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.
Lohia Sheets Products Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jul-30-1999
Reported in: (2000)LC130Tri(Delhi)
1. The captioned two appeals are filed by the appellants against the findings of the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) who in the impugned order held that untrimmed sheets are marketable but are eligible to the concession under Notification No. 134/94, that Notification No. 1 /93 is not applicable to untrimmed sheets; that benefit of Notification No.135/94 is not available to unwrought copper slab and that slab of copper is dutiable and is not eligible to the benefit of Notification No. 19/88.2. The facts of the case in brief are that the appellants are engaged in the manufacture of Brass and Copper Sheets and Circles and unwrought copper; brass and copper sheets and circles are supplied by the appellants to the customers to use them in the manufacture of utensils and handicrafts. The manufacturing process involves melting of brass scrap, copper scrap and zinc scrap. Molten metal is then cast into billets/slabs, they are hot-rolled into untrimmed sheets and further are cold rolled into trimm...
Hemant Plastic Industries and ors. Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-30-1999
Reported in: 2000IIIAD(Delhi)172; 84(2000)DLT217; 2000(56)DRJ167
C.K. Mahajan, J.1. By way of this writ petition the petitioner seeks a mandamus against the respondents to hand over vacant possession of the industrial plot measuring 1042.37 square meters bearing plot No.14/5-D, Block Okhla Industrial Area-II or in the alternative allot a plot of the same area in the vicinity of the said plot. It is also prayed that the respondents be directed to execute a lease deed regarding the aforesaid plot and for payment of interest on the deposit of Rs. 9,90,000/- deposited by the petitioners under the directions of the Court. 2. At the outset the Counsel for the respondent/DDA contends that the writ petition is not maintainable and is barred by the principle of rest judicata. It is stated that earlier writ petition involving the plot in question being CW 386/91 filed by the present petitioners was dismissed in default on 10.1.1995 by a Division Bench of this Court. An application was also filed for the restoration of the writ petition (CW 386/91) which was a...
Layak Ram Vs. Quarter Master General and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-30-1999
Reported in: 1999VAD(Delhi)246; 81(1999)DLT395; 1999(50)DRJ777; ILR1999Delhi165
ORDERA.K. Sikri, J.1. This petition has been filed by the petitioner Shri Layak Ram who was working as 4th class employee on daily wages with respondent No. 2 namely Canteen Manager, Army Head Quarter, Block Q, Saina Bhawan, New Delhi. It is the case of the petitioner that he was appointed in March, 19.1994 as 4th class employee on daily wages basis, after his retirement as army employee from where he is getting monthly pension of Rs. 950. In January 19, 1997 he requested for permanent appointment. The petitioner further alleges that there were three regular vacancies with respondent No. 2 and on the request of respondent No. 1, respondent No. 3 recommended three names for regularisation which included the name of the petitioner as well. However, respondent No. 2 wanted to accomdate two of his kins. This move of respondent No. 2 was opposed by the employees of the canteen who were working there since long. On this respondent No. 2 become annoyed and on 9.9.1997 he refused to take the s...
A-one Industries Vs. Shri D.P. Garg
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-30-1999
Reported in: 1999VAD(Delhi)350; 1999CriLJ4743; 81(1999)DLT200
ORDERM.S.A. Siddiqui, J.1.This appeal under Section 341 Cr. P.C. is directed against the order dated 11.4.1996 passed by the Additional District Judge, Delhi under Section 340 Cr. P.C. directing prosecution of the appellant for the offence under Section 193 Cr. P.C. 2. Briefly stated, facts giving rise to this appeal are that on 24.10.1986 the appellant filed a false affidavit in the case RCS No. 158/90 (M/s. A-One India Industries v. D.P. Garg & Co.), pending on the file of the Additional District Judge, Delhi stating therein that by the orders dated 22.10.1986 passed by this Court in RFA No. 199/86, operation of the order dated 29.9.1986 passed by the Additional District Judge had been stayed. On 25.10.1986, on inspection of the record of case RFA No. 199/86 by the respondent O.P. Garg, it was discovered that no such stay order as mentioned in the said affidavit was granted by this Court. respondent thereforee, filed an application under Section 340 Cr. P.C. before the Additional Dis...
Col. Kehari Singh (Retd.) Vs. Union of India
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-30-1999
Reported in: 2000VAD(Delhi)319; 86(2000)DLT409
ORDERK. Ramamoorthy, J.1. The petitioner, who was approved for promotion to the rank of acting Colonel in the Number Three Selection Board meeting held on the 9th of November, 1987, was not actually given the promotion till he attained the age of superannuation on the 30th of April, 1988. Hence the petitioner, after his statutory complaint was rejected, presented the writ petition praying for the following reliefs:- 'The petitioner thereforee prays that this Hon'ble Court be pleased to:- (a) interfere in the matter as a court of equity and issue a writ of mandamus or any other writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to grant the rank of Acting Col. to the petitioner with effect from July, 1987 i.e. the date when his batchmates were promoted to the post of Colonel on the result of the Board held in March, 1987 and to grant the petitioner pay and allowances with effect from that date and consequently the retirement and pensionary benefits attached to...
