Delhi Court August 1999 Judgments
Home Cases Delhi 1999 Page 25 of about 321 results (0.021 seconds)Resham Singh Vs. S.P. Gupta
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1999VAD(Delhi)356; 81(1999)DLT280; 1999(51)DRJ64; 1999RLR568
ORDERVijender Jain, J. 1.Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the power of attorney subsequently filed by the father of the owner/landlord did not incorporate that the original petition which was filed had the authority by the son to institute the eviction petition. 2. Learned Addl. Rent Controller has clearly mentioned in the order that the subsequent power of attorney which was filed and duly registered has ratified the institution of the previous eviction petition. 3. I do not find any infirmity with the order of the Addl. Rent Controller as the relationship of owner or the purpose of letting has not been denied by the petitioner. 4. The next argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the son who is the landlord of the property in question does not require the property as he was residing in the Bombay with his family for the last 18 years and the requirement of the father cannot be considered as a requirement of a family member. 5. I do not find any ...
Tag this Judgment!India Export House Pvt. Ltd. Vs. M/S Orient Enterprises and Others
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1999VAD(Delhi)481; 81(1999)DLT438; 1999(51)DRJ77; ILR1999Delhi178b
ORDERMukul Mudgal, J.1.This is an appeal against the order dated 10th September, 1996 passed by the learned Single Judge in is No. 7725/93 in Suit No.1237/82 filed by the original plaintiffs/appellants, M/s. Indian Export House Pvt. Ltd. (now Ltd.) herein disallowing an application for amendment of the plaint moved by the plaintiff. 2. The brief facts of the case stated by the appellant are that respondent No.1, a partnership firm of Shri K.L. Suri (imp leaded as defendant No.2 in the Suit, since deceased and represented by respondents No. 2A, 2B, 2C, 3 and 4 as his legal heir) and respondents 3 and 4, through its partner, Shri K.L. Suri, represented to be an agent of respondent No. 10 (a firm of respondents No.11 and 12) and induced the appellant to enter into contract dated 11th June, 1979 with respondent No.10 for the import of PVC Resin, arranged a contract with respondent No. 9 in absentia, arranged advance payment on behalf or respondent No. 9 towards margin money for opening the...
Tag this Judgment!Union of India and ors. Vs. Shri Ram Parvesh Ram
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1999VIAD(Delhi)540; 1999(51)DRJ344
ORDERMadan B. Lokur, J.1. The Appellants have preferred an appeal under Clause X of the Letters Patent impugning the judgment and order dated 14th February, 1985 passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court in Civil Writ Petition No.141/1972. By the impugned judgment and order, the learned Single Judge quashed the order terminating the services of the Respondent (Writ Petitioner) with all consequential benefits.2. The Respondent - Writ Petitioner was directly recruited as a temporary Sub-Inspector in the Delhi Police with effect from the forenoon of 25th March, 1966. He was issued an appointment order dated 21st March, 1966 to this effect by Shri M.L. Bhanot, Assistant Inspector General of Police, Delhi. The relevant extract of the order dated 21st March, 1966 reads as follows :'Shri Ram Parvesh Ram son of Shri Bachu Ram resident of Biram Pur, P.S. Koilwar, Distt. Shahabad, Bihar is appointed as a temporary Sub-Inspector in the Delhi Police with effect from the forenoon of 25.3.1966 ...
Tag this Judgment!H. Dohil Construction Co.(P) Ltd. Vs. Delhi Electric Supply Undertakin ...
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1999VAD(Delhi)598; 81(1999)DLT318
ORDERManmohan Sarin, J.1.By this common order, I would be disposing of is 11792/94 filed by the objector petitioner against the award dated 26.7.93 made and published by the arbitrator and IA. 9374/94, being objections to the award filed by the respondent. 2. The petitoner's case is that they had applied for grant of a permanent electric connection, but were sanctioned a load of 81.5 KW on a temporary connection. The claims made by the petitioner are based on the contention that by September, 1976, it had complied with all the requirements for grant of a permanent connection. However, petitioner was made to pay the higher tariff applicable for temporary connection resulting in loss. Petitioner, accordingly, filed claims and sought refund of excessive amount i.e. the difference in rate payable for permanent connection and the rate charged for temporary connection, besides the surcharge as levied and paid. General damages were also claimed. 3. I have heard Ms. Mittal on her objections to...
Tag this Judgment!Gurdev Singh Sangha (Dr.) Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 2000IIAD(Delhi)670; 2000CriLJ5058; 84(2000)DLT187; 2000(53)DRJ65
Anil Dev Singh, J.1. Rule D.B. 2. This is a writ petition whereby the petitioner prays for quashing of the order dated October 19, 1988 issued by the Ministry of External Affairs, New Delhi, under Section 5 of the Extradition Act, 1962, and the proceedings emanating there from. 3. The facts giving rise to the petition are as follows :- 4. The petitioner was arrested on February 9, 1978 in Belgium in execution of a warrant of extradition issued by the Government of Canada for import of 'Cannabis Sativa' into Canada. The petitioner was extradited to Canada and on January 9, 1979 was convicted for the said offence, and was sentenced to undergo imprisonment for fourteen years and directed to pay a fine of five lakh dollars failing which to undergo an additional term of three years. The petitioner alleges that Mr. Joseph Pomerant, his counsel, committed fraud on him and had compelled him to plead guilty to the offence of conspiracy to import 'Cannabis Sativa' into Canada. He also alleges th...
