Delhi Court March 1999 Judgments
Home Cases Delhi 1999 Page 13 of about 205 results (0.022 seconds)Priyanka Bhatia Vs. Govt. of Nct of Delhi and Others
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1999IIIAD(Delhi)117; 1999CriLJ2188; 1999(50)DRJ112; ILR1999Delhi203
ORDERA.K. Srivastava, J.1. This criminal writ petition of Habeas Corpus has been filed by one Ms. Priyanka Bhatia for the custody of her two minor daughters, namely, Akansha and Jayanti aged three and a half and two and a half years respectively from the illegal custody of respondents 3 and 4.2. This petition came up for hearing on admission on February 15, 1999. On that date notices were issued to the respondents to show cause why the petition be not admitted and in the meantime SI Krishan Kumar of P.S. Lajpat Nagar, who was present in Court, was directed to proceed to C-23, Dayanand Colony, Ground Floor, Lajpat Nagar-IV, New Delhi where the children of the petitioner were stated to be confined by respondent No. 3. He was directed that in case the children were found at the given address, they shall be produced before the Court on that very day at 4.00 P.M. In compliance of those orders Akansha and Jayanti were produced by SI Krishan Kumar Kamat in Court on that very day. According to...
Tag this Judgment!Pramod Gupta and anr. Vs. Anz Grindlays Bank and anr.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1999IIIAD(Delhi)180; 79(1999)DLT16; 1999(49)DRJ803
ORDERK. Ramamoorthy, J.1. The order dated 25/26.8.1993 is challenged in Co.A.27/93 by Ms.Pramod Gupta and Mr.Sanjay Gupta, hereinafter called respondents 2 & 3 as per the array of parties in the application filed by the ANZ Grindlays Bank, hereinafter called the 'Bank', before the Company Law Board. In Co.A.6/94, the Bank has filed the appeal challenging the order passed by the Company Law Board dated 15/16.3.1994. In Co.A.8/94 the order dated 15/16.3.1994 passed by the Company Law Board is challenged by respondents 2 & 3.2. Before adverting to the rival contentions of the parties in the application filed by the Bank before the Company Law Board, out of which the three appeals had arisen, the facts culminating in the filing of the Company Petition filed by the Bank under Section 111 of the Companies Act, 1956, hereafter called the '1956 Act', and the filing of the appeals have to be noticed.3. The genesis, as it were, of the present dispute was the purchase of bonds by respondents 2 & ...
Tag this Judgment!B.C.S. Balinga Vs. National Housing Bank and ors.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1999IIIAD(Delhi)391; 1999(50)DRJ42
ORDERK. Ramamoorthy, J.1. In Writ Petition No. 6666/98 the petitioner has challenged the proceedings dated 4.12.1998 assigning some work to the petitioner. The petitioner has also challenged the charge-sheet issued by the respondent on 16.9.1998.2. In Writ Petition No. 247/99 the petitioner has challenged the order of suspension dated 23.12.1998. The petitioner has also challenged chargesheet dated 7.1.1999.3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner Mr. A.K. Matta. In view of the facts and circumstances of two cases and in the interest of justice I am of the view that I should not go into the rival contentions of the parties at this stage. Mr. Matta in challenging the order dated 23.12.1998 referred to the judgment of the Supreme Court in State of Orissa through its Principal Secretary, Home Dept. Vs . Bimal Kumar Mohanty : (1995)ILLJ568SC and relied upon paragraph 13 therein. The right of an employer to suspend an employee is inherent in the contract of employment subject to the ...
Tag this Judgment!Shiv Dutt Vs. the Presiding Officer Central Govt. Industrial Tribunal ...
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1999IVAD(Delhi)859
ORDERMukul Mudgal, J.1. This writ petition challenges the award of the Industrial Tribunal dated 1st December, 1997 by which the Presiding Officer of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal had rejected the reference made to it at the behest of the Petitioner herein on the ground that the telecom department of the Government is not an 'industry'. For this purpose reliance was placed on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in 1996 (8) SCC 488 Sub Divisional Inspector of Post v. Theyyam Joseph and Others. The Tribunal had relied upon the said judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the Sub Divisional Inspector of Post case (supra) in preference to the judgment of the Supreme Court in Bangalore Water Supply and Sewarage Board Vs . A. Rajappa and Others : (1978)ILLJ349SC . The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that since then the view taken in the judgment of the Sub Divisional Inspector of Post has been overruled by a judgment of 3 Hon'ble Judges of the Hon'bl...
Tag this Judgment!Common Cause Vs. Union of India and Others
Court: Delhi
Reported in: AIR1999Delhi257; [1998(79)FLR954]
ORDERAnil Dev Singh, J.1. In this public interest writ petition the petitioner, Common Cause, a society registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860, seeks a direction to the first and the second respondents, Union of India through the Secretary, Ministry of Urban Affairs and Employment, and the Union of India through the Secretary, Ministry of Law, Justice and Company Affairs respectively, to issue a notification in the official gazette notifying the date on which the Delhi Rent Act, 1995 (Act No. 33 of 1995) (for short 'the new Rent Act') shall come into force. The facts lie in a narrow compass. 2. Home is an eternal quest of all mankind. Law which encourages construction of houses to meet one of the basic demands of habitat is the paramount requirement in this country. Realizing this need and voicing its concern regarding the acute shortage of housing, the Supreme Court in Prabhakaran Nair etc., v. State of Tamil Nadu and Others, , expressed the necessity for a national hou...
