Delhi Court July 1999 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
Ram Gopal and anr. Vs. Airport Authority of India and Others
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-19-1999
Reported in: 81(1999)DLT42; ILR1999Delhi100; (1999)123PLR10
ORDERMukul Mudgal, J.1. The petitioners' case is that they joined the service of the respondent No. 1, Airport Authority of India, and performed duties to the satisfaction of the respondents. It is stated by the petitioners that they were not paid the minimum wages as notified by the Central Government. The petitioners demanded the wages as per the notification of the Central Government. Instead of aceeding to their request the management, respondent NO.1 had removed them from service on 19th December 1966. As the removal was without assigning any reason, the petitioners moved the Assistant Labour Commissioner. Before the Labour Commissioner the respondent denied all the charges including the relationship of employer and employee between them. Thereafter the impugned order was passed by the Central Government on 29th January 1998 refusing to refer the dispute between the parties for adjudication. 2. The petitioner has filed this writ petition challenging the impugned order dated 29th J...
Chanda Ram and ors. Vs. Madan Jha, the Financial Commissioner and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-19-1999
Reported in: 80(1999)DLT793
CM. Nayar, J.1. This petition has been filed for issuance of a writ of certiorari to quash an order dated January 11, 1988 of Shri Madan Jha, Financial Commissioner, Delhi passed in Case No. 252/87 (Smt. Rajwati v. Consolidation Officer & Others) whereby order dated May 15,1987 of Shri Ram Kishan, Tehsildar-cum-Consolidation Officer passed in Case No. 18/MIS./87 of village Dera Mandi, Delhi.2. The facts as emerged from reading of the petition are that Mangat, Shahmal and Member, respondents 3 to 5 moved the Revenue Assistant, Delhi for declaration under Section 85 of the Delhi Land Reforms Act, 1954 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') on the ground that they had been in possession of land measuring 5 Bighas 12 bids was of Field No. 1464, 1 Bigha 4 bids was out of 1910/1474 and 1 Bigha 4 bids was out of 1911/1474, in all, 8 Bighas situated at village Dera Mandi, Delhi, without the consent of the Bhoomidars and otherwise than in accordance with law and had not been ejected by the Bhoo...
Collector of Central Excise Vs. Shriram Ssk Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jul-16-1999
Reported in: (2000)LC614Tri(Delhi)
1. These are 17 (Seventeen) Appeals filed by the Revenue. The issue being common, they were heard together and are being disposed of by this common order.2. The basic question requiring consideration in the Appeals is whether Central Excise duty was leviable on Ethyl Alcohol during the relevant period and it was classifiable under Chapter Heading 3823. By the impugned orders, the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), Pune had held that Ethyl Alcohol cannot be classified under Chapter 38. Various adjudication orders passed by Asstt. Collectors classifying it under Chapter Heading 3823 (as it stood at the relevant time) and demanding duty on that basis were set aside by the Collector (Appeals) in the impugned orders. The instant Revenue appeals challenge the finding of the first appellate authority.3. FACTS : Respondents own distilleries producing Ethyl Alcohol of 95% v.v. (also known as rectified spirit/industrial alcohol) and declared their product as non-excisable in their classific...
Jyoti Industries Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jul-16-1999
Reported in: (2000)(115)ELT559TriDel
1. When this appeal was taken up for consideration, none appeared on behalf of the appellants despite service of notice on 16-6-1999 being on record. Hence the appeal is being considered on merits.2. Heard Shri Negi, learned DR who submits that the simple issue involved is classification of Kitchen Sinks made of steel. Whereas the appellants pleaded classification under Heading 7323, the Revenue prefers Heading 7324.3. The learned DR submits that Heading 7323.00 embraces table or other household articles made of iron and steel etc., he submits that such articles are of a general nature. As against these, a kitchen sink is not used as article of general nature either on the table or the kitchen. Instead the sink is connected to the kitchen drainage system.The learned DR submits that the drainage system of a building is clearly known as sanitaryware as it performs sanitation i.e unwanted items through the sanitary pipe drains out of the kitchen. Even in trade parlance, a sink is known a...
Arti Steel Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jul-16-1999
Reported in: (1999)LC598Tri(Delhi)
1. This appeal has been filed challenging the findings of the Commissioner of Central Excise, Chandigarh dated 6-11-1997 confirming a Central Excise duty demand of Rs. 49,81,884.17 from the appellants. A penalty of Rs. 10 lakhs was also imposed on them by the said order.2. The said order was in fact passed by the Commissioner pursuant to a direction given by this Tribunal vide order dated 14-5-1993 directing the Commissioner to conduct a de novo adjudication on the charge of clandestine production and removal of iron and steel products by appellants from their factory. The said direction for de novo adjudication was made by the Tribunal while disposing of an appeal filed by the present appellants against the Order-in-Original passed by the Collector on 15-12-1992. While directing de novo adjudication of the matter, the Tribunal had observed, following its earlier decision in Premier Packaging (P) Ltd. v. C.C.E., New Delhi [1986 (26) E.L.T.333 (Tribunal)], that Rule 9 of the Central Ex...