Rajnish Gupta and ors. Vs. Government of N.C.T. of Delhi and Others.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-30-1999
Reported in: 2000IAD(Delhi)455; 83(2000)DLT229; 2000(52)DRJ326
ORDERN.G. Nandi, J.1. In this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners, who are the senior personnels of Delhi Police, known as DA- NIPS, pray for the implementation of the order of the Government of the National Capital Territory of Delhi dated 15.9.1998, issued consequent upon the decision taken by the Cabinet of N.C.T. of Delhi in its meeting dated 10.9.1998 revising the entry grade scales of DANIPS officials and introduction of the IVth Pay Scales i.e. Rs. 4500-5700 (Pre-revised). 2. It is not disputed that Govt. of N.C.T. of Delhi had taken the decision to grant the relief, which was communicated to the petitioners subject to the formal approval of the same by the Government of India. It is also not disputed that the Govt of N.C.T. of Delhi wrote to the Central Government for approval and the matter is pending consideration with the Central Government. 3. A preliminary objection has been taken by the learned Additional Solicitor General for the Unio...
Pepsi Foods Ltd. and Others Vs. Bharat Coca-cola Holdings Pvt. Ltd. an ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-30-1999
Reported in: 1999VAD(Delhi)93; 81(1999)DLT122; 1999(50)DRJ656; ILR1999Delhi193; (1999)IILLJ1140Del
ORDERDalveer Bhandari, J.1. This Order shall dispose of application I.A. No. 3214/98 under Order 39, Rules 1 & 2 read with Section 151 CPC. 2. The plaintiffs have filed a suit for declaration and permanent injunction against the defendants. In this suit the plaintiffs have also prayed for the grant of an injunction during the pendency of the suit. 3. The plaintiffs are engaged in manufacturing, marketing and sale of soft or drink beverages, under the trade mark 'Pepsi' all over the world including India. For the sake of convenience the plaintiffs are jointly referred as' Pepsi' and the defendants as 'Coke'4. It is alleged that main competitor of Pepsi in the soft drink beverage business in Coke. In India also, the main business rivals of the plaintiffs are the defendants, Coke. It is incorporated in the plaint that the soft drink business worldwide is extremely competitive and the business rivalry between Pepsi and Coke is fairly intense all over. Both the group of companies spend a la...
Delhi Lotteries, Govt. of National Capital Territory of Delhi Vs. NitI ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-30-1999
Reported in: 80(1999)DLT715
Vikramajit Sen, J.1. This is an application being LA. 6795/99 for condoning the delay in filing the objections against the Award dated 12.8.1994. Notice of the filing of the award was ordered to be issued to respondent No. 1 Along with the objections which had been filed by the petitioner. These were served on respondent No. 1 on 7.10.1995. Thereafter Counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No. 1 prayed for, and obtained on various occasions, time for filing reply to the objections filed by the petitioner.2. Thereafter LA. 7907/96 being objections on behalf of respondent-M/s. Nitin Agency, against the impugned Award were filed; these objections are dated 13.2.1995 and the affidavit in support is dated 27.8.1995. Subsequently, the present application (for condensation of delay in filing objections to the Award i.e. LA. 7907/96) dated 13.7.1999, supported by an affidavit of the same date was filed on 20.7.1999. Arguments were heard thereon.3. The grounds taken in this application are a...
Glorious Industries Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jul-29-1999
Reported in: (2003)(162)ELT826TriDel
1. M/s. Glorious Industries, the appellants were engaged in the manufacture of tubes and pipes of steel and were receiving the duty paid inputs, which according to the Tribunal decision in the case of Calcutta Steel Industries, Mandi Gobindgarh and Ors. v. C.C.E., Chandigarh [1991 (54) E.L.T. 90 (T)] were the bars. Under Notfn. No.202/88-CE., dated 20-5-88, the tubes, pipes were eligible for exemption if made from hoops, strips and flats etc. If tubes and pipes were made out of the bars, no such exemption was available.2. The Collector of Central Excise (Appeals) had held that as the in puts were bars, no exemption was available. He, however, reduced the amount of penalty from Rs. 50,000/- to Rs. 5,000/- (Rs. Five thousand only). The appellants have prayed for decision on merits.3. We have heard Shri T. Singh, ld. JDR and have gone, through the facts and circumstances of the case.4. The classification of the inputs received by the appellants had already been settled by the Tribunal de...
Pawar Construction Co. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jul-29-1999
Reported in: (2002)(146)ELT367TriDel
1. These are two appeals filed by (1) M/s. Pawar Construction Co., and (2) M/s. Gurdeep Construction Co., being aggrieved by two different orders passed by the Collector of Central Excise, Chandigarh. In both these appeals, matter relates to the fabrication of structurals, in the premises of M/s. Ropar Thermal Project. In both the matters, the adjudicating authority had taken similar view that the columns, beams, trusses etc., fabricated by these Contractors were excisable and dutiable, under Heading No. 73.08 of the Central Excise Tariff.2. When the matter was called, no one appeared for the appellants. The notice for the hearing had been received back undelivered with the Postal remarks 'the Company is not available at the given address'. As these are old matters in which the show cause notices were issued in the year 1992, we are proceeding to deal with the matters on merits after hearing Shri Ashok Kumar, Id. JDR.3. The issue for reconsideration is whether the structurals i.e., co...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »