Delhi Court February 1999 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.
Union of India Vs. Maj. General V.K. Sharma
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-25-1999
Reported in: 2000IVAD(Delhi)13; 84(2000)DLT614; 2000(53)DRJ491; 2000(5)SLR29
ORDERARUN KUMAR, J.1. The only question for consideration in this appeal is whether on 30th April, 1996 a post of Lt. General was available to which the respondent could have been promoted. There is no dispute that the respondent who was holding the rank of Major General in the Indian Army was qualified for promotion to the post of Lt. General. In fact he was placed at Seriall No. 1 by the Selection Board in the panel of officers found fit for promotion to the rank of Lt. General. 2. In the rank of Maj. General, the respondent was due to retire on 30th April, 1996. However, if he was to be promoted to the next higher rank of Lt. General, he would have got additional two years in service and he would have retired on 30th April, 1998. The only reason given by the appellants in the counter affidavit for not promoting the respondent to the rank of Lt. General is that no post was available in that rank on 30th April, 1996 and, thereforee, the respondent could not be promoted. Turning down t...
Puran Singh and ors. Vs. Lt. Governor of Delhi and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-25-1999
Reported in: 1999IIIAD(Delhi)661; 78(1999)DLT412
C.M. Nayar, J.1. The present petition is directed against the respondents for issuance of a writ of mandamus for commanding the respondents to do their public duty of not disturbing the peaceful possession of the land of the petitioners except according to due process of law and after giving a notice of reasonable time and for further relief that the respondents be directed to pay an exemplary amount of compensation for harassing the petitioners by sending officers etc. to dispossess them. The Notifications which are the subject matter of the present petition were upheld by a Full Bench of this Court reported as Roshanara Begum Vs . Union of India : 61(1996)DLT206 which was subsequently upheld by the Supreme Court of India vide its Judgment reported as Murari and Others v. Union of India and Others : (1997)1SCC15 . The present petition, in view of the settled law is, thereforee, conceived and cannot be entertained as the petitioners had earlier impugned the Notifications which were uph...
Lt. Col. P.C. Madan Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-25-1999
Reported in: 78(1999)DLT765
ORDERK. Ramamoorthy, J.1. The point involved in the writ petition is a very short one. The petitioner sought pre-mature retirement and for the first time it was rejected. The second time he again applied explaining the circumstances under which he was forced to seek pre-mature retirement. That was also rejected by the Adjutant General and it was not sent to the Government. The petitioner was moved out to Guwahati and he has filed the writ petition seeking the following reliefs:Issue a writ of mandamus to respondent no.1 to consider the application of the petitioner dated 09.01.1997 and 09.06.1997 seeking premature retirement from service with sympathy and compassion in accordance with their own policy on the subject and pass a reasoned order thereupon within a period of 6 weeks. Issue a writ of mandamus to respondent no.4 to consider the application of the petitioner dated 09.06.1997 seeking cancellation of posting to 151 Base Hospital c/o 99 APO with justness and compassion in accord...
Ram Pal Vs. Lt. Governor of Delhi and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-25-1999
Reported in: 1999(49)DRJ297
C.M. Nayar, J. 1. The present petition is directed against the respondents for issuance of a writ of mandamus for commanding the respondents to do their public duty of not disturbing the peaceful possession of the land of the petitioner except according to due process of law and after giving a notice of reasonable time and for further relief that the respondents be directed to pay an exemplary amount of compensation for harassing the petitioner by sending officers etc. to dispossess them. The Notifications which are the subject matter of the present petition were upheld by a Full Bench of this Court reported as Roshanara Begum v. Union of India 1996 1 AD (Delhi) 6 which was subsequently upheld by the Supreme Court of India vide its Judgment reported as Murari and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors. : (1997)1SCC15 . The present petition, in view of the settled law is, thereforee, misconceived and cannot be entertained as the petitioner had earlier impugned the Notifications which were uphel...
Krishan Bhagwan Vs. Delhi Development Authority
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-25-1999
Reported in: 1999(50)DRJ99
C.K. Mahajan, J.1. Rule. 2. The short question that calls for decision in this writ petition is whether petitioner, who owned 40 square meters plot, was entitled to allotment of plot in the Rohini Residential Scheme, New Delhi. The petitioner has also prayed for possession of the said plot and for direction to the respondent to execute the conveyance deed.3. The petitioner applied for allotment of a plot in the Rohini Residential Scheme and was allotted plot No. 64, Pocket 9, Sector 24 measuring 64 square meters vide allotment letter dated 12.11.1991. A sum of Rs. 51,305.96 was deposited by the petitioner after adjusting the amount already paid by him. The petitioner also submitted all the documents that were required for the purposes of allotment. Instead of handing over the possession of the plot to the petitioner, the respondents raised an objection that the allotment of the plot could not be made to the petitioner as he was already in possession of a property measuring 40 square me...
Anil Rubber Mills Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Cce
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Feb-24-1999
Reported in: (1999)(83)LC75Tri(Delhi)
1. This appeal arises out of and is directed against Order-in-Original No. 20/93 dated 19.4.1993 of the Collector of Central Excise, New Delhi.2. Shri P.S. Bedi, Advocate appearing for the appellants submitted that apart from the merit of the case, the demand was clearly barred by time. He said that the Collector has issued a show cause notice invoking the larger period for the recovery of the refund amount. The Asstt. Collector after verification of the price list under declaration on adjudication, refund was granted. In these circumstances, it cannot be said that there was no wilful suppression on the part of the appellants. When the entire facts within the knowledge of the Department, if the order of the Asstt. Collector was erroneous, the best course open to the department to file an appeal against that order. Under the similar circumstances, the Asstt. Collector has passed three orders regarding refunding the respective orders but against the amount of Rs. 27,179.04, the Departme...
Commissioner of C. Ex. Vs. Anupam Products Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Feb-24-1999
Reported in: (1999)LC605Tri(Delhi)
1. Revenue filed this appeal against the order-in-appeal dated 31-12-1997 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals).2. When the case was called non appeared on behalf of the respondents in spite of notice.3. In this case the learned Commissioner in the impugned order allowed the benefit of Modvat credit in respect of invoices issued by the unregistered dealers.4. Shri T.A. Arunachalam, learned Departmental Representative appearing on behalf of the appellant submits that Notification 32/94-C.E. (N.T.), dated 4-7-1994 provides for requirement of registration by a dealer. He submits that in the present case the invoice was issued by the Depot of Indian Oil Corporation which is not registered as dealer. For this proposition he relied upon the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Jayana Time Industries Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Meerut, reported in 1997 (93) E.L.T. 245 (Tribunal). He, therefore, prays that the appeal be allowed. Heard learned JDR and perused the appeal papers.5....
Kalyan Chandra Goyal Vs. Delhi Development Authority and Another
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-24-1999
Reported in: 1999VIAD(Delhi)111
ORDERDR. M.K. Sharma, J.1. The petitioner was awarded a work contract for providing peripheral water supply line by the respondent. During the execution of the aforesaid contract disputes arose between the parties and accordingly the said disputes were referred to an arbitrator Appointed by the appointing authority.2. The arbitrator entered upon the reference, accepted evidence adduced by the parties and thereafter by his order dated 7.12.1991 published the award. The said award was filed in this court as against which both the petitioner as also the respondent filed their objections. The objection of the respondent relate to award passed by the arbitrator in respect of claims No.1,4,5,7 & 14 whereas the objections of the petitioner relate to claims No.6,8,12 & 13. The aforesaid objections were placed before me for considerations and disposal, on which I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as also the learned counsel appearing for the respondent.3. Mr. Aggarwal ...
Phool Singh Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-24-1999
Reported in: 78(1999)DLT348; 1999(49)DRJ223
C.M. Nayar, J.C.M. Nos. 1701-1702/91 & 2953/981. There is no appearance on behalf of the applicants. The applications are, thereforee, dismissed. C.W.P.No. 1270/892. The present petition is directed against the respondents impugning the Notification dated February 3, 1989 issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). This Notification reads as under: (DELHI ADMINISTRATION, DELHI (LAND & BUILDING DEPARTMENT)Notification Dated: 3.2.1989 No. F.9(4)/81-L&B;/ (1), whereas it appears to the Lt. Governor, Delhi that the land is likely to be required to be taken by Government at the public expense for a public purpose, namely for planned Development of Delhi, it is hereby notified that the land in the locality described below is likely to be required for the above purpose. This notification is made under the provisions of Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act to all whom it may concern. In exercise of the powers conferred by the aforesaid section...
Mohta Finance and Leasing Co. Ltd. Vs. M/S. Lustre Tiles Ltd. and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-24-1999
Reported in: 1999IIAD(Delhi)347
ORDERM.S.A. Siddiqui, J.1. By this order, I propose to dispose of the objections filed by the petitioner against the award dated 20.4.1991. 2. The relevant facts which are necessary for the consideration of the objections against the award are that by the agreement dated 22.6.1984, the petitioner leased out certain equipment to the respondent on payment of lease rentals specified therein. The respondents paid lease rentals to the petitioner up to January 1985 and thereafter committed default and payment was not made inspire of several demands having been made by the petitioner. The disputes and the differences arising out of the said agreement were referred to the arbitral Tribunal in terms of the arbitration agreement. The arbitral Tribunal made the award on 20.4.1991. The petitioner not being satisfied with the award filed objections on 26th February, 1994. 3. The petitioner preferred a claim of Rs.15,69,527.85 before the arbitral Tribunal. The break up of the said claim is as under ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »