Delhi Court April 1999 Judgments
Home Cases Delhi 1999 Page 7 of about 164 results (0.020 seconds)Delhi Development Authority Vs. Shri Raj Kumar
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1999IVAD(Delhi)215; 79(1999)DLT559
ORDERMadan B. Lokur, J.By a perpetual sub-lease dated 17th January, 1977, one Vidya Sagar was allotted a plot of land bearing No.52, Ishwar Colony, Pambri (Bambari) Road, Delhi, admeasuring about 200 square yards (hereinafter referred to as the suit property) by the Delhi Development Authority (for short, the DDA). 2. As a pre-condition to the allotment of the suit property, Vidya Sagar had given a declaration by way of an affidavit dated 6th December, 1976, wherein he had stated, inter alia, that neither he nor his wife own either in full or in part any plot of land in Delhi/New Delhi/Delhi Cantonment. 3. Subsequent to the allotment, a complaint was made against Vidya Sagar by his wife to the effect that the declaration furnished by him was false. Vidya Sagar's wife complained that he owned a house in Delhi in respect of which he had filed a Civil suit alleging that she is the benami owner of that property which was in fact purchased by him from his own funds. 4. Following the complai...
Tag this Judgment!Shakuntla Bisht Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1999IIIAD(Delhi)445
ORDERK. Ramamoorthy, J.1. The petitioner is the mother of late D.S.Bisht, who was serving as Assistant Commandant in 80 Battalion, Border Security Force, and who died in a road accident while he was undergoing signal training in Signal Training School, Tigri Camp, New Delhi. The petitioner claimed extraordinary pension under Central Civil Services (Extraordinary Pension) Rules. On the 19th of November, 1996, the Ministry of Home Affairs had rejected petitioner's claim of extraordinary pension on the ground that the deceased was not strictly on Government duty/service, at the time of his death and, therefore, extraordinary pension was not admissible to the dependent parents.2. The fact that late D.S.Bisht was deputed for depute for Signal Course at Signal Training School, Tigri Camp, New Delhi is not disputed. On that fateful day, i.e., 12.7.95, the deceased had taken permission to go out of the camp and met with an accident.3. The main question is: Whether the accident occurred during ...
Tag this Judgment!R.K. Shivdasani Vs. Export Inspection Agency (Delhi) and anr.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1999IIIAD(Delhi)450; 79(1999)DLT640; [1999(82)FLR942]
ORDERK. Ramamoorthy, J.1. The petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs in the writ petition:- 'In the facts and circumstances explained herein above and in the interest of justice this Hon'ble Court may graciously be pleased to: (i) issue a writ of certiorari and/or any other appropriate writ, order or direction thereby quashing the orders dated 16.2.99 and 17.2.99 issued by the respondent No.2, whereby the petitioner has been arbitrarily transferred/relieved from Delhi to Indore; (ii) issue a writ of mandamus and any other appropriate writ, order or direction thereby directing the respondents to allow the petitioner to continue to work at Delhi.' 2. In CM.1805/99, the petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs:- 'In the facts and circumstances explained herein above and in the interest of justice this Hon'ble Court may graciously be pleased to: (i) stay the operation of the impugned orders dated 16.2.99 and 17.2.99 issued by the respondent No.2, whereby the petitioner h...
Tag this Judgment!K.K. Mishra (Dr.) Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1999IIIAD(Delhi)690
ORDERK. Ramamoorthy, J. 1. The petitioner was working in the second respondent organisation on deputation. On the 15th of September, 1998, an order was passed by the first respondent in the following terms. 'In terms of proviso to para. (3) Sub-clause (iv) of the Agreement dated 15 June, 1994 between Dr.K.K.Mishra on the one part and the President of India on the other part, specifying the terms and conditions of appointment of Dr.K.K.Mishra as Director, Rashtriya Sanskrit Sansthan, the Government of India, hereby, terminates the services of Dr.K.K.Mishra, holding the post of Director, Rashtriya Sanskrit Sansthan with immediate effect. 2. A cheque No.351972 dated 14.9.98 drawn on Canara Bank, Parliament Street, New Delhi for Rs.50,760 (Rupees fifty thousand seven hundred sixty only) representing the pay for three months, in lieu of notice for the period of three months, as provided in proviso to para. (3) Sub-clause (iv) of the Agreement dated 15th June, 1994, is enclosed. 3. Receipt...
Tag this Judgment!R.K. Goel and Others Vs. Amrit Singh and Others
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1999IIIAD(Delhi)760; 80(1999)DLT331; 1999(50)DRJ94
ORDERK.S. Gupta, J.1. This appeal by the plaintiffs-appellants is directed against that part of the order of a learned single Judge dated 29th September 1997 passed in I.A. No. 8395/96 by which the ex parte ad-interim injunction order dated 12th September, 1996 was vacated against defendant No. 3 and was made absolute against the remaining defendants but subject to the plaintiffs making deposit of Rs. 20 lakhs in fixed deposit in the name of the Registrar of this court. 2. Suit for specific performance was filed by the plaintiffs, inter alia, alleging that under an agreement dated 14th June, 1995 defendants agreed to sell their land comprised in Mustail No. 17, Khasra No. 19 Min 22, 23 and Mustail No. 18, Khasra No. 1, 2, 3, 8 min, 9, 10/1 and 10/2, total measuring 41 bighas situated in the Revenue Estate of Village Asalatpur Khawad, Tehsil Mehrauli, New Delhi for a total sale consideration of Rs. 39,12,084/- @ Rs. 4,58,000/- per acre, to the plaintiffs. Plaintiffs paid Rs. 3 lakhs as ...
Tag this Judgment!Bijoli Niloy Banerjee Vs. Industrial Financial Corpn. of India Ltd. an ...
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1999IVAD(Delhi)302; 80(1999)DLT71
Arun Kumar, J.1. This appeal is directed against a judgment of the learned Single Judge of this Court dismissing the writ petition filed by the appellant in which he prayed that the action of respondents in resorting to direct recruitment for the post of Legal Adviser in the category of Chief General Managers be quashed and the appellant who is the only eligible departmental candidate for promotion to the said post, be considered for appointment and be appointed to the said post. The appellant has been working with the respondent Industrial Finance Corporation of India Limited (for short IFCI) since long. He joined as a Law Officer in the Legal Department on 15th May, 1972. During the course of his service with the respondent the appellant earned promotions from time to time and lastly, he was appointed as Deputy Legal Adviser (re-designated as General Manager (Law)) vide order dated 3rd June, 1988. The appellant is seeking promotion to the post of Legal Adviser (re-designated as Chief...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of C. Ex. Vs. Punjab Tractors Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (2003)(162)ELT1041TriDel
2. In the Order-in-Appeal, the Commissioner (Appeals) has confirmed the finding of the Asstt. Commissioner that Modvat credit could not be denied on the parts used by the respondent in the manufacture of forklift trucks overruling the sole objection in the notice that credit could not be allowed since the parts in question had been classified under Heading 8708.00 of Central Excise Tariff Act 1985.3. Heading 8708.00 is for parts and accessories of motor vehicles of Headings 87.01 to 87.05. The contention in the Department's appeal is that the goods falling under this heading cannot be used as inputs in the manufacture of forklift truck since the trucks are classifiable under Heading 84 and not under any of the Headings of 87.01 to 87.05.Forklift trucks have many parts and accessories in common with motor vehicles under 87.01 to 87.05. The manufacturers of such parts would not be in a position to know, when they cleared the goods, exactly to what use the parts and accessories would be ...
Tag this Judgment!Collector of C. Ex. Vs. Oswal Agro Furane Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1999)(65)ECC474
2. The respondents herein imported inter alia weighing machinery spares namely ribbons cartridges, for utilisation in their 100% export oriented unit (EOU). These goods were extended the benefit of Notification 13/81-Cus. which allows exemption from Basic Customs Duty as well as Additional Customs Duty equivalent to Central Excise Duty leviable on such goods if manufactured or produced indigenously. For the purpose of utilisation, in the 100% E.O.U. they were issued a warehousing licence under the Customs Act, 1962 for warehousing the imported capital goods and raw-material /components for use in the manufacture of purfural and rice bran oil.3. It was felt by the Central Excise Authorities at their 100% E.O.U.that the aforesaid weighing machinery spares were not entitled to the benefit of Notification 123/81-C.E., dated 2-6-1981. Therefore, a demand of duty was proposed on the said goods. On adjudication, the Assistant Collector confirmed a demand of Rs. 5,805/- comprising of Rs. 1,36...
Tag this Judgment!ircon International Ltd. Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Reported in: (2000)74ITD117(Delhi)
1. The assessee is a Government of India undertaking under the administrative control of Ministry of Railways. Assessment for asst.yr. 1995-96 was framed by the Dy. CIT, Special Range-2, New Delhi, and a demand of Rs. 1,002.18 crores was raised. The assessee filed an appeal before the first appellate authority and the learned CIT(A) passed order on 1st July, 1998. Aggrieved against the order the assessee came in appeal before the Tribunal and raised as many as eight grounds of appeal. Ground Nos. 4, 6 and 7 were not pressed and hence dismissed having become infructuous. Regarding the remaining grounds the assessee moved the committee of disputes and the aforesaid committee vide its Minutes of Meeting held on 26th November, 1998, allowed the assessee to contest the following grounds before the Tribunal :IRCON International Appeal No. 26/1998-99 dt. 18958.91Ltd. vs. Deptt. of 1st July, 1998, in TribunalIRCON/TAX/App Revenue (CBDT) The committee, having regard to the fact that there were...
Tag this Judgment!Parveen Wadhawan Vs. Govt. of National Capital Territory of Delhi and ...
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 2000IAD(Delhi)147
ORDERCW. 2272/95 & CM. 3340/98. 1. This petition was filed on 13th June, 1995 by the petitioner, a resident of Pocket-A, Keshav Puram formerly know as Lawrance Road seeking direction against the respondents to forthwith remove the alleged illegal and unauthorised construction and encroachment upon the Government land alleged to have been made by respondent No.9. The alleged unauthorised construction was also alleged to have been made in Pocket-A. From time to time interim directions were issued. On 22nd May,1997 a statement was made by learned counsel for the petitioner that the unauthorised construction had been removed, thereforee, he had no intention to pursue the petition any further. The petition, however, was kept alive only for a limited purpose in respect of the open drains. MCD was asked to report on proposal with regard to open drain in the colony and also to report whether MCD had any machines like a pipe laying machine, for laying Hume Pipes, (which are usually used for tra...
Tag this Judgment!