Tag this Judgment!Miss Asha Rani Vs. Municipal Corporation of Delhi and anr.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1999VAD(Delhi)729
A.K. Sikri, J.1. The case of the petitioner in this writ petition is that she applied for post of Primary Teacher with Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD)/Respondent No. 1 pursuant to the advertisement in the month of July 1996, by the MCD inviting applications for various posts of teachers including Primary Teachers. She further states that in December, 1996 first list of successful candidates as per merit was released by the MCD and second list was released in December 1997. In the second list the name of the petitioner was shown. Thereafter, petitioner was called on 19.1.98 for verification of original documents, photocopies of which she had annexed with the application. At the time of verification her candidature was rejected alleging that her name had wrongly appeared in the second list.2. Petitioner has challenged this action of the MCD as illegal and had contended that MCD confused the scheme of total marks obtained for the purposes of computation for the percentage of marks as...
Tag this Judgment!Collector of C. Ex. Vs. Gujarat Polyweaves Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (2000)LC136Tri(Delhi)
1. The issue involved in these two appeals arising out of a common order and filed by Revenue is whether Central Excise duty is payable on the granules made out of waste of plastic arising during the manufacture of HDPE/PP woven sacks out of imported granules, by M/s.Gujarat Polyweaves Ltd., an 100% Export Oriented Undertaking.2. Briefly stated the facts are that M/s. Gujarat Polyweaves Ltd. imported granules which were exempted from import duty; that during the process of manufacturing HDPE/PP woven sacks, wastage was generated which was subjected to the process of granulation; that they were manufacturing under Section 65 of the Customs Act. They cleared the granulated waste on payment of customs duty as well as central excise duty for home consumption. Subsequently, while finalizing the assessment, the Assistant Collector, under order dated 12-6-1989 held that Central excise duty was not payable as countervailing duty was also paid by the Respondents. On appeal preferred by the Rev...
Tag this Judgment!Pure Drinks (New Delhi) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (2000)(117)ELT760TriDel
1. This Appeal arises against the, dated 29-5-1998 passed by the Commissioner of Customs and Central Excise, New Delhi.2. Without going into the merits and demerits of the case, we find that the Commissioner as an Adjudicating Authority has delegated the power to the Assistant Commissioner to work out the duty. The operative portion of the impugned order is as follows : "In view of the foregoings, I determine under Section 11A(2) of the Central Excise Act, 1944, that the party is liable for payment of duty on the value including Rs. 12.50 per case from 1-4-1994 to 24-4-1996 and Rs. 17 per case from 25-4-1996 to 31-5-1996, in respect of the sales where these additional considerations are received from the buyers. The amount of duty thus liable shall be worked out by the Assistant Commissioner, MOD-V within 30 days of this order. The amount of duty so calculated will be recoverable pursuance to this order." 3. It is well settled law that Adjudicating Authority cannot delegate the power ...
Tag this Judgment!Collector of C. Ex. Vs. Perfect Valves and Machine Tools
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (2000)(117)ELT46TriDel
1. In this appeal filed by the Revenue, the matter relates to the classification of Hex nuts and Rim nuts. The period involved is from December, 1982 to March, 1983 and April, 1983 to December, 1983. The respondents M/s. Perfect Valves and Machine Tools Corpn. had claimed the benefit of Notification No. 102/80-C.E., dated 19-6-1980 which provided exemption to the cycle parts. The Additional Collector of Central Excise who adjudicated the matter observed that these Hex nuts and Rim nuts were part of cycle valves which are fitted on to the cycle tubes so that the air may be compresed into tubes to make the cycle ready for running. He had further observed that these nuts had got distinct identity and in the commercial parlance were known as cycle parts only.2. When the matter was called, no one appeared for the respondents. The notice for today's hearing had been received back with the postal remarks 'left'. As it is an old matter in which the Order-in-Original was passed in the year 199...
Tag this Judgment!Indian Shaving Products Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1999)(114)ELT363TriDel
1. The appellants filed this appeal against the order-in-appeal dated 30-4-1998 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals). In this case the benefit of Modvat credit on capital goods on 14 items is denied to the appellant. Learned Shri Pramod Banthia, C.A. appearing on behalf of the appellants submits that the benefit of Modvat credit is denied after following the ratio of the decision of the Tribunal in the case of J.K. Pharmachem Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Tiruchirapalli, reported in 1997 (21) RLT 868 (CEGAT) and in the case of C.C.E., Coimbatore v. Seshasayee Paper & Boards Ltd., reported in 1997 (93) E.L.T. 75 (Tribunal). He further submits that Commissioner (Appeals) disagrees without any cogent reason with the earlier decision of the Tribunal. He, further submits in the case of Larger Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Jawahar Mills Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Coimbatore, reported in 1999 (108) E.L.T. 47 (Tribunal) considered the scope ...
Tag this Judgment!