Delhi Court April 1999 Judgments

Bureau of Indian Standards Emp. Union and ors. Vs. Dir. Gen., Bureau o ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 1999IIIAD(Delhi)789; 80(1999)DLT35

ORDERK. Ramamoorthy, J.1. The petitioner No.1 is a Union and petitioner Nos. 2 & 3 are employees of the Bureau of Indian Standards. They have prayed for the following reliefs: 'So, under the above facts and circumstances, the above-named petitioners most respectfully prays before your Lordships to issue a Writ in the nature of mandamus, certiorari, appropriate order, direction to the respondents. a) directing/commanding the respondents to revise the pay scale of the Assistants/Stenographers from Rs. 1400-2600 to 1640-2900 w.e.f. 1.1.1986. b) be pleased to quash the Office Memorandum dated 11.12.90 issued by the Govt. of India, Ministry of Finance (Department of Expenditure) bearing F.No. 744/IC/90. c) be pleased to call for the record in the above matter'.2. The petitioner-Union and the petitioners 2 and 3, the employees of the first respondent claim for the grant of scale of pay of Rs. 1640-2900 with effect from 1.1.1986 in terms of Notification dated 29.10.1986 on par with pay sca...

Anu Chaudhary Vs. State and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2000(53)DRJ385

S.N. Kapoor, J.1. Heard. Ld. counsel for respondents Nos. 2 to 5 concedes that the complaint case as well as the police report both shall form the basis for prosecuting the accused and leading evidence. If that is so, no much dispute remains in between the parties, excepting the representation of the complainant. 2. I have considered the judgment in Harjinder Singh Vs . State of Punjab & Ors., : 1986CriLJ831 and it appears that it is not applicable to the facts of the present case. 3. Ld. counsel for the respondents Nos. 2 to 5 relies upon B.B. Mitra's Code of Criminal Procedure, 16th Edn. page 1257 where the learned author has observed as under : 'Though the word 'amalgamation' of the complaint case and the police case is not used in Section 210(2), but the use of the expression 'that two cases will be inquired or tried together' connotes the same meaning. Once there is the order of the two cases being inquired into or tried together as if both of them had been instituted on a police ...

Madhumilan Syntex Limited Vs. Appellate Authority for Industrial and F ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 79(1993)DLT284; 1999(49)DRJ593

Devinder Gupta, J.1. Order passed on 12/14.8.1998 (Annexue-F) by respondent No. 1 (A.A.I.F.R.) allowing the appeals of State Bank of India and Syndicate Bank against the order passed on 12.1.1998 by (B.I.F.R.) and consequently dismissing the petitioner's reference under Section 15(1) of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985; (for short 'SICA') is under challenge in this writ petition.2. The relevant facts in brief are that on 21.4.1997 reference under Section 15(1) of SICA was made by the petitioner to respondent No. 2 on the ground that it satisfied the conditions of Section 3(1)(o) thereof. Reference was registered as Application No. 51/97. On 29.5.1997 respondent No. 2 after hearing submissions made on behalf of the parties appearing before it passed an order directing the Operating Agency, namely, Industrial Development Bank of India, (for short 'I.D.B.I.') to appoint auditors of repute to look into the balance sheet of the petitioner for the financial year e...

S/Sh. Tajeshwar Kumar Sharma and ors. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and anr ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 79(1999)DLT254; 1999(49)DRJ677

C.M. Nayar, J.1. This petition has been filed by the petitioners impugning the Demand Notices issued by Delhi Development Authority during the period August 22, 1991 to August 31,1991 and for issuance of a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to revise the cost of the tenements on the principles of 'No Profit No Loss' basis as applicable to the tenements allotted to EWS (Economically weaker section) category.It is alleged in the writ petition that Delhi Development Authority, respondent No. 2 is responsible for constructing and for allotment of tenements to various categories of registered persons including the EWS and according to the policy and practice of the respondents the cost of such flats are subsidised from the profit earned from disposal cost of houses allotted to middle and higher income groups of the Society and other sources. The registration scheme which concerns the petitioners was opened from November 21, 1985 to December 30, 1985 which period was extended subsequ...

Anant Raj Industries Limited Vs. the Industrial Finance Corpn. of Indi ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: [2000]100CompCas494(Delhi)

Dr. M.K. Sharma, J. 1. The present suit was instituted by the plaintiff against the defendants seeking for a decree for declaration in favor of the plaintiff and against the defendants declaring that the plaintiffs have paid the entire dues of the defendant in terms of one time settlement dated 31.3.1995 and also for a permanent injunction restraining the defendants, their agents, employees, officers from in any manner revoking the one time settlement made between the parties vide defendant No. 1's letter dated 31.3.1995.2. Pursuant to a request for loan made by the plaintiff the defendants approved the grant of the aforesaid loan by a letter dated 1.1.1987. Pursuant thereto the plaintiff company was granted a Rupee Term Loan and Foreign currency loan. The plaintiff duly availed of the said loan disbursed by the defendants No. 1,2 & 3 and various charges on the assets of the defendant company were given in favor of the defendants No. 1,2 & 3. The plaintiff became irregular in repayment...

M. Jainulabdeen Vs. Deputy Director of Enforcement

Court: Appellate Tribunal for foreign Exchange New Delhi

Nahar, Member - This appeal is directed against the Adjudication Order No. DD/MAS/14/94, 22-2-1994 under which a penalty of Rs. 40,000 was imposed on the appellant for contravention of the provisions of section 9(1)(b) and 9(1)(d) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 ('the Act'). 2. The appellant had been permitted to make a pre-deposit of Rs. 10,000 in 3 instalments by the end of July 1996 per order dated 9-4-1996 passed by the FERA Board at Camp Chennai. Pre-deposit of the balance amount of penalty was waived. This amount stands deposited, the present order disposes the appeal on merits. 3. The facts are that a show-cause notice dated 21-1-1992 was issued to the appellant requiring him to show why adjudication proceedings should not be taken against him on the grounds that he received on different dates various sums of money totalling to Rs. 2,55,000 from some local person, name unknown, on the order and instructions of one Sadiq, a resident outside India in Kuwait and the ap...

Punjab Tractors Ltd. Vs. Commr. of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1999)(66)ECC132

1. The appellants herein are engaged in the manufacture of different models of tractors. Model Swaraj 720 and Swaraj 724 (of less than 25 HP) were exempted from payment of duty in terms of Notification 68/83, dated 1-3-1983 while Model Swaraj 735 and Swaraj 855 (of 25 HP or more) were leviable to duty. Prior to 1-3-1983, components used as original equipment parts (except bearings, bolts, screws, tools etc.) were wholly exempt from payment of duty vide Notification 167/79, dated 19-4-1979 and No. 249/82, dated 1-11-1982. The appellants standardised more than 600 out of 700 components used in their tractors and procured most of the components without payment of duty for fitment in the exempted and dutiable varieties of tractors. With effect from 1-3-1986, the benefit of exemption to components used in their manufacture of tractors was withdrawn; the exemption for tractors of below 25 HP continued. The benefit of Modvat Scheme which was introduced on 1-3-1986 in respect of components wa...

Meghraj Biscuits India Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1999)LC594Tri(Delhi)

1. This is an appeal against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals), Ghaziabad, dated 5-6-1997 by which a penalty of Rs. 5,000/- was confirmed against the appellants apart from redemption fine of Rs. 25,000/-.2. The case against the appellant is that on verification of stock of finished goods in their factory, the officers had found 2464 cartons of biscuits of different varieties in excess of the book-balance and a shortage of 329 cartons of various varieties of biscuits valued at Rs. 48,151 /-. They were issued a show cause notice alleging excesses and shortages of the said quantities of biscuits. They were called upon to show why the unaccounted goods found should not be confiscated and duty should not be demanded on the goods found short. The department relied on panchanama prepared in the presence of Director of appellant company which recorded the finding that physical reconciliation of items resulted in certain quantities of biscuits found in excess/short. The quantity found sh...

Twenty First Century Electronics Vs. Commr. of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1999)(111)ELT784TriDel

1.1. The appellants herein have two units - Unit No. I and Unit No. II.In Unit No. I only wired chassis were being manufactured. These were being transferred to Unit No. II for manufacture of colour T.V. sets and Black & White T.V. sets and monitors. Prior to introduction of the new Tariff w.e.f. 28-2-1996 the appellants herein were availing the benefit of Notification 118/75-C.E. for movement of the said wired chassis from Unit No. I to Unit No. II. However, w.e.f. 28-2-1986 the Notification 118/75 got rescinded and Modvat credit scheme was introduced w.e.f 1-3-1986. The Revenue did not allow the benefit of Modvat credit scheme in respect of wired chassis utilised in manufacture of dutiable final product i.e. T.V. sets on the ground that Unit No. I being SSI unit would have paid less duty on the wired chassis whereas the Unit No. II would have availed notional higher credit in terms of Rule 57-B in respect of those wired chassis which were utilised in dutiable final product.1.2. ...

Jai Pal Sharma Vs. Income-tax Officer

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi

Reported in: (2000)72ITD485(Delhi)

1. These two appeals of the assessee involve common grounds that is why both the appeals were heard together and are being disposed of by this composite order for the sake of convenience.2. Relevant facts as noted by authorities below are that the assessee who was a Government servant, opened account No. NSS-236 with Parliament Street, Post Office, New Delhi, under National Savings Scheme, 1987 on 29-2-1988. He deposited Rs. 20,000, Rs. 30,000 and Rs. 24,000 in the said account during financial years 1987-88, 1988-89 and 1989-90 respectively. He claimed the amount of deposits as deductions under section 80CCA of Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) while computing the net taxable income for assessment years 1988-89, 1989-90 and 1990-91 respectively. The appellant withdrew Rs. 20,000 on 15-4-1991 the amount deposited by him during financial year 1987-88. While filing the return of income for assessment year 1992-93, the assessee had shown Rs. 20,000 so withdrawn ou...