Delhi Court August 1999 Judgments
Home Cases Delhi 1999 Page 9 of about 321 results (0.031 seconds)Vijaypal Singh Vs. Union of India and Others
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 2000IAD(Delhi)153
ORDERCW No. 4814/99. 1. Counsel for the respondent No.1 prays and is granted four weeks time to file counter affidavit. Let counter affidavit be filed within four weeks. Rejoinder be filed within two weeks thereafter. Adjourned to 7th October, 1999. 2. The petitioner was suspended from service with effect from 26.12.1995. However, no subsistence allowance has been paid to him till date. Counsel for the respondents states that as per relevant rules once a person is arrested and not released on bail and he is suspended on this account, no subsistence allowance is to be paid. Such rule prima facie appears to be vocative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India. In any case this matter would be considered at the time of hearing of the writ peti- tion. There is a oral prayer made by the counsel for the petitioner for payment of some allowance as according to the petitioner he and his family are at the verge of starvation. It is further stated and petitioner is on interim bail and ...
Tag this Judgment!Sat NaraIn Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1999VIAD(Delhi)391; 2000CriLJ1018; 82(1999)DLT350; 1999(51)DRJ526
ORDERDalveer Bhandari, J.1. This appeal is directed against the judgment of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Delhi dated 7.2.1978 by which the accused appellant was convicted under Section 326 IPC and sentenced to four years imprisonment.2. The facts of the case are that on 30.6.1976 at about 2.15 a.m. at Quarter No. 779, Gulabi Bagh, Delhi accused appellant caused injury to one Jaipal Singh with knife. The accused was charged under Section 307 IPC but ultimately was convicted under Section 326 IPC.3. Mr. R.P. Kathuria, learned counsel for the appellant, submits that the incident had taken place about 23 years ago and the accused had already served out a part of the sentence of the imprisonment and no useful purpose will be served in sending the appellant to jail for serving out the remaining sentence primarily because of lapse of 23 years in this appeal.4. Reliance has been placed on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Sarup Chand v. State of Punjab: reported in 1987 (1...
Tag this Judgment!Girdhari Lal Batra Vs. Pramod Kumar Jain
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1999(51)DRJ438
S.K. Mahajan, J. 1. Both these Appeals can be disposed of by a common Order.2. Briefly stated the facts are as follows.3. The Appellant and Respondent were partners in a firm of M/s. Bat Bro Engineering and General Manufacturer. The Firm was dissolved and the manner of distribution of the assets was referred, by both the parties, to Arbitration. The Arbitrator gave an Award dated 5th October, 1989. This Award was in terms of a compromise arrived at between the parties.4. By a separate minute the Arbitrator recorded that if the parties do not comply with or fulfill the terms and conditions of the Award within fifteen days, then the Award will be deemed to have been revoked/cancelled and the Arbitrator would have authority to initiate a fresh arbitration and give a decision which will be binding on both the parties. Respondent denies that he agreed that the award, could be revoked/cancelled and/or that the Arbitrator could initiate fresh Arbitration and give a fresh decision. Respondent ...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Gangeshwar Limited
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (2000)LC618Tri(Delhi)
1. Revenue has filed two appeals against allowance of Modvat credit on boiler material, pipe fittings and pipes, turbines and cables.2. Arguing the appeals Shri Satnam Singh, ld. DR submits that in so far as allowance of Modvat credit on boiler material is concerned; the same is not governed by the provision of Rule 57Q. He submits that boiler may be a machine and may under specific circumstances qualify for consideration of Modvat credit under Rule 57Q but the raw materials for manufacture of boiler can not be construed as machines or parts and equipment of machines. He, therefore, submits that the Commissioner (Appeals) has erred in allowing Modvat credit on boiler material.3. Regarding pipe fittings and pipes ld. DR submits that there is no nexus between the machines and pipe fittings and pipes, Modvat credit as capital goods is available only on machines, plants etc. Pipe fittings and pipes cannot be termed as machines and plants etc.About turbine ld. DR submits that turbine in no...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Modi Rubber Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1999)(114)ELT724TriDel
1. Revenue is aggrieved by the order of the Commissioner (Appeals), Ghaziabad holding that Modvat credit under Rule 57Q is available on circuit breakers which are parts of transformer used in the factory of the respondent herein, who are manufacturer of auto tubes etc.2. On hearing both sides and perusing the records, we find that the Tribunal has repeatedly held that circuit breakers used for control of electricity of for making/breaking circuits are items covered within the meaning of Rule 57Q as capital goods. One such decision is in the case of Sukhmal Steel & Metal Inds. Ltd. v. C.C.E., Jaipur - Final Order No. A/400/99-NB, dated 28-5-1999. Following the ratio of the above order, we hold that credit is admissible on circuit breakers used by the respondent in their main transformer for disconnecting and protecting tine distribution feeder, uphold the impugned order and reject the appeal....
Tag this Judgment!Pratolina Instruments Private Vs. Commr. of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1999)(114)ELT725TriDel
1. Appellant vide letter dated 23-8-1999 filed written submissions and made a request to decide the appeal on merits.2. The appellant filed this appeal against the Order-in-Appeal dated 27-10-1992 passed by the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals). In the impugned order the Collector of Central Excise held that the charges on the inspection undertaken by the outside agencies are to be included in the assessable value of the goods.3. Heard Shri A.K. Jain, learned JDR and perused the appeal papers. The contention of the appellant is that the inspection charges are recovered from the customers when the customers want to appoint independent surveyor to inspect the goods in order to made the desire specification for which the appellant pay the independent surveyor and reimburse this amount from the buyers of the goods. In the written submissions the appellant relied upon the following decisions :Shree Pipes Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise. 2. 1998 (101) E.L.T. 668 (Tribunal) - Ltd. v....
Tag this Judgment!Collr. of C. Ex. and Cus. Vs. S.M. Zschimmer and Schwarz
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (2000)(117)ELT736TriDel
1. We are concerned with a number of products in this appeal. Dispute is whether they are covered by Serial No. 2 of the table to Notification 101/66-C.E., dated 17-6-1966. It is not disputed by the Revenue that all these products are emulsifiers inasmuch as they have emulsifying properties. Lower authority has on the basis of the said description, that is they are emulsifiers having emulsifying properties have extended the benefit of the said Notification to the respondents herein. Hence, the Revenue has come in appeal.2. Ground taken by the Revenue is that although these are emulsifiers, they are also organic surface-active agents. Hence, the benefit of Notification under Sl. No. 2 cannot be extended to the said organic surface-active agents. It is also another contention of the Revenue that such emulsifiers should be like surface-active preparations as mentioned in Serial No. 1 of the Notification because of the use of the expression "other like preparations" in Serial No. 2 of the...
Tag this Judgment!NitIn Construction Co. Vs. National Agricultural Marketing Federation ...
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1999VAD(Delhi)222; 81(1999)DLT475; 1999(51)DRJ73
ORDERMukul Mudgal, J.1. This is a petition under Section 20 of the Arbitration Act, 1940, filed by the petitioner company. The petitioner had submitted a tender to the respondent National Agricultural Co-operative Marketing Federation of India Limited (NAFED) for 'Civil' work for constriction of Effluent Water Treatment Plant at Lawrence Road, New Delhi' and the work in question was awarded to the petitioner on 3rd July, 1990.2. On 3rd December, 1990 a formal agreement was executed which contained a clause for arbitration which reads as under:-'4. In the event of any dispute or difference arising out of or relating to this contract of breach thereof, which cannot be settled amicably between the parties, then such a dispute shall be referred for arbitration to Managing Director NAFED or any person nominated as arbitrator by him. The arbitration between the parties will take place and be governed by the rules of Arbitration of Indian Council for Arbitration.'3. Disputes having arisen bet...
Tag this Judgment!Sudha Rani and anr. Vs. Post Master General and ors.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1999VAD(Delhi)554; 81(1999)DLT367; 1999(51)DRJ91; 1999RLR498
ORDERVijender Jain, J. 1. Aggrieved by the order passed by the Rent Control Tribunal, petitioners have filed this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Mr. Ishwar Sahai, learned senior counsel for the petitioner has contended that demised premises were let out on 26.9.1983 by the previous landlady/owner of the property in question to the Post Master General, who executed the lease on behalf of the President of India. 2. A petition was filed by the petitioners-Sudha Rani and Madhu Bansal on the basis of a Will. It is admitted case of the petitioners that the tenant-Post Master General attorney to the petitioners. The eviction petition was filed on the ground as mentioned under Section 14 of the Delhi Rent Control Act i.e. sub-letting, assigning or parting with the tenanted premises in favor of respondent no.4 in the eviction petition Smt. Sita Devi. Addl. Rent Controller returned the finding that it was one Sri Pal Jain, who was the Sub Post Master in charge of the Po...
Tag this Judgment!Dushyant Swaroop and ors. Vs. Govt. of Nct and ors.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1999VAD(Delhi)558; 81(1999)DLT571
ORDERMukul Mudgal, J.1. This is a review petition, on behalf of the original petitioner No. 3, Shri Mashroor Alam Khan & petitioner No. 5 Shri Anoop Kumar Gupta, under section 151 of the CPC, which is titled as an application for recall of the Order dated 9th June, 1999. The main averment in the review petition is that this writ petition(CW. 3322/98), was withdrawn on 26th March, 1999 on an undertaking by the learned counsel for the respondents to publish the results within a fortnight and to make appointments to the posts of Assistant Public Prosecutors. 2. The Order dated 26th March, 1999 is as follows: 'CW 3322/98 and CM 444/99 Learned counsel for the respondents states that the main relief, petitioners are seeking in the present writ petition is for the publication of results of the interviews for the posts of Assistant Public Prosecutors held in May, 1998 in pursuance of the notification dated 4.3.1998 and the further direction that the respondents to fill up the posts or Assistan...
Tag this Judgment!