Delhi Court January 2000 Judgments

G.S. Bhogal Vs. Union of India

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2000IIAD(Delhi)582; 84(2000)DLT313; 2000(53)DRJ328

ORDERK. Ramamoorthy, J.1. The petitioner is an engineer working in the third respondent/Corporation. Before the Report of the Fifth Pay Commission, as per the rules, he was to retire on attaining the age of 58 years. The Fifth Pay Commission had recommended the enhancement of the retirement age to sixty years for Government servants. On 13th of May, 1998, the Government of India issued a notification fixing the age of retirement at 60 years for Government employees. On the 19th of May, 1998, the Ministry of Industry issued an Office Memorandum directing the public sector undertakings to fix the age of retirement at 60 years with reference to the employees below the Board level. On the 9th of June, 1998, the said Office Memorandum was forwarded by the second respondent Ministry of Industry, to the third respondent/Corporation. The third respondent according to the petitioner, has not taken any steps. 2. On the 22nd of July, 1998, a letter was issued to the petitioner that he would be re...

Rupinder Kaur and anr. Vs. State Govt. of (Nct) and anr.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2000IIAD(Delhi)614; AIR1992Delhi604; 2000CriLJ1520

ORDERM.S.A. Siddiqui, J.1. By this petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the petitioners seek quashing of criminal proceedings emanating from the case FIR No. 317/94 under Sections 498-A/406 IPC registered at the Police Station Hari Nagar, Delhi and pending on the file of the Metropolitan Magistrate. 2. Briefly stated, the facts giving rise to this petition are that on 10.6.1994, respondent No. 2 lodged a report at the Police Station Hari Nagar against her husband Harpreet Singh and her in-laws (Petitioners). Investigation pursuant thereto culminated in submission of a charge-sheet under Sections 406/498-A IPC read with Sections 4/6 of the Dowry Act. Hence this petition. 3. The present petitioners are in-laws of the respondent No. 2. On 6.2.1989. Harpreet Singh secretly got married with the respondent No. 2. When the petitioners came to know about the said marriage, they got it solemmnised on 26.3.1989. On 9.9.1989 Harpreet Singh and the respondent No. 2 left for Australia. On 26.5.1991,...

L/Nk V.H.K. Murthy Vs. Special Protection Group and Another

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2000IVAD(Delhi)624; 2000(57)DRJ157

ORDERA.K. Sikri, J.1. These 5 writ petitions raise same question of law. All these writ petitions were accordingly heard together and are disposed of by this common judgment. In order to appreciate the controversy, let me first take stock of the facts in each case: CW. 3043/98. 2. Petitioner is permanent employee of Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF) where he was appointed as Constable on 27.7.83. In the year 1995 his willingness to go on deputation to Special Protection Group (SPG) was asked by CRPF his parent department. He gave consent for the same. He was considered for deputation to SPG for which he had to undergo selection process in the form of interview, medical test, physical test, psychological test, oral and aptitude test etc. conducted by SPG. After the selection he was taken on deputation to SPG. Movement Order dated 21.7.95 was passed in this respect. He joined SPG at New Delhi on 8.8.95 and was attached with Welfare Branch for administrative duty. It is the case of the ...

M.P. Umesh Chandra Vs. Union of India

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2000IIAD(Delhi)656; 85(2000)DLT111; 2000(53)DRJ403

K. Ramamoorthy, J.1. The petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs:- 'It is, thereforee, respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Courtmay graciously be pleased to:- (a) pass an order to quash and set aside the impugned letter dated 26.6.98. (b) pass any order, direction or appropriate writ directing the respondents to continue a Fellowship which has been abruptlydiscontinued vide letter dated 26.6.98.' 2.The case of the petitioner could be briefly stated thus. 3.The petitioner belongs to a Scheduled Caste category. He had done post graduation in Journalism and Mass communication. The second respondent which is constituted for social and educational development of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes, issued an advertisement inviting applications from eligible persons for overseas fellowship in post graduate studies. The petitioner offered himself as a candidate and he was called for interview on the 3rd of August, 1995. On the 3rd of September, 1996, the petitioner was awarded O...

Rajghria Paper Mills Ltd. Vs. the General Manager, Indian Security Pre ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2000IIAD(Delhi)863; AIR2000Delhi239; 84(2000)DLT804; 2000(56)DRJ764

ORDERK.S. Gupta, J.1. Suit was filed on 11th August, 1976 claiming the reliefs: (a) that the defendants be restrained by means of permanent injunction from enforcing the bank guarantee dated 18th January, 1975 for Rs. 2,92,430/- issued by the Canara Bank or from receiving any amount there under and (b) that decree be passed in favor of the plaintiff and against defendants for Rs. 9,34,036.83 with costs and interest pendente lite and future at the rate of 6 % p.a. Along with the plaint I.A. No. 1722/76 was also filed by the plaintiff seeking ad interim injunction restraining the defendants, their servants, agents and subordinates from enforcing the said bank guarantee pending suit. Said I.A. after notice was dismissed by the order dated 23rd December 1976. In the beginning of arguments Sh. J. Lal appearing for the plaintiff stated that the plaintiff does not now press the relief as (a) above in view of the order dated 23rd December 1976 in I.A. No. 1722/76. 2. In regard to the relief as...

Beena Singhal Vs. the Presiding Officer Delhi Co-operative Tribunal an ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2000IIAD(Delhi)877; AIR2000Delhi315; 85(2000)DLT171

ORDERMukul Mudgal, J.1. This writ petition challenges the order dated 28.5.92 passed by the Delhi Co-operative Tribunal in 36/92-CA as well as the order dated 4.3.92 passed by the Lt.Governor in 27/90-CA. 2. This writ petition in effect seeks an allocation of the remaining plot of the land in the respondent No. 4 society to the petitioner. The petitioner's case is as follows :- 3. The petitioner was inducted as a prospective member on the waiting list for allotment of plot and placed at number 8 in seniority. The first six members, who were earlier on the waiting list have been allotted plots and have constructed houses thereon. The respondent No. 5 H.C. Jain was expelled on account of failure to clear his dues and on 26.8.78 has in fact accepted his termination in writing. H.C. Jain requested the society to refund the amount paid by him on 11.3.79 and thereafter filed an affidavit stating that he had lost the share certificate and would return the same as and when he found it. The soc...

Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Nestle India Ltd.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: (2000)159CTR(Del)243; [2000]243ITR435(Delhi)

D.K. Jain, J. 1. By this common petition under Section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short 'the Act'), in respect of the assessment years 1987-88 to 1995-96, the Revenue seeks a direction to the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal (for short 'the Tribunal'), to state the case and refer the following questions, said to be questions of law, arising out of the consolidated order of the Tribunal in ITAs No. 5975 to 5992/Delhi of 1996, for the opinion of this court :'1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in coming to the conclusion that the assessed was under a bona fide belief that no tax is deductible at source from the conveyance allowance reimbursed to the employees when the same were not exempt under Section 10(14) of the Income-tax Act and were also not disclosed by the assessed in Form No. 16 which contains a specific column for allowance exemption under Section 10(14) of the Income-tax Act 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circu...

M/S. V.P.D. Plastics P. Ltd. Vs. C.C.E., Allahabad

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. The appellants filed this appeal against the order-in-appeal passe by the Commissioner (Appeals) 2. facts of the case are that the appellants are engaged in the manufacture of PVC pipes. On 12.9.99, officers on the Revenue department visited the factory of the appellants and after verification of the stock it was found that 130.96.90 kgs. of PVC pipes was in excess as compared to the entries in R. I record. A Show cause notice was issued. The adjudication authorities ordered confiscation of the goods found excess under Rule 173 Q of the Rules and gave an option to the appellants to redeem the goods on payment of a fine of Rs. 75,000/-. A penalty of Rs.75,000/- was also imposed under Rule 173 Q of the Rules. The appellants filed an appeal and the same was dismissed.3. Ld. Counsel, appearing on behalf of the appellants, submits that the goods were found in factory and there is no evidence on record to show that the appellants made any attempt to remove the goods without payment of du...

C.C.E. Vs. Star Paper Mills

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2000)(70)ECC97

1. According to the Revenue which has filed the above application for reference in terms of Section 35G(1) of the Central Excise Act, 1944, the following question of law arises out of the Tribunal's Final Order No. 490/99-NB (DB) dated 14.6.99: Whether Modvat credit can be allowed under Rule 57Q on wires and cables under the provisions of explanation 1(a) to 1(c) of Rule 57Q of Central Excise Rules, 1944 as it existed prior to 16.3.95.2. On hearing both sides, we find that in the case of jawahar Mills Ltd. and Others reported in 1999 (108) ELT 47, the Larger Bench of the Tribunal has held that wires and cables are eligible to Modvat credit in terms of Rule 57Q of the Central Excise Rules and the Larger Bench has followed the decisions of the Supreme Court in coming to its conclusion. It has relied upon the Supreme Court judgment in the case of Indian Copper Corporation reported in 1965(16) STC 259. Since the eligibility of wires and cables to capital goods credit has been settled by t...

Collector of Central Excise Vs. Ceat Tyres of India Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2000)(118)ELT758TriDel

1. M/s. CEAT Tyres (India) Ltd. have filed a Miscellaneous Application for rectification of certain mistakes which have allegedly crept into the Tribunal's Miscellaneous Order No. 96/98-C in CCE v. CEAT Tyres (India) Ltd. (Appeal No. E/5848/92-C). In the said Appeal a difference of opinion arose between the two Members who constituted the Bench and, by Misc. Order dated 2-6-1998, the Bench referred the matter to the Hon'ble President for referring the question to a third Member on whether the Appeal was required to be rejected as held by the Member (J) or whether the Appeal should be accepted as held by the Vice-President and Member (T).2. Appearing for the applicant, M/s. CEAT Tyres of India Ltd., ld.Counsel, Shri Ravinder Narain (with Ashok Sagar, Advocate) submitted that while passing the seperate orders the Hon'ble Members of the Bench had taken up only the question relating to classification. Since a difference of opinion had arisen on this point, reference to a third Member for ...