Delhi Court May 1999 Judgments
Home Cases Delhi 1999 Page 3 of about 243 results (0.014 seconds)Krishna Chaudhary (Shri) Vs. Union of India and ors
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1999IVAD(Delhi)441; 1999CriLJ3598; 80(1999)DLT320; 1999(66)ECC67
ORDERK.S. Gupta, J. 1. This petition challenges the detention order dated 11th February 1999 passed by respondent No.2 against the petitioner under Section 3(1) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 (for short 'the Act')2. Facts which led to the making of the said detention order are these. On 29th July 1998 the petitioner was intercepted when he arrived from Kathmandu and was awaiting in the transit hall of IGI Airport for his flight to Dubai. As a result of the personal search and that of his baggage foreign and Indian currency collectively valued at Rs.17,44,380/- was allegedly recovered from him. Petitioner is alleged to have voluntarily made statement under Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962 admitting the recovery of the said currency from his possession. Thereafter on 29th July 1998 petitioner was remanded to judicial custody by the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, New Delhi, and the remand period is being extended fro...
Tag this Judgment!Meera Gupta Vs. Dinesh Chand and ors.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1999IVAD(Delhi)573; 80(1999)DLT335; 1999(50)DRJ633
ORDERM.S.A. Siddiqui, J.1.I.A.No. 11944/92 is an application under Order 12 Rule 6 and under Order 40 Rule 1 read with Section 151 C.P.C. filed y the defendant No. 2 for a judgment on admissions and for appointment of a receiver for the suit properties. 2. The plaintiff filed the present suit for partition, rendition of accounts and for a permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with the plaintiff's possession over a portion of the property bearing No. 1607-08, Dariba Kalan, Delhi. According to the plaintiff, her husband Subhash Chand Gupta (since deceased) and Dinesh Chandra (defendant No. 1) were real brothers. They were joint owners of the following properties:- (i) Property bearing No. 1607-08, Dariba Kalan, Delhi. (ii) Property bearing No. 818, Chhota Bazar, Kashmeri Gate, Delhi. (iii) Property No. C-7, Geetanjali, New Delhi. 3. Defendant No. 1 sold the property bearing No. 818, during lifetime of Subhash Chand Gupta. Defendant No. 3 is the adopted daughter...
Tag this Judgment!Kartar Singh and ors. Vs. Union of India
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1999IVAD(Delhi)587; 80(1999)DLT477
ORDERUsha Mehra, J.1. Notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act (in short the Act) was published on 12th December, 1972. The Land Acquisition Collector (in short the LAC) classified the land of the appellant into two blocks namely 'A' & 'B' and awarded compensation at the rate of Rs. 4,000/- per bigha for Block 'A' and Rs. 3,000/- per Bigha for the land falling in Block 'B'. The total of 55 Bighas and 10 bids was of appellants' land in the revenue estate of Village Bagrola was acquired vide the said notification. Compensation was accordingly granted at the above said rates.2. On reference under Section 18 of the Act, the Additional District Judge, Delhi (in short ADJ) enhanced the compensation and determined the market value of land of Block 'A' at Rs. 12,720/- and for Block 'B' land Rs. 11,720/- per Bigha. The difference made by the Collector with regard to Block 'A' and Block 'B' land at the rate of Rs. 1,000/- per Bigha was maintained by the learned ADJ.3. Having not ...
Tag this Judgment!Purshottam Dass Gupta (Shri) Vs. Union of India
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1999IVAD(Delhi)645; 80(1999)DLT230
ORDERK. Ramamoorthy, J.1. The petitioner has filed the writ petition challenging the adverse remarks made by the High Court for the years 1994 and 1995 at one go and seeking promotion from the date on which his juniors were promoted to the Delhi Higher Judicial Service. The facts have to be stated in some detail in view of the circumstances under which the petitioner's case has been dealt with by the High Court. The petitioner joined Delhi Judicial Service on 28.1.1978. He was put on selection grade of Rs. 3700-5000 in June 1993 w.e.f. 31.5.1991 as he has been having good service record. The petitioner was assigned with the work of Addl. Rent Controller for the period from 22.3.1992 to 24.8.1995 by the High Court. By order dated 8.6.1993 the petitioner was entrusted financial powers by the learned District Judge. The order reads as under :- 'Whereas Shri J.B. Geol, Addl. District & Sessions Judge and Shri R.P. Malik, Drawing and Disbursing Officers of this office will not be available ...
Tag this Judgment!Ajudhia Nath Talwar Vs. Municipal Corporation of Delhi
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 2000IIIAD(Delhi)59
ORDERMukul Mudgal, J. 1. Learned counsel for the respondent states that as per the Amnesty Scheme the excess construction within the permissible limits can be regularized if there is an affidavit to the effect that no litigation in respect of said subject matter is pending in this Court. She further states very fairly that if this writ petition is withdrawn and an affidavit to that effect is filed the respondent shall process the application of the petitioner in accordance with the said Amnesty Scheme. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that there is a Suit bearing No. 1841/95 which is pending in this Court in respect of specific performance of the first floor of the premises. It is made clear that the pendency of that suit does not have any connection with the Amnesty Scheme and the processing of the petitioner's application for regularisation shall go on regardless of the pendency of the suit. In case the petitioner's construction is not regularized a fresh notice shall be iss...
Tag this Judgment!Mec India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Lt. Col. Inder Maira and ors.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 80(1999)DLT679
C.K. Mahajan, J.1. This Civil Revision raises an interesting question of law with regard to landlord-tenant relationship in the post Rent Act era.2. Premises No. L-3 Kanchanjunga, 18 Barakhamba Road, New Delhi, being aloft (upper ground floor) premises measuring 783 square feet and owned by the respondents Lt. Col Inder Maira and Others, were leased out on 1.4.1982 for a fixed term of three years to M/s. M.E.C. (India) Private Ltd., the petitioner-tenant at a monthly rent of Rs. 4,500/ - Lease Deed dated 1.4.1982 was executed but the same was not registered. In May, 1985 the rent was increased by 10% from Rs. 4,500/- to Rs. 4,950/-. It is common case of the parties that the purpose of the lease was commercial, the premises are also situated in what is a commercial multi-storeyed building on Barakhamba Road, New Delhi, and that there is no registered instrument of lease either for the original grant of 1982 for three years, for any later or renewed term.3. Till 30.11.1988, the tenancy o...
Tag this Judgment!Supreme Duplicators Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1999)(113)ELT138TriDel
1.1 The appellant herein is a manufacturer of stamp pads and stamp pad ink. Besides using the brand name of its own i.e. 'Supreme' on the said goods it is also using the brand name of another person i.e. Delhi Paper Products, a trader in paper and paper products. The brand name of that trader is 'DEEPEE'. Those goods i.e. stamp pads and inks with affixation of brand name of 'DEEPEE' were also supplied to the said Delhi Paper Products.1.2 The authorities below have held that the goods affixed with the brand name 'DEEPEE' should not have been cleared without payment of duty in view of para 7 of the Notification 175/86-C.E. inasmuch as the brand name belonged to a person who was not eligible for benefit of Notification No. 175/86-C.E., being a trader. A demand of duty of Rs. 1,06,116.23 has been confirmed against the appellant herein by the adjudicating authority, namely Additional Collector of Central Excise.A penalty of Rs. 10,000/- has also been imposed. Hence this appeal before us.2....
Tag this Judgment!Collector of C. Ex. Vs. Sariman Chemical Corporation
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (2000)LC326Tri(Delhi)
1. The issue involved in this appeal preferred by the Revenue is whether the demand issued to M/s. Sariman Chemicals Corporation is hit by time limit as specified in Section 11A of the Central Excise Act.2. Shri A.M. Tilak, ld. DR submitted that the Respondents had filed classification lists dated 1-4-1991, 25-7-1991, and 1-4-1992 claiming classification of Rubber Solution under Heading 40.05 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act. The Assistant Collector, however, approved the clasification under Heading 35.06 under order dated 13-7-1993. As another product namely Adhesive falling under Heading 35.06 had been removed availing exemption under Notification No.175/86, a show cause notice dated 17-12-1993 was issued for demanding duty for the financial year 1991-92 and 1992-93 which was confirmed by the Assistant Collector, under order dated 3-5-1994. On Appeal, the Collector (Appeals) under the impugned order dated 19-10-1994 held the demand to be time barred as no order for p...
Tag this Judgment!Lauls Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (2000)LC274Tri(Delhi)
1. The Commissioner of Central Excise by the impugned order confirmed the demand of Rs. 28,87,812/-under Section 11A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 by invoking the extended period of 5 years. He also confirmed the amount of Rs. 13,595/- under Section 11A of the Central Excise, 1944. He also imposed upon M/s. Lauls Ltd. the penalty of Rs, 29,01,407/- under Rule 173Q(1) read with the provisions of Section 11AC of Central Excise Act, 1944.2. The facts of the case in brief are that the appellants are manufacturer of Ingots and articles of Iron and Steel. The appellants manufactured specific goods for supply to the Indian Railways. The Department got information that the appellant was raising escalation bills in which excise duty on the goods supplied was being collected but such duty collected was not being deposited in the Government account. The officers visited the factory on 20-1-97. The physical verification of the stock of goods was undertaken in the factory premises. 3,611 pieces ...
Tag this Judgment!Collector of Central Excise Vs. Raj Fibres (P) Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1999)(112)ELT1048TriDel
1. The respondents herein are engaged in the manufacture of cotton yarn falling under CET Heading 52.05. They availed of credit of duty on inputs used in the manufacture of cotton yarn on the strength of an invoice issued under Rule 100E of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 i.e.on an invoice of a 100% export oriented unit. At the time when credit was availed, such an invoice was not stipulated as a valid duty paying document under Rule 57G for the purpose of taking credit and it was only on 13-2-1996 that such invoice was included as a valid document under Rule 57G, vide issue of Notification 3/96-C.E. The Assistant Collector of Central Excise held that availment of credit was contrary to law and thereby confirmed a demand for Rs. 28,211 under Rule 57-I of the Central Excise Rules and also imposed a penalty under Rule 173Q.The lower appellate authority, however, set aside the order of the Assistant Collector holding that there was no dispute about receipt of inputs and their use in the m...
Tag this Judgment!