follows :- "In the remand Order No. Cal. Cus. 273/93, dated 30-8-1993 it had, therefore, been advi...
Tag this Judgment!Collector of Central Excise Vs. Lumel Shades (P) Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1999)LC488Tri(Delhi)
1. Short questions involved in this case are regarding classification of Knitted polyester/nylon ladder string webs. Revenue authorities initially classified the same under Tariff Heading 59.89. On appeal by the respondents herein the said goods were classified under Tariff Heading 60.01. The lower appellate authority concluded the aforesaid classification on the following definitions of ladder web in the book titled "Textile Institute-Manchester 8th Edition 1986, the definition is as follows:- "A crochet or warp knitted narrow fabric (9.V) consisting of two wales (9.V) or columns of stiches spaced apart by the width of the sadte of a Venetin blind. Weft yarn crosses from one wale to the other to form a ladder-like structures which separates and the slate of the blind. Knitted ladder web is usually made from polyester yarn and heat set after manufacture." 2. Revenue has now contended that its proper classification will be under Tariff Heading 56.08. As against the classification held ...
Tag this Judgment!Executive Engineer, Mseb Rural Vs. Collr. of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1999)(105)ELT138TriDel
1. The appellants have claimed exemption in terms of Notification No.54/75-C.E., dated 1-3-1975 on the ground that number of workers employed in the workshop did not exceed 10. In the impugned order, the Collector has observed that in the month of August, 1978 and September, 1978, they had employed two more workers namely Shri Kavobale and Shri Sarode in addition to regular eight workers making the strength in each of the two months to ten which was more than the permissible limits of nine workers under Factories Act. Similarly, during subsequent months of January, 1979, September 1980 and October 1980 the party had employed ten, eleven and ten workers respectively which again were more than the permissible strength under Factories Act. It was submitted on behalf of the appellants that two persons mentioned above i.e., Shri Kavobale and Shri Sarode are watchmen and they have not taken any part in the manufacturing process of the concerned unit and they do not come under the definition...
Tag this Judgment!