Delhi Court April 1999 Judgments

Delhi Development Authority and Another Vs. Raghbir Singh and Another

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 1999IVAD(Delhi)392; 79(1999)DLT328; 1999(50)DRJ121; ILR1999Delhi273

ORDERArun Kumar, J.1. When this appeal came up for preliminary hearing, counsel for the respondent was present because the respondent had filed a caveat. Since a short point is involved, we have heard the learned counsel for the parties for purposes of final disposal of this appeal.2. The appellant Delhi Development Authority (hereinafter referred to as the Authority) is aggrieved of the direction contained in the impugned judgment of the learned Single Judge of this Court to the effect that plot No. 60, Block H-4/5, Pitam Pura, Delhi be allotted to the respondent who was the petitioner in the writ petition. Briefly the facts are that the lands belonging to the respondent situated in village Sameypur, Delhi had been acquired under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The acquired land was placed at the disposal of the Authority as per provisions of Sections 21 and 22 of the Delhi Development Act, 1957. In lieu of the acquired land of the respondent he was entitled to an al...

Narendra Pal Singh Vs. Union of India and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 1999IIIAD(Delhi)769; 79(1999)DLT358; 1999(50)DRJ551; ILR1999Delhi315

ORDERC.M. Nayar, J. 1. This petition is directed against the respondents for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari for uashing the Order dated 4th December, 1997 made by the Government of India, Office of the Additional Director, Central Government Health Scheme (Annexure-E to the petition) rejecting the case of the petitioner for reimbursement of the medical claim. The petitioner has further prayed for a writ of mandamus commanding the respondents to reimburse him the amount of Rs.93,870/- with interest at the rate of 24% from the date of discharge from hospital i.e. 22nd February, 1996 to the date of payment. The petitioner retired on 31st July, 1988 as Assistant Engineer(Mechanical) from Government of India, Security Paper Mill, Hoshangabad, M.P.-461005. He was admitted in Mayo Hospital Savli Road, Harni,Vadodara-390022 due to severe Chest Pain and Coronary Angiography was conducted on 12th February,1996. The relevant report is filed as Annexure-A to the writ petition. The ...

Commissioner of C. Ex. Vs. Jackson Engineer Pvt. Ltd

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2000)LC486Tri(Delhi)

1. There was a controversy in this case regarding the date of passing of the order by the Principal Collector Delhi. The authorities were directed through the ld. DR to produce the relevant file of the adjudication. The file could not be produced by the authorities before Tribunal because it is reported to have been misplaced somewhere.However, the ld. DR has placed the adjudication order register for the period 1984-88. The entry in the register shows that the adjudication order No. 101/88 has been passed on 21-11-1988 by Shri Tarun Roy, Principal Collector. File No. given is V-(68) 15/72-CE/85 and party's name is Mr. Jackson Engineers Pvt. Ltd., C-267, Maya Puri Industrial Area-6, Delhi. Therefore, we can take the date for passing of adjudication order as 21-11-1988 because the register has been kept in normal course and there are serial numbered entries relating to various adjudicating officers.2. It is admitted on record that the Board has passed the order under Section 35E on 15t...

Bajaj Hindustan Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1999)(111)ELT624TriDel

1. These appeals are based on the common issue. Therefore, these appeals are being taken together for final disposal.3. In these appeals issue is whether the charges collected by the appellants on behalf of the State Government and made over to the State Government should be included in the assessable value of the exciseable product manufactured by the appellants. The appellants are engaged in the manufacture of sugar and molasses and they were collecting administration charges on behalf of the State Government under the provisions of U.P. Sheera Niyantran Adhiniam, 1964. The Revenue wants to include these charges in the assessable value of the final product.We find the issue is covered by the order of the Hon'ble Tribunal in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise, Meernt v. M/s. Kisan Sahakari Chini Mills, Final Order No. 35/99-A, dated 15-1-1999 and in the case of M/s. K.M. Sugar Mills Ltd. Vs. C.C.E., Allahabad, Final Order No. 129/99-A, dated 8-2-1999. The Tribunal in these ca...

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Eicher Goodearth. (Eicher

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi

1. All these appeals relate to the same assessee and, therefore, the same were heard together and are being disposed of by this common order. We will first deal with ITA No. 1627/Del/1994 which has been filed against order under s. 250 passed by the Dy. CIT, Special Range-2, New Delhi, to give effect to the order of the CIT(A) dt. 7th August, 1992.2. Shri Ajay Vohra, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the assessee, submitted that, this appeal was inadvertently filed before the Tribunal instead of filing the same before the CIT(A). He, however, requested that the CIT(A) may be directed to condone the delay in filing the appeal, now before him, which has occurred on account of filing of the appeal inadvertently before a wrong forum. He relied upon the decision Continental Construction Ltd. vs. Union of India (1990) 185 ITR 230 (Del) to support this contention.3. The learned senior Departmental Representative submitted that appeal against the order of the AO is not maintainable b...

