Delhi Court September 1999 Judgments
Home Cases Delhi 1999 Page 6 of about 308 results (0.028 seconds)Bharat Steel Inds. Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Sep-27-1999
Reported in: (2000)(115)ELT74TriDel
1. Appellants are manufacturers of doors, windows and their frames etc.In the instant case the issue involved is classification of 'Section'.The order in adjudication and the Or-der-in-Appeal held that they are classifiable under Heading 7308.90. The appellant, instead, contends that these goods are part of doors and windows and therefore should get classified under 7308.30. The Order-in-Original states that the process carried out by the appellant are that of cutting to required sizes, bending etc. It has classified this product under 7308.90 on the ground that Heading 7308 does not cover parts specifically.2. Appellants have not appeared for hearing despite notice. From the observations and findings in the orders passed by the lower authorities it would appear that the appellant was carrying out only certain processes like cutting, bending etc. Whether these activities amounts to manufacture is a moot point. Only after that question is answered, the question of classification would ...
Tag this Judgment!Ramesh Chand Vs. Union of India and Others
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-27-1999
Reported in: 1999VIAD(Delhi)1; 82(1999)DLT196
ORDERA.K. Sikri, J.1. Petition was engaged as a Peon-cum-Messenger on 21.1.1993 by Respondent No. 2-Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd. (hereinafter to be referred as 'HAL'). He was admittedly appointed as a daily wager. Petitioner submits that he made various representations to Respondent No. 2 for his appointment on regular basis. He further submits that even his superior officers including Dy. General Manager of Respondent No. 2 had recommended the Corporate office at Bangalore for appointing the petitioner on regular basis and although there was regular vacancy of the Peon-cum-Messenger, petitioner was not regularised and in stead his services were terminated on 4.7.1997. At the time of termination of his services, he was getting Rs. 87/- per day. He says that he is fully eligible to be appointed to the post of Peoncum-Messenger on regular basis and this writ petition is filed challenging his disengagement/termination w.e.f. 4.7.1997 as illegal and seeking direction that he should be declar...
Tag this Judgment!State (Delhi Administration) Vs. Sh. S.R. Vij
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-27-1999
Reported in: 1999VIAD(Delhi)151; 1999CriLJ4762; 82(1999)DLT180; 1999(51)DRJ495
ORDERK.S. Gupta, J.1. This revision by the State is directed against the order dated 16th May, 1989 of a Special Judge, Delhi, dropping the criminal proceedings against respondent-accused.2. Indisputably, chargesheet by the Anti Corruption Branch of Delhi for the offences under Section 161 IPC and Section 5(1)(d) read with 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act was filed alleging that the respondent on 26th December, 1987 while posted as Manager, New Bank of India, Rana Pratap Bagh obtained Rs.21,000/- from Kamaljit Singh, complainant, as illegal gratification for handing over the loan-bank-draft of Rs. 21,000/- and, thereforee, he being a public servant was guilty for the said criminal offences. Impugned order was passed at the stage the case came up for consideration of framing of charge against the respondent.3. Relying on the decision in Union of India and another Vs . Ashok Kumar Mitra : 1995CriLJ3633 , the submission advanced by Ms. Mukta Gupta for the State was that New Bank o...
Tag this Judgment!Delhi State Electricity Workers Union Vs. Delhi Vidyut Board and Other ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-27-1999
Reported in: 1999VIAD(Delhi)160
ORDERA.K. Sikri, J.1. Petitioner is a Union of employees of Delhi Vidyut Board (hereinafter to be referred as 'DVB') and claims that it looks after the welfare and take care of the interest of various categories of employees working in DVB. The present writ petition has been filed for issuance of a writ of quo warranto and certiorari challenging the appointment of Respondents 2 and 3 who have been appointed to the post of Dy. Chief Legal Officer, DVB. A perusal of the writ petition shows that appointment of Respondents 2 and 3 has been challenged mainly on the ground that as per Resolution No. 341 (Item No. 197-A) of DVB in the meeting held on 10.10.97, post of Dy. Chief Legal Officer has to be filled up by transfer on deputation basis from amongst the Members of the higher judiciary and ignoring this Resolution, Respondent No. 1 appointed Respondents 2 and 3 who are not from higher judiciary of any State including Government of NCT of Delhi. 2. When the matter came up for preliminary ...
Tag this Judgment!Vijay Kumar Dhania Vs. Delhi University and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-27-1999
Reported in: 1999VIAD(Delhi)24
ORDERA.K. Sikri, J.1. The point involved in this petition is very short. Respondent No. 2, Maitri Mahilla College (hereinafter to be referred as 'College') issued an advertisement on 10.9.95, inter lia, adverting the post of Professional Assistant (Library) and invited application for the said post. The post was in General Category. Petitioner applied for the said post of professional Assistant (Library) and vide letter dated 27.9.95 he was called for interview. He appeared in interview on 11.10.95 but was not selected and one Mr. Pradeep Rai was selected. However, he made representations dated 12.10.95, 19.10.95 and 24.10.95 to the Principal of the College demanding that the post of professional Assistant (Library) should be reserved for Scheduled Caste candidate and he being the only eligible candidate for Scheduled Caste category, he should be appointed to the said post. These representations were followed by various other representations. Petitioner even approached the National Com...
