Delhi Court September 1999 Judgments

Virender @ Kala and ors. Vs. Union of India and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 1999VAD(Delhi)696; 81(1999)DLT635; 2000(52)DRJ444

ORDERS.K. Agarwal, J. 1. The petitioner in this petition has challenged the detention order dated 23rd April,1999 passed by the Commissioner of Police, Delhi under sub-section (2) of Section 3 of the National Security Act, 1980, with a view to preventing him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. 2. It is alleged that the petitioner after completing his graduation joined Delhi Tourism Development Corporation as a salesman in a wine shop: he had clean previous record; on 18-5-1997 a case under the Arms Act was registered at Police Station Nizamuddin. He has been in jail for the last two years. While he was confined in jail impugned order of detention dated 23.4.1999 was passed by the Commissioner of Police and served on him on 25-04-1999. On 20-5-1999 he made a representation requesting for revocation of detention order to the Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India, Department of Internal Security, North Block, New Delhi through the S...

Prakash Chand Gupta Vs. Sh. Inder Sen Gupta

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2000IAD(Delhi)662; AIR2000Delhi188; 81(1999)DLT919

ORDERVijender Jain, J.1. Aggrieved by the order of dismissal of eviction petition under Section 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act by the Additional Rent Controller on 21st March, 1987, the petitioner has filed the present revision petition. The Additional Rent Controller held that the petitioner was not the owner of the premises in dispute. All the brothers including the petitioner were owners of the property bearing No. E-152, Kamla Nagar, Delhi. Even the purpose of letting was held to be composite one. The requirement of petitioner was considered to be not genuine on the basis that the petitioner was not the sole owner of the suit premises and taking in totality the total number of family members, accommodation was sufficient with the petitioner. 2. Mr. Ravi Gupta, counsel for the petitioner contended that the Additional Rent Controller erred in not appreciating that the property at Kamla Nagar was purchased by the father and the mother of the petitioner although the money for t...

Jai Bhagwan Rohilla Vs. the Chief of the Air Staff and anr.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2000IAD(Delhi)760; 83(2000)DLT109; 2000(52)DRJ751

ORDERN.G. Nandi, J.1. In this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has been praying for the relief requiring the respondent to be directed to give disability pension to the petitioner on his discharge from the military service. 2. It has been the say of the petitioner that the petitioner was selected as an Airman in the Indian Air Force on 30.12.1993 ; that at the time of entering the military service, no note was made that the petitioner was suffering from any disease; that the petitioner served in the Indian Air Force as an Instrument Fitter for about 5 1/2 years ; that the petitioner could not acclimatizKalaikundae to the climate at Kalai kunda (Kharagpur, West Bengal) where the petitioner was posted during the year 1988; that the petitioner started to have constipation ; that the petitioner was admitted in the hospital and remained in the hospital for about one year; that various tests were carried out and the petitioner was found uffering from IN...

J.D. Bids Was Vs. Indian Airlines

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2000IAD(Delhi)779; 83(2000)DLT38

ORDERN.G. Nandi, J.1. In this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India the petitioner has been seeking to quash the termination of the petitioner being illegal, in contravention of Sections 25F and 25G of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') read with Rule 77 of the Industrial Disputes (Central) Rules, 1957 and also being contrary to the judgment dated 9.5.1997 by this Court in C.W. 2155/95. 2. It has been the case of the petitioner that the petitioner has been working with the respondent a 'State' within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India, as casual worker from 26.7.1986 in various capacities against work of permanent nature: that in the year 1989, the petitioner was called for interview for the post of helper and was advised vide letter dated 3.12.1990 that his name has been empanelled in the select list of employees and his appointment as regular employee will be subject to the availability of vacancies during th...

M.T.N.L. Vs. M/S. Bharat Products

Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi

Rumnita Mittal, Member: 1. The present appeal has been filed by the appellant/MTNL assailing the order of the learned District Forum-II dated 4.1.1995 in Complaint Case No. 3550/93 entitled M/s. Bharat Products v. The General Manager, MTNL. 2. Brief facts, relevant for the disposal of the present appeal are, that Shri S.B. Mittal is a partner of the respondent/complainant firm and the two telephones bearing No. 6436835 and No. 6436705 are installed at his business premises. In the complaint filed by the respondent before the District Forum under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, the case of the respondent was that the telephone bearing No. 6436835 remained out of order from 7.2.1993 to 24.2.1993; from 2.3.1993 to 15.4.1993 and from 5.9.1993 to 29.10.1993 and the other telephone bearing No. 6436705 also remained non-functional from 7.2.1993 to 18.2.1993 and from 14.8.1993 to 29.10.1993. It is stated in the complaint that the respondent made numerous written and telephonic...