Tag this Judgment!Shiv Dutt (Shri) Vs. the Presiding Officer Central Govt. Industrial Tr ...
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1999IIIAD(Delhi)638; (1999)IILLJ842Del
ORDERMukul Mudgul, J.1. This writ petition challenges the award of the Industrial Tribunal dated 1st December, 1987 by which the Presiding Officer of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal had rejected the reference made to it at the behest of the Petitioner herein on the ground that the telecom department of the Government is not an 'industry'. For this purpose reliance was placed on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in 1996 (8) SCC 488 Sub Divisional Inspector of Post v. Theyyam Joseph and others. The Tribunal had relied upon the said judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the Sub Divisional Inspector of Post case (supra) in preference to the judgment of the Supreme Court in Bangalore Water Supply and Sewarage Board Vs . A. Rajappa and others : (1978)ILLJ349SC . The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that since then the view taken in the judgment of the Sub Divisional Inspector of Post has been overruled by a judgment of 3 Hon'ble Judges of the Hon'bl...
Tag this Judgment!Common Cause Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1999IIAD(Delhi)689; 78(1999)DLT638
CWP No. 1495/97:Anil Dev Singh, J.1. In this public interest writ petition the petitioner. Common Cause, a Society registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860, seeks a direction to the first and the second respondents, Union of India through the Secretary, Ministry of Urban Affairs and Employment, and the Union of India through the Secretary, Ministry of Law, Justice and Company Affairs respectively, to issue a notification in the Official Gazette notifying the date on which the Delhi Rent Act, 1995 (Act No. 33 of 1995) (for short 'the new Rent Act') shall come into force. The facts lie in a narrow compass.2. Home is an eternal quest of all mankind. Law which encourages construction of houses to meet one of the basic demands of habitat is the paramount requirement in this country. Realizing this need and voicing its concern regarding the acute shortage of housing, the Supreme Court in Prabhakaran Nair etc. etc. v. State of Tamil Nadu and Others : [1988]1SCR1 , expressed the n...
Tag this Judgment!Sh. Mohd. Neeral Haque and ors. Vs. Videsh Sanchar Nigam Ltd. and ors.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 79(1999)DLT116; 1999(49)DRJ497
K. Ramamoorthy, J. 1. The petitioners were directly recruited to the posts of Assistant Engineers in 1984 and they joined the services of the first, respondent in 1987. On the 20th of February, 1996, the first respondent passed an order promoting nine officers, including petitioners, as Engineer-In-Charge(Sr.Manager Engg.) with effect from the dates mentioned against the names of the officers. The order reads as under:- Sub: Filling up vacancies of Engineer-in-Charge (Sr.Manager Engg) in , Videsh Sanchar Nigam Limited. Appointment of following Dy.Engineer in-Charge (Managers Engg) ofVidesh Sanchar Nigam Limited as Engineer-in-Charge (Sr.Manager Engg)with effect from the date indicated against each or from the date theyreported for duty (in case the officers were on leave) has been authorised: S.No.NamePresentBranch of posting as EC (Sr. Manager (Engg.)Dateof Promotion1.Shri Md. J .Sheikh(EC)Calcutta01.04.19932.Shri Md. NoorulHazueCalcutta01.04.19933.Shri R.P. AryaNew Delhi01.04.19934...
Tag this Judgment!Indian Leather Corpn. and anr. Vs. Cc
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1999)(83)LC846Tri(Delhi)
1. These are two appeals arise out of common order passed by the Commissioner (Customs), New Delhi enhancing the value of the goods imported by the appellants and imposing penalty.2. Shri A.S. Sunder Rajan, learned Advocate, submitted that they had imported drill bits from Kyrghystan. The purchase price of the various sizes of the drill bits was US $ 0.14 per piece. He further submitted that these drill bits are not of international standard and have not been imported into India earlier and were not available in Indian market at all. The department conducted some market enquiry and on the basis of that enquiry the CIF value of the imported goods were enhanced under Rule 8 of Customs Valuation Rules. He further submitted that the appellants, in their reply dated 27.9.1994, had requested for the cross- examination of witnesses which was not allowed by the Commissioner. He also mentioned that the persons from whom the enquiry was conducted are only the merchants and not the importers of ...
Tag this Judgment!Pasupati Alloys Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1999)(114)ELT735TriDel
1. This is an appeal on determination of annual capacity of induction furnace. The appellants opted for payment of duty under Sub-rule (3) of Rule 96ZO. The adjudicating authority determined the capacity of the furnace higher than the one claimed by the appellants and, therefore the appellants have come up in appeal that before determining a higher capacity than the one claimed by the appellants, the appellants should be given an opportunity for explaining their case which was not done.2. Shri Amit Awasthi, ld. Counsel submits that the provisions of Section 3A shall prevail over the provisions of Rule 96ZO(3). He submits that Sub-section (4) of Section 3A provides for giving an opportunity to the appellants to explain their case whenever the annual production capacity of the furnace is determined higher or lower than the one claimed by the appellants. He submits that this opportunity was not provided to the appellants and prays that the appeal may be remanded on this count so that the...
Tag this Judgment!