Tag this Judgment!B.C. Sharma Vs. M/S. Ashok Kumar Pradeep Kumar
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-27-1999
Reported in: 1999VIAD(Delhi)196; 82(1999)DLT108; 1999(51)DRJ519; (1999)123PLR68
ORDERM.S.A. Siddiqui, J.1. By this petition under Section 482 Cr. P.C., the petitioner seeks quashing of the order dated 12.8.1998 passed by the Addl. Sessions Judge, Delhi in Crl. Revision No.131/97 and quashing of the criminal proceedings arising out of the complaint No.19/1/95 pending on the file of the Metropolitan Magistrate, Delhi. 2. The respondent filed a complaint under Sections 138/141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act/420 IPC against the petitioner and others alleging commission of offence under Sections 138/141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act by them. The Metropolitan Magistrate took cognizance upon the complaint and issued processes against the persons arraigned. After entering appearance, the petitioner filed an application for dropping proceedings initiated against him on the ground that on 19.1.1991 he had resigned from the post of Director of the company and had no concern with the company on the date of issue of the cheque in question. By the order dated 28.10.97, t...
Tag this Judgment!Hari Singh Vs. Municipal Corporation of Delhi and Another
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-27-1999
Reported in: 1999VIAD(Delhi)20
ORDERA.K. Sikri, J.1. Rule.2. The short question involved in this writ petition is as to whether the petitioner has to retire at the age of 58 years or at the age of 60 years.3. The petitioner was employed as Nursing Orderly on 01.05.1963 and promoted as O.T. Assistant on 02.05.1976 and O.T. Technician on 06.05.1991 in Hindu Rao Hospital. He says that he is a workman and governed by fundamental Rule 56(b) for the purpose of his superannuation, which provides the age of retirement as 60 years. Fundamental Rule 56(b) is reproduced below :F.R.56(b) 'A workman who is governed by these rules shall retire from service on the afternoon of the last day of the month he attains the age of sixty years. NOTE3. In this clause, a workman means a highly skilled, skilled, semi skilled or unskilled artisan employed on a monthly rate of pay in an industrial or workcharged establishment.4. The petitioner contends that predominant nature of his duties is manual and skilled.5. The petitioner attained the a...
Tag this Judgment!Panacea Pvt. Ltd. and Another Vs. Union of India and Others
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-27-1999
Reported in: 1999VIAD(Delhi)208; 82(1999)DLT260
ORDERC.M. Nayar, J.1. The present petition is directed against the respondents for issuance of a writ of mandamus commanding them to implement the policy for small scale units fully in terms of the Circular issued by the Government of India dated 18th September, 1990 which is filled as Annexure-C1 to the writ petition. The said circular may be reproduced as follows:- 'SECRETARY GOVERNMENT OF INDIA Dr. N.K.Sengupta, Ministry of Commerce Department of Supply Nirman Bhawan, New Delhi. D.O.No.1(....)/90 AJEC 18th September, 1990 You are aware that Government of India provides certain benefits to the small scale sector units with a view to assist them in marketing their products. The small scale units registered with the National Small Industries Corporation under single point registration scheme are provided the following facilities:- 1. Issue of tender sets free of cost. 2. Exemption from payment of earnest money. 3. Waiver of security deposit up to the monetary limit for which the uni...
Tag this Judgment!B.C. Sharma Vs. M/S. Shree Bhagwati Enterprises
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-27-1999
Reported in: 1999VIAD(Delhi)521; [2001]103CompCas26(Delhi); 2000(52)DRJ46
ORDERM.S.A. Siddiqui, J.1. The respondent filed a complaint against the petitioner and others in the court of the Metropolitan Magistrate Delhi on 29.7.1995 alleging commission of offence under Sections 138/141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act by them. The Metropolitan Magistrate took cognizance upon the complaint and issued processes against the persons arraigned. Aggrieved thereby the petitioner moved the trial Court for dropping proceedings initiated against him on the ground that on 19.1.1991 he had resigned from the post of Director of the Company and had no concern with the company on the date of issue of the offending cheque i.e. on 2.6.95. By the order dated 28.10.97, the Metropolitan Magistrate dismissed the application filed by the petitioner. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner moved the Additional Sessions Judge by filing a revision, which was also dismissed vide orders dated 12.8.1998 passed in Crl. Revision No. 137/97. Not satisfied with the dismissal of the revi...
Tag this Judgment!R.A. Mishra and ors. Vs. Government of Nct of Delhi and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-27-1999
Reported in: 82(1999)DLT131; [2000(84)FLR431]
A.K. Sikri, J.1. Rule.2. With the consent of the parties the matter is finally heard.3. This writ petition is filed by seven persons and all of them are working as teachers with Central Academy Senior Secondary School (hereinafter referred to as 'School', for short) run by respondent No. 5. They are not paid their salaries for varying period and to claim the same they have filed the present writ petition. Petitioners 1 to 3 would be referred to, hereinafter, as Group 'A' petitioners as facts relating to them are common. Likewise, petitioners 4 to 7 would be referred to, hereinafter, as Group 'B' petitioners in view of commonality of their facts.4. It is the case of the petitioners that all the teachers of the School submitted a memorandum to Directorate of Education on 23rd July, 1974 against the malpractices resorted to by the management of the School headed by respondent No. 5. Thereafter the teachers of the School Along with parents of the students formed a parent-teachers associati...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »