Delhi Court May 1999 Judgments
Home Cases Delhi 1999 Page 20 of about 243 results (0.021 seconds)Mahendra Singh (Dr.) Vs. Union of India
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1999IVAD(Delhi)267; 1999(50)DRJ288
ORDERK. Ramamoorthy, J.1. The writ petitioner is working as Managing Director of the State Farms Corporation of India Limited, the fifth respondent. The first and the third respondent according to the petitioner, are seeking to send him to Chowdhary Charan Singh Haryana Agricultural University, Hissar treating the appointment of the petitioner as the Managing Director of the fifth respondent company as being on deputation. The petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs. 'In the facts and circumstances as explained herein above and in the interest of justice it is most respectfully prayed that this Hon. Court may be graciously pleased: a) to allow the writ petition of the petitioner with costs; b) to issue appropriate writ or writs, order or orders, direction or directions:- i) declaring the threatened action of the respondents in proceeding to repatriate the petitioner is illegal; ii) restraining the respondents from repatriating the petitioner before the expiry of the period ...
Tag this Judgment!B.R. Mehta Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1999IVAD(Delhi)337; 79(1999)DLT388; 1999(50)DRJ270; ILR1999Delhi396
ORDERC.M. Nayar, J.1. This petition has been filed for issuance of a writ of mandamus to the respondents for immediate release of the medical claim of the petitioner. The petitioner was working as an Inspector Central Excise and Customs at Karnal under Commissioner of Central Excise, I.P.Estate, New Delhi, respondent no.2 herein who is overall in charge in running the administration of the Department. Respondent no.3 is the in charge of Central Government's Health Scheme and is responsible to look into the health care facilities for Central Government employees. The petitioner retired from the Department while posted at Karnal under Superintendent Central Excise, Karnal and Assistant Commissioner, Ambala on 31st May, 1986 after putting in about 41 years of dedicated service. He fell seriously ill and contacted the doctor on 27th October, 1996 at Civil Hospital, Karnal which was the required procedure and practice for working and retired Central Government Employees. He was referred to ...
Tag this Judgment!V.R. Kittur Vs. State and ors.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1999VAD(Delhi)440; 80(1999)DLT668
S.N. Kapoor, J.1. Heard. In this case, undisputedly the accused V.R. Kittur appeared on 19th August, 1994. From the copies of the order sheets it appears that he regularly attended the proceedings before the learned Trial Court except once when he was exempted. Learned Counsel for the petitioner relies upon 'Common Cause', A Registered Society Vs . Union of India & Ors. : 1996CriLJ2380 of that judgment reads as under:'4-2(f) Where the cases pending in Criminal Courts under IPC or any other law for the time being in force are punishable with imprisonment up to three years, with or without fine, and if such pendency is for more than two years and if in such cases trial have still not commenced, the Criminal Court shall discharge or acquit the accused, as the case may be, and close such cases. 5. For the purpose of directions contained in Clauses (1) and (2) above, the period of pendency of criminal cases shall be calculated from the date the accused are summoned to appear in the Court.' ...
Tag this Judgment!Anand Swrup Gupta Vs. Union of India
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1999IVAD(Delhi)768; 1999CriLJ4003; 1999(50)DRJ328; 1999(66)ECC112
ORDERS.N. Kapoor, J.1. This order relates to application of bail relating to offence under Section 132 and 135 of the Customs Act. The petitioner moved pplications for bail before the ACMM as well as the Addl. District & Sessions Judge, both rejected the bail application. Thus the matter has came up before this Court for hearing. 2. According to the prosecution case on 31.3.1999, the officers of Air Customs, recovered and seized foreign currency equivalent to Indian Rs. 6,80,315/- from the possession of the petitioner. It is alleged that he was attempting to take the amount in clandestine manner to New York by flight No. SK-968. He had not declared the same to the officers of the Customs inspire of specific query. In his statement under Section 108 of the Customs Act, the petitioner admitted recovery and seizure and incriminating facts. Investigation is said to be pending. It is said to be serious offence and the petitioner is NRI. 3. It is submitted by the learned Senior counsel for t...
Tag this Judgment!Global Company Vs. M/S. National Fertilizers Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 81(1999)DLT16; 1999(49)DRJ660
ORDERDr. M.K. Sharma, J.1. The applicant has filed the present applications under Section 36 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act read with Order 21 Rule 11 (2) CPC seeking for execution/enforcement of the award passed by the Arbitral Tribunal on 31st December, 1997 awarding an amount of US $ 1,04,000 and interest in Execution Application No.128/1998 and US $ 88,250 in Execution Application No.129/1998. I propose to dispose of both the applications by this common judgment/order. 2. Pursuant to the disputes arising between the parties, the same were referred to the Arbitral Tribunal. Admittedly, the aforesaid arbitration proceedings were governed by the provisions of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The Arbitral Tribunal received evidence and thereafter passed the award on 31st December, 1997 awarding a sum of US $ 1,04,000 in favor of the applicant and against the respondent with interest @ 9% p.a. from 27th December, 1995 till the date of payment or decree, whichever is ...