Subhash Aggarwal and anr. (Dr.) Vs. Shri Khushal Chand and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 1999IIIAD(Delhi)695; 79(1999)DLT250

ORDERMohd. Shamim, J.1. This is an application by the plaintiff under Order 39 Rule 4 and Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure for vacating the order dated May 20, 1994 passed on I.A. Nos. 2164, 5144 and 6052 of 1990. 2. Brief facts which gave rise to the present application are as under: that the plaintiffs herein filed a suit bearing No. 2104/90 for declaration and permanent injunction, inter alia,to declare that the defendants herein or any other person who has derived right, title and interest through them are not entitled to the use of the common passage in the premises bearing Nos. 7/1 and 7/2, Lancer Road, B.D.Estate, Delhi. Shri Khushal Chand Jain, predecessor-in-interest of the applicant herein was in occupation of the ground floor of the premises bearing No. 7/2, Lancer Road,B.D.Estate, Delhi, at the time of the institution of the suit. Defendant No.1, Shri Khushal Chand Jain during the pendency of the aforesaid suit sold the said ground floor portion in his occupation ...

Prasad and Co. Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Delhi Stock Exchange Association Ltd.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: [1999]98CompCas192(Delhi); 79(1999)DLT426

M.S.A. Siddiqui, J.1. The plaintiff has filed the present suit for declaration and injunction. Along with the plaint, the plaintiff filed an application under Order 39, Rules 1 and 2, C.P.C. seeking suspension of the impugned order dated 20th April, 1999.2. It is beyond the pale of controversy that the Delhi Stock Exchange Association Ltd. (defendant) is an approved stock exchange (for short the Exchange) under the Securities Contracts (Regulation) Act, 1956. Plaintiff company, as a member of the Exchange, are governed by the bye-laws of the Exchange (hereinafter to be referred as Bye-Laws). Plaintiff Company transact their business of buying and selling of shares from the cabin provided by the Exchange in their administrative office located at Indra Gandhi Institute, I.P. Estate, New Delhi. The Exchange has also provided a computer terminal to plaintiff to facilitate the buying and selling of the shares. It is also undisputed that a surveillance machine is installed at the office of t...

Dy. Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Eicher Goodearth

Court: Delhi

Reported in: (1999)64TTJ(Del)208

ORDERB. M. Kothari, AM:All these appeals relate to the same assessed and, thereforee, the same were heard together and are being disposed of by this common order. We will first deal with ITA No. 1627/Del/1994 which has been filed against order under s. 250 passed by the Dy. CIT, Special Range-2, New Delhi to give effect to the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) dt. 7-8-1992.2. Shri Ajay Vohra, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the assessee, submitted that,this appeal was inadvertently filed before the Tribunal instead of filing the same before the Commissioner (Appeals). He, however, requested that the Commissioner (Appeals) may be directed to condone the delay in filing the appeal, now before him, which has occurred on account of filing of the appeal inadvertently before a wrong forum. He relied upon the decision Continental Construction Ltd. v. Union of India : [1990]185ITR230(Delhi) to support this contention.3. The learned senior departmental Representative submitted that...

Collector of C. Ex. Vs. Technique Diabrasive I.P. Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1999)(110)ELT869TriDel

1. These are six appeals - three filed by M/s. Technique Diabrasives India Pvt. Ltd. and three appeals filed by Revenue - involving the question of classification of a product Plastic Cavity whether it is classifiable under sub-heading 3926.90 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act as claimed by the Assessee or under Heading 84.80 of CETA as claimed by the Revenue. The second issue involved is whether the benefit of Notification No. 217/86 is available to the impugned product which is used in the manufacture of abrasive stones. As the issues involved in all the appeals are same, these are being disposed of by one common order.2. Shri A. Bhattacharya, learned Advocate, submitted that the Assessee manufacture abrasive stone and glazing media; that they manufacture plastic mould known as 'Plastic Cavity' which is used for the manufacture of their final product; that the impugned goods are manufactured out of duty paid plastic sheets; that the plastic cavity is used only once an...

Kirat Industries Vs. Collector of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1999)(65)ECC419

1. The appellants filed this appeal against the Order-in-Appeal dated 24-12-1990 passed by the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), New Delhi.2. In this case, in the impugned order, the product manufactured by the appellants i.e. cotton fabrics coated with adhesives on one side and bonded with release paper was held to be classifiable under sub-heading 5906.90 of the Central Excise Tariff. Whereas the appellants claimed the classification under sub-heading 5909.00 of the Central Excise Tariff.3. Ld. Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants, submits that the appellants are engaged in the manufacture of grey fabric bonded with release paper having a coat of adhesive in leather and used in the shoe industry as inner lining. He explained the manufacturing process of the product as under: "A coat of adhesive is given on duty paid release by the knife and then the same is passed through heated chamber in a temperature of 60 - 80 to dry the water contents. After this the grey fabric i...