Premier Tyres Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jul-16-1999
Reported in: (1999)(114)ELT340TriDel
1. In this appeal filed by M/s. Premier Tyres Ltd., the short question for our consideration is whether the end cuttings of the Bead Wire rings are classifiable under Heading 40.04 as rubber scrap or under Heading 72.04 as steel scrap. The rings were made of steel wire with rubber coating. The coated bead wires which were scrap, were sold by the appellants. The Collector of Central Excise (Appeals) has held them to be classifiable under Heading No. 7204.90 of the Tariff. He has however, restricted the demand to the normal period of limitation of 6 months.2. Shri Mahesh Sharma, Manager appearing for the appellants, submits that the rubber coating on the wires was of about 1 mm. thickness and thus the end cuttings should be classified under Heading 40.04.3. Shri R.K. Sharma, learned DR on the other hand, submitted that the essential character of the goods in question was given by the steel wires and their classification under sub-heading 7204.90, as determined by the Appellate authority...
Standard Industries Ltd. Vs. Collector of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jul-16-1999
Reported in: (2000)(117)ELT678TriDel
1. Shri Jay Savla, ld. Counsel appearing for the applicant submits that the applicant had filed the stay petition and that in the stay petition they had submitted that the Hon'ble Bombay High Court had dispensed with pre-deposit of duty inasmuch as their prayers in the writ petition against Cols. A&B have been granted and in those prayers they had requested for dispensing with the execution of bank guarantee to the extent of 50% of the demand of duty. He submits that in this view of the matter the case may be heard without insisting on pre-deposit.2. Ld. Counsel submits that similar issue came up before the Tribunal in the case of Phoenix Mills and the Tribunal under its Final Order No.115/99-C, dated 12-2-1999 [1999 (113) E.L.T. 1018 (Tribunal)] remanded the matter observing inter alia : "As this is a matter of fact and in the interest of justice we are of the view that the matter should go back to the adjudicating authority for ascertaining the fact whether the printing paste wa...
Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Shree Cement Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jul-16-1999
Reported in: (2000)(117)ELT167TriDel
1. These two appeals are preferred by the Department against the Order-in-Appeal No. 190-CE/JPR/AJ/98, dated 31-3-1998 praying for, setting aside the same, to the extent of allowing Modvat credit on Dust Collection bags and filter bags, and Order-in-Original No. 41/97/97, dated 9-6-1997 of Asstt. Commissioner, Ajmer may be restored (in E-1280/98) and against the Order-in-Appeal No. 57(SSR) CE/JPR/97, dated 17-12-1997 to the extent of allowing Modvat credit on (1) Collecting electro-electrodes plates for ESP (2) Gas Analyser (3) Pressure Gauge (4) IT Transformer (5) Liquid Rotor (6) Vaccum Controller and (7) Relay for control panel, and Order-in-Original No. 105/95-MOD, dated 30-6-1995 of Assistant Commissioner to be restored (E/1281/98), period involved is March, 1996 to July 1997 (E/1280/98) and 1994 (E/1281/98).1. The common facts of the case in brief are that the Respondent manufactures cement falling under Chapter sub-heading No. 7502.99 of the schedule to the Central Excise Tarif...
Krishan Kumar BhasIn and anr. Vs. D.D.A.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-16-1999
Reported in: 1999VAD(Delhi)216; 82(1999)DLT302
ORDERC.K. Mahajan, J.1.Rule. 2. The petitioners have laid challenge to the two letters issued by the respondent/DDA, both dated 28.4.1986, requiring petitioner No.1 to pay Rs. 5,07,610/- towards the balance payment of plot No. GA-6, Shivaji Enclave, New Delhi and cancelling the bid of petitioner No. 2 and forfeiting the earnest money in respect of plot No. GA-11, Shivaji Enclave, New Delhi. 3. Briefly stated the facts are that the petitioner No.1 responded to the auction notice for sale of residential plot in GA Block, Shivaji Enclave. The petitioner No.1 was the highest bidder in the sum of Rs. 6,56,000/- in respect of plot Ga-6 measuring 364.10 sq. mets. in the auction dated 18.11.1985. The petitioner No.1 gave a pay order of Rs. 1,50,000/- . But since the earnest money required to be paid was 25% at the drop of the hammer which amounts to Rs. 1,64,000/- the said petitioner was told to make the payment of the balance sum of money within two hours. The petitioner No.1 was informed tha...
Raghunath Rai and Another Vs. Jageshwar Prashad Sharma and Another
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-16-1999
Reported in: 1999VAD(Delhi)254; AIR1999Delhi383; 81(1999)DLT228; 1999(50)DRJ751; ILR1999Delhi58
ORDERJ.B. Goel, J.1. The plaintiffs who are husband and wife have filed this suit seeking decree of (1) specific performance of the agreement to sell dated 6.6.1977 executed by defendant No.1 in their favour, (2) for possession (of ground floor part) and (3) for damages.2. The case of the plaintiffs is that the defendant No. 1 had executed an agreement to sell dated 6.6.1977 of property No. 227 in Block E, Greater Kailash, New Delhi measuring 208 sq. yards in their favor for a consideration of Rs. 2 lakhs (Rupees Two lakhs) and in accordance with the agreed terms a sum of Rs. 1 lakh (Rs. 21,000/- as earnest money and Rs. 79,000/- as advance part payment) was paid by them to him on 9.6.1977 at the time of execution and presentation for registration of the said agreement before the Sub-Registrar, New Delhi when the defendant No. 1 had delivered vacant physical possession of the first and second floors of the said property to them. The sale was to be completed by the defendant within 81 d...
- ‹ Prev
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 16
- 17
- Next ›
- Last »