Delhi Court January 2000 Judgments

Anand Darbari Vs. Union of India and Others

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2000IIAD(Delhi)453; 2000(53)DRJ18

ORDERN.G. NANDI, J.C.W. 496/99 & C.Ms. 712/991. In the Civil Writ Petition No. 3796/99 under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has been praying for the writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ or order quashing the non-acceptance of the recommendations dated 21.4.1999 of Public Enterprises Selection Board, (for short 'PESB'), and the consequent decision of the Appointment Committee of Cabinet, (for short 'ACC'), to terminate the tenure of the petitioner as Chairman-cum-Managing Director (for short 'CMD'), Cement Corporation of India (for short 'CCI') and to issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ or direction directing ACC to take appropriate decision regarding extension of the petitioner's tenure as CMD, CCI on the basis of the recommendations of the PESB without taking into account the extraneous and irrelevant facts pertaining to withdrawn proposal dated 3.2.1999 of respondent No.1, as referred to in the note prepared by the Secre...

B.K. Bhattacharya (Dr.) Vs. Mr. V.R. Mehta (Vice-chan Delhi Universiry ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2000IIAD(Delhi)661; 84(2000)DLT165; 2000(53)DRJ391

K. Ramamoorthy, J.1. The petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs:- 'In the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, it is most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to: (a) issue a writ, direction or order in the nature of mandamus, certiorari or any nature against the respondents quashing the decision taken by respondent Nos. 2 and 3 as contained in minutes of the Governing Body meeting held on 29.8.1997, filed herein as Annexure P/10; (b) issue a writ, direction or order in the nature of mandamus, certiorari or any other nature against the respondent No.1, quashing the order of approval, if any, passed by the said respondent in ratification of the decision taken by respondents Nos. 2 and 3 contained in minutes of the meeting held on August 29, 1997 as aforesaid; (c) to issue writ, direction or order in the nature of mandamus or any other nature against respondents to extend the re-employ- ment of the petitioner for a further period of two years w...

Alimenta S.A. Vs. National Agricultural Coop., Marketing Federation of ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2000IIAD(Delhi)781; 2000(1)ARBLR576(Delhi); 84(2000)DLT494

ORDERK. Ramamoorthy, J.1. The application (numbered as Suit No. 1885/93) is under Section 5 of the Foreign Awards (Recognition and Enforcement) Act, 1961, wherein the petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs:- '(a) to order that the Award of arbitration dated 15th November, 1989 and confirmed by the Appeal Award dated 14.9.90 by the Board of Appeal of Federation of Oil Seeds and Fats Association Ltd. (FOSFA) (Annexures B & C hereto) be filed in this Hon'ble Court. (b) pronounce judgment according to the Award and pass a decree upon judgment being so pronounced. (c) Award and order payment of interest @ 18% p.a. from the date of the Award till payment/realisation. (d) Award fees and costs of the Appeal amounting to Pound Ster- ling 9,344.55 equivalent to Rs. 4,45,921.92. (e) Award and order payment of Application fee of Pound Sterling 100.00 equivalent to Rs. 4,772/- and also award and order payment of Federation fees, arbitrators fees and other related fees amounting to Poun...

R.P. Locks Company Vs. Deputy Commissoiner of Income Tax

Court: Delhi

Reported in: (2000)67TTJ(Del)588

ORDERKrishan Swarup, A.M.This is an appeal by the assessed against the order of the Deputy Commissioner, Spl. Range 29, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as 'assessing officer') dated 29-8-1996, under section 158BC(c) of the Act, 1961, for the block period ending 9-8-1995.2. In the appeal petition, as many as 17 grounds were taken. At the time of hearing, the learned counsel for the assessed withdrew 6 of these grounds (Sr. Nos. 1, 3, 5 to 7 and 9). The other grounds run as under i'2. That in making the impugned assessment the learned Deputy Commissioner has erred in proceeding to make assessment under section 158BC(c) of the Income Tax Act and has also erred while making the assessment not to have followed the procedure for making the block assessment as is envisaged under section 158BC(c) of the Income Tax Act.4. That the learned Deputy Commissioner has failed to appreciate that it is only the undisclosed income of the block period (which is the total income of the block period), is...

Modern Threads (India) Ltd. and Others. Vs. Lt. Col. B.K. Sharma and O ...

Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi

Lokeshwar Prasad, President: 1. Since the above mentioned appeals, filed by the appellant named above, under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter to be referred to as the Act) have common facts and also raise common questions for consideration, the same, with the consent of the learned Counsel for the appellant and the respondents/authorised representatives of the respondents/learned Counsel for the respondents, have been heard together and are being disposed of finally by this common order. 2. The facts, relevant for the disposal of the above mentioned appeals, briefly stated, are that the appellant is a Company duly incorporated and registered under the Companies Act, 1956, having its Registered Office at A-4, Vijaypath, Tilak Nagar, Jaipur, and a Branch Office at 709-Ansal Bhawan, 16-Kasturba Gandhi Marg, New Delhi. In all the above mentioned appeals, the respondents had made deposited with the appellant. The deposits, so made by the respondents, with the app...

P.C. Shirangannavar Vs. M/S. Anand Household Carriers (Regd.) and Anot ...

Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi

Lokeshwar Prasad, President: 1. The present appeal, filed by the appellant, under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter to be referred to as the Act) is directed against order dated 10.11.1997, passed by District Forum No.-III, in Complaint Case No. 43/97 entitled Shri P.C. Shirangannavar v. M/s. Anand Household Carriers and Anr. 2. The facts, relevant for the disposal of the present appeal, briefly stated, are that the appellant had filed a complaint under Section 12 of the Act, before the District Forum, averring that the appellant had hired the services of respondent No. 1 for carrying his household goods from his residence, situated at Shalimar Bagh, Delhi to Borivili, Bombay, and had entrusted 32 packages, containing household goods, to respondent No. 1 for transportation from Shalimar Bagh, Delhi to Borivili, Bombay, on 15.9.1993. The abovesaid packages, as per the case of the appellant, could not be transported immediately and remained in the custody of r...

N.K.R. Arunachalam Chettiar Vs. Director of Enforcement

Court: Appellate Tribunal for foreign Exchange New Delhi

Sarvesh Chandra, Chairman. - This appeal has arisen out of the Adjudication Order No. SDE(R)IV/17/91, dated 24-7-1991 under which a penalty of Rs. 5 lakhs has been imposed on the appellant for contravention of section 14 read with the Central Government Notification No. F.-1/3/PC/73, dated 15-6-1977, as amended by GSR No. 996, dated 6-7-1988 and Notification No. F. 1/25/EC/78, dated 21-5-1979. In addition to the penalty the appellant has been directed to close the accounts maintained by him in foreign banks within one month and repatriate the entire balance in those accounts. The appellant has since complied with the direction. This appeal is, therefore, directed against the imposition of the penalty. The appellant has also deposited the amount of penalty. This order disposes of the appeal on merits. 2. The appellant has filed an application seeking condonation of delay. Dr. Shamsuddin objected to the application on the ground that since the appeal has been received in the Board after ...

Uniplast Impex Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2001)(131)ELT179TriDel

1. The issue involved in this appeal filed by M/s. Uniplast Impex (P) Ltd. is whether the goods mported by them were Acrylic sheets falling under Sub heading 3906.90 as claimed by them or Acrylic Scrap falling under Heading 39.15 of the First Schedule to the Customs Tariff Act as confirmed by the Commissioner (Appeals) in the im pugned order.2. Shri G.L. Rawal, learned Advocate, submitted that the appellants had imported Acrylic sheet pieces/off cuts classifiable under Sub heading 3920.10 and claimed the clearance under OGL. He alleged that the words "Crushed/Scrap of" were added in the examination note subsequently; that this is evident from the fact that the sentences of the inspection report looks to be erroneous inasmuch as the crushed/scrap of acrylic sheet pieces could not be as per invoice, P/L and B/L attached; secondly these words have been written in small letters to fit into the space left on the Bill of Entry and these words have been written over the signature. We heard l...

Shri R.C. Gupta, U.D.C. Vs. Lt. Governor of National Capital

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

1. The applicant was working as UDC under the Government of NCT Delhi.He was issued a memorandum of charge on 27.4.1989 wherein the following four articles of charge had been levelled against him. Shri R.C. Gupta is habitual of absenting himself unauthorisedly when leave was refused to him by the Supdt. from 1.2.89 to 28.2.89, he threatened him with dire consequences. Whenever he absents himself he never bothers to handover keys of store to the supdt. or to make any alternative arrangements for supply of ration etc. to inmate. A substantial shortage excess was detected in stores which was physically verified by the JAO (H.Q.)" The applicant denied the charges and thereafter an enquiry had been conducted by the enquiry officer. The enquiry officer examined the witnesses on the side of the prosecution and no witness had been examined by the applicant nor he offered himself as a witness. The enquiry officer, in the consideration of the evidence found that the charges are proved. The disc...

Jagdish R. Patel Vs. Union of India and Others

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2000IIIAD(Delhi)124

ORDERC.M. Nayar, J. 1. This petition has been filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India impugning the notice which is filed as Annexure- K to the writ petition and may be reproduced as below :- 'No. ES-II-4(4)/70Government of IndiaMinistry of Works and Housing Court of the Estate OfficerLand and Development Officer6th Floor, Nirman Bhawan, New Delhi. To Shri Jagdish Patel,55, Hanuman Road (1st floor) New Delhi. Union of India v. Sh. Jagdish Patel. Subject :_ Proceedings under Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 for Eviction. Please take notice that the above matter will now come up for your evidence on 16.7.1974 at 10 A.M. In case of default in your/representative appearance, the proceedings will be taken exparte without entertaining any objection from you thereafter. Given under my signature and seal of the Court this 26th day of June, 1974. Sd/-C.P. KhannaEstate OfficerLand & Development Office.New Delhi.'2. The petitioner has con...