Vip Zip Company Vs. Commissioner of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2000)(67)ECC566

1. Alongwith this appeal appellant filed an application No. 506/99 praying for dispensing with the condition of pre-deposit. As per the impugned order a penalty of Rs. 50,000 imposed by the adjudicating authority has been upheld while the issue relating to mis-declaration of the quantity and enhancement of the value of the goods imported were remitted for fresh adjudication. When issue as to whether the declared quantity of the goods imported and its value were correctly shown by the importer or not has been remanded to the adjudicating authority, prima facie the appellate authority could not have upheld the penalty imposed on the importer. In this view, prayer of the appellant to dispense with the condition of pre-deposit has much force.2. Appellate Authority while disposing of the appeal before it observed that the importer did not get sufficient opportunity to present its case in the adjudication proceedings. This shows that the primary authority passed the order in violation of th...

Sulzer Flovel Hydro Limited Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1999)(114)ELT846TriDel

1. These are two stay Applications praying for waiver of pre-deposit of amount of duty and penalty and stay of its recovery as under :Rs. 2,54,33,968.00 Rs. 2,54,33,968.00Rs. 28,17,062.43 Rs. 28,17,062.00Rs. 6,47,500.00 Rs. 6,47,500.00 2. Shri V. Lakshmikumaran, ld. Advocate, submitted that Appellants Company manufacture Turbine for Hydro Electric equipment below 15 M.W.; that they manufacture various sub-assemblies in their factory, a few sub-assemblies are purchased from outside and supplied directly to the site of the Customer; that at the site, these sub-assemblies are used in making the complete Hydro Turbines; that prior to 16-3-1995 they were paying duty on goods cleared by them from their factory under Heading No. 84.10 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act if these were cleared for being assembled at site, under Heading No. 84.83 or any other heading applicable if the goods were cleared as spares.Notification No. 205/88, dated 25-5-1988 was amended by Notification ...

Cement Corporation of India Vs. Smt. Manohar Bhasin

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 1999VIAD(Delhi)398; [2001]103CompCas915(Delhi); 82(1999)DLT343; 1999(51)DRJ535

ORDERDr. M.K. Sharma, J.1. The present revision petition is directed against the order dated 4.12.1998 passed by the Additional District Judge, Delhi dismissing the application filed by the petitioner/defendant under Section 22 of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). the respondent/plaintiff filed the aforesaid suit being Suit No. 31/1996 seeking for a decree for recovery of possession and for recovery of damages and mesne profits amounting to Rs. 1,19,000/-. The said suit is pending before the Additional District Judge, Delhi. In the said suit an application came to be filed by the petitioner/defendants contending, inter alias that the defendant company has become sick and accordingly, its case has been referred to the Board of Industrial and Financial Reconstruction (BIFR) under Section 15 of the Act. It was further stated in the said application that the reference has since been registered by the BIFR and that pursuant th...

Kumar Sales Corporation, New Delhi Vs. Shri Ajit Singh and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2000IAD(Delhi)253

ORDERDr. M.K. Sharma, J.1. The present second appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 21.10.1997 affirming the judgment and decree dated 26.12.1983 passed by the trial court. The trial court by the aforesaid judgment and decree dismissed the suit filed by the plaintiff/appellant with costs and also directed for proceeding against the plaintiff under Section 340 of the Criminal Procedure Code and also for holding an enquiry. The appellant brought the aforesaid suit seeking for a decree for permanent injunction against the respondents alleging that the plaintiff is a tenant and in possession of shop No. 8977, Desh Bandhu Gupta Road, Pahar Ganj, ew Delhi under an oral agreement dated 27.10.1978 which was reduced into writing on 28.10.1978 executed between the plaintiff and respondent No.1 for self and also on behalf of the remaining respondents. It is alleged in the plaint that the appellant/plaintiff was in possession of the suit property for about 6 years even prior to ...

Chet Ram Vashisht Vs. Ram Chander Goel and Another

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2000IAD(Delhi)275; AIR2000Delhi96; 82(1999)DLT557; 1999(51)DRJ694

Dr. M.K. Sharma, J.1. By the present judgment and order, I propose to dispose of the second ppeal filed by the appellants arising out of the suit filed by the reanceseeking for a decree of specific performance of an agreement to sell. 2. The plaintiffs/respondents instituted a suit being Suit No.363/80 praying for decree of specific performance of the agreement to sell dated 21.12.60 in favor of plaintiff No.1 with costs on the ground that late Amin Chand, father of the defendants/appellants sponsored a colony known as Ganga Ram Vatika situated at Najafgarh Road, New Delhi of which he was the sole owner. It was alleged in the plaint that before the actual development of the colony such as laying of roads, installation of electric poles and water pipes etc. the predecessor in interest of the appellants agreed to sell a plot of land bearing No.10, Jiwni Block in the said Ganga Ram Watika to the plaintiff No. 2 and that the said plot measured 330 sq. yards at the time of booking and measu...