Tag this Judgment!The Punjab Paint Colour and Varnish Works Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ...
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 79(1999)DLT529; 1999(49)DRJ609
M.K. Sharma, J.1. A contract for supply of enamel brushing interior of specifications was executed, in terms of which the petitioners were to make supply of the quantified goods to respondent No.1. During execution of the aforesaid contract disputes and differences arose between the parties and the same were referred to the sole arbitrator in accordance with the arbitration agreement. The respondent No.2 was appointed as the arbitrator, who upon entering into the reference and upon receiving evidence adduced by the parties made and signed the award on 31.7.1991. 2. The aforesaid award was filed in this court pursuant to which objections were filed by the parties which are registered as LA. 4555/1993 i.e. objections filed by the respondent/Union of India and the objections filed by the petitioner were registered as I.A. No.8664/1993. When the matter was called out none appeared for the petitioner to press the objections. Even on the previous date none appeared for the petitioner. Accord...
Tag this Judgment!Nand Kishore Mehra Vs. Smt. Sushila Mehra
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 80(1999)DLT670
Dalveer Bhandari, J.1. The plaintiff filed a suit for declaration. The plaintiff prayed that he is the true owner of the properties bearing No. B-80, Greater Kailash I, New Delhi and plot No. 9, Anand Industrial Estate, Village Arthala, Distt. Ghaziabad (U.P.) and he be declared as a true owner of these properties.2. This Court on 28th January, 1992 issued summons and notice to the defendant and also restrained the defendant from selling and parting with possession of the property bearing No. B-80, Greater Kailash I, New Delhi. It may be pertinent to mention that the plaintiff did not press the relief with regard to plot No. 9, Anand Industrial Estate,Village Arthala, Distt. Ghaziabad (U.P.) thereforee, this judgment is confined to the property bearing No. B-80, Greater Kailash I, New Delhi.3. In the plaint it is incorporated that the defendant was married to the plaintiff in the year 1954. It is also disclosed in the plaint that before this marriage the plaintiff was married to one Sm...
Tag this Judgment!Punjab and Sind Bank Vs. Jaimets Pvt. Ltd. and ors.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1999(49)DRJ606
Dr. M.K. Sharma, J. I.A. 10647/1990: This is an application under Order 22 Rule 4 filed by the plaintiff. I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties. For the reasons stated in the application the application stands allowed. Legal representatives of defendant No.3 are brought on record and their names shall be substituted in place of deceased defendant No.3. This is an application for bringing on record the legal representatives of LR No.4 of deceased defendant No.3 who has died. I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties. For the reasons stated in the application the names of the legal heirs stand substituted in place of legal representative No.4 of deceased defendant No.3. Amended memo of parties shall be filed by the plaintiff in respect of both the aforesaid applications.Suit No.2198/1990: 1. The present suit was instituted by the plaintiff against the defendant for recovery of an amount of Rs.7,06,782,90 Along with pendentelite and future interest. T...
Tag this Judgment!Pure Drinks (New Delhi) Ltd. Vs. Cce
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1999)(85)LC802Tri(Delhi)
1. The above appeals have been filed against separate adjudication orders passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise, New Delhi, denying Modvat credit of Rs. 71,06,112/- on glass bottles used in relation to the manufacture of aerated waters and imposing a penalty of Rs. 9 lakhs on the appellants herein. The period in dispute is March 1995 to June 1995 and July 1995 to October 1995.2. None appeared for the appellants when the case was called in spite of today's date having been given in the presence of their Counsel; hence we heard Shri L.P. Asthana, learned Counsel for the Revenue and perused the records.Delhi Bottling Co.v. Collector of Central Excise, Chandigarh that Modvat credit is available on glass bottles used in the manufacture of aerated waters whereever the cost of bottles is included in the cost of aerated waters. The period in dispute in that case was subsequent to 1.3.1994 when duty was on aerated waters became ad valorem. In coming to its conclusion, the Tribunal relie...
Tag this Judgment!Hindustan Petroleum Corpn. Vs. Collector of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1999)(113)ELT436TriDel
1. In these two appeals filed by M/s. Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd., the issue involved is whether Rubber Processing oil is classifiable under sub-heading No. 2710.99 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act as ordered by the Collector (Appeals) in the impugned order or is classifiable under sub-heading No. 2710.50 of the Tariff.2. When the matter was called, no one was present on behalf of the Appellants in spite of notice. We, therefore, heard Shri H.K. Jain, learned SDR, and perused the records. In the impugned order the Collector (Appeals) ruled out the classification of Rubber Processing Oil (RPO) under sub-heading 2710.55 of the Tariff, holding that the RPO, which contained all the properties of furnace oil, was neither sold by them as furnace fuel nor recommended for use as furnace fuel; that the essential criteria in the Tariff in respect of furnace oil is that it should normally be used as furnace fuel. The Collector (Appeals), while classifying the impugned pr...
Tag this Judgment!