Delhi Court January 2000 Judgments
Home Cases Delhi 2000 Page 5 of about 209 results (0.019 seconds)V.P. Verma (Prof.) Vs. University of Delhi
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 2000VAD(Delhi)152; 86(2000)DLT462; 2000(55)DRJ53
ORDERA.K. Sikri, J.1. Petitioner is a Professor working in the Department of Philosophy of the University of Delhi. He retired on 31st October, 1994. Thereafter he was re-employed for a period of 3 years with effect from 1st November, 1994. This writ petition was filed on 5th November, 1996 when he was still working on re-employment. In the petition, petitioner has claimed the following reliefs: '1. Issue a writ of mandamus and/or any other appropriate writ to the University of Delhi directing the University to (a) fix the pay of the petitioner as in October, 1994 at the basic of Rs. 5,400/- per month. (b) grant gratuity and the pensionary benefits to the petitioner on 32 years of service i.e. his continuous service from 14.09.1967 to 31.10.1994 plus five years of added benefit of service for pensionary benefits. (c) grant him leave encasement of 240 days. (d) grant him commutation of pension after re-fixation of pension on 32 years of his service and the appropriate fixation of his...
Tag this Judgment!Bansal Trading Corporation Vs. M/S. Morgan Asia Limited
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 85(2000)DLT60; (2000)125PLR28
ORDERVikramajit Sen. J.1. This is an application filed by the Defendants seeking inter alias the recalling of orders dated October 8,1996, previously passed in this suit. On that date the defense of the applicant had been struck off because of its failure to deposit the arrears of rent/compensation. Even subsequent to passing of these orders the Defendant was permitted opportunity, on the request of its Counsel, to deposit the relevant amount on July 11,1997. After several hearings, it was ordered that arrears of rent/damages would be paid to the Plaintiff. Against this order the applicant/defendant filed FAO (OS) 183/1997 which was dismissed in limine. It is submitted by Learned Counsel for the applicant that as on date the amounts ordered by this Court have been paid. It is contended that there was no contumacious or intentional non-compliance of orders and that, in the interest of justice, the orders should be recalled. 2. The application has been vehemently opposed by the Plaintiff...
Tag this Judgment!Madan Mohan Goyle Vs. Union of India and Others
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 2000IIIAD(Delhi)301; 84(2000)DLT556; 2000(56)DRJ144
ORDERC.M. Nayar, J.1. The petitioner is aggrieved by the Order dated 3rd December, 1975 passed by Shri O.P. Singla, Additional District Judge, Delhi arising out of an appeal under Section 9 of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') against the Order of the Estate Officer, Directorate of Estates, Nirman Bhawan, New Delhi under Section 5 of the Act. The brief facts of the case are that an Order of eviction was made against the petitioner on 29th March, 1975 from Shop No. 189, Mohan Singh Market, New Delhi on account of his being declared as an unauthorised occupant. The reason for issuing the Order is stated in the notice dated 19th October, 1973 which reads as below :- 'Dear Sir/Madam, You are in occupation of the above mentioned Government premises. The rent of these premises has not been paid regularly and consequently, the following amounts are outstanding as on 1.9.1973 : (a) Rent Rs. 1725/- (b) Water charges Rs. -...
Tag this Judgment!Ex. Sqn. Ldr. Anil Gupta Vs. Union of India and anr.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 2000IIIAD(Delhi)451; 84(2000)DLT320; 2000(53)DRJ93
ORDERAnil Dev Singh, J.1. Admit. Since this appeal involves a short point, we proceed to dispose of the same today itself. 2. This appeal is directed against the judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 21st July, 1998. The facts giving rise to this Letters Patent Appeal are as follows :- 3. The appellant was commissioned in the Indian Air Force as General Duty Pilot on 15th January, 1980. The appellant logged about 1000 accident free flying hours. Sometime in the year 1989, the petitioner applied to the respondents for being given a ground job as his widowed mother and wife had developed anxiety syndrome after the death of his father. Pursuant to the application of the appellant he was posted on a ground job and was given training in Pachoras. 4. In February, 1992, the appellant made an application to the authorities for being posted to flying duty. However, the Air Headquarters on 12th February, 1983 issued a show cause notice under Section 19 of the Air Force Act, 1950 read with R...
Tag this Judgment!R.K. Aneja Vs. Delhi Development Authority
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 2000IIIAD(Delhi)629; 2000(1)ARBLR214a(Delhi)
ORDERS.K. Mahajan, J. 1. This order will dispose of suit filed by the petitioner under Section 20 of the Arbitration Act for filing arbitration agreement in Court and for reference of disputes thereafter to the Arbitrator. 2. The Facts in short are: 3. That an agreement was entered into between the parties for construction of certain dwelling units under the Self Financing Scheme of respondent No. 1. Certain disputes having arisen between the parties the plaintiff sought those disputes to be referred to an Arbitrator. For this purpose, notice dated 15/4/1992 was given to the Respondent. This notice was received by respondent No.1 on 6/5/1992. The respondent in reply to the notice stated that intimation of the readiness of the final bill was conveyed to the plaintiff on 21/1/1992 and as the plaintiff has not invoked arbitration within 90 days from the date of such intimation, all his rights under the agreement had extinguished and consequently the petition was not maintainable. On such ...
Tag this Judgment!Modern Builders Vs. Union of India (Uoi)
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 84(2000)DLT582
Mukul Mudgal, J.1. These are the objections to the award dated 13.9.1990 filed by the respondent-UOI. The Arbitrator Mr. N.H. Chandwani, Chief Engineer, CPWD was appointed by the respondent-UOI.2. The objections have been filed on behalf of Union of India. However, nobody is appearing to press the objections. Accordingly, the objections are dismissed.3. The petitioner has made a claim for Rs. 6,38,014/-. The Arbitrator has only awarded a sum of Rs. 1,30,598/- with interest. The award is a reasoned award. I have gone through the objections. None of the objections fall within the parameter which warrant interference in terns of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court as detailed in the judgment of this Court in Mis. Chadha Construction Co. v. Union of India & Anr. (Suit No. 1039/88).4. Accordingly, the award dated 13th September, 1990 is made a rule of the Court and decree in terms thereof be drawn. If the amount due under the award is paid within 3 months from today, the award sh...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. A.C.E. Foods
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (2001)(130)ELT929TriDel
1. In this appeal filed by the Revenue the issue for our consideration is whether the redemption fine could be levied when the seized goods had been provisionally released to the appellants on execution of a bond. The Assistant Collector of Central Excise who had adjudicated the matter had imposed a redemption fine of Rs. 1/00,0007- in lieu of confiscation of the ice cream cones valued at Rs. 4,54,238.50. On appeal, the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Ghaziabad while confirming the duty liability vacated the redemption fine. He has referred to Tribunal decision where it has been observed that when the goods were not available for confiscation the redemption fine in lieu of confiscation was not maintainable. In appeal, the Revenue had pleaded that the goods were released provisionally on the request of the respondents and the goods were liable for confiscation. It has been stated that the seized goods were released provisionally as per the provisions of Rule 206 of the Centra...
Tag this Judgment!Anand Kumar Gupta Vs. Commissioner of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (2000)(120)ELT407TriDel
2. The appellants imported 6324 Kgs. of long pepper and claimed clearance thereof in terms of para 22 of the Export and Import Policy 1992-97. The goods were physically examined by Customs officers and found to tally with the declaration made by the importer. The Department, however, took the view that the goods were of agricultural origin and could be imported only under specific import licence. No specific import licence in respect of the goods having been produced by the importer, the Department treated the import as unauthorized and the goods as liable to confiscation under the Customs Act. They also treated the importer as liable to penal action under the Customs Act.The matter was eventually adjudicated by the Additional Collector of Customs as per order dated 3-12-1993, whereby the goods were confiscated and the appellant was allowed to redeem the same on payment of Rs. 18,000.00 as redemption fine. The Additional Collector, further, imposed a personal penalty of Rs. 5000.00 on...
Tag this Judgment!Teksons Limited Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (2000)(118)ELT657TriDel
1. Both the captioned appeal and the appellants' application for condonation of delay (COD) have arisen for consideration together pursuant to Bench Order dated 10-5-1999.2. The captioned appeal had been filed before the Tribunal's West Regional Bench (WRB) on 17/19-11-1992. A stay application had also been filed along with the appeal. The appeal was against the order of the Additional Collector of Central Excise dated 31-3-1992, which was received by the party on 6-6-1992. Though there was a delay in the filing of appeal, no COD application had been filed at that time. The WRB of the Tribunal, however, considered the stay application and granted waiver of pre-deposit and stay of recovery as per its order dated 2-3-1993. During the interregnum between the date of filing of the appeal with stay application and the date of passing of the stay order, a question had arisen as to whether appeals (like the captioned one) filed against adjudicatory orders of Additional Collectors of Customs ...
Tag this Judgment!Carrier Aircon Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (2003)(159)ELT315TriDel
1. The miscellaneous application for early hearing of the appeal was dismissed as infructuous since we are taking up the appeal itself for hearing today.2. The appellants are aggrieved by the order of the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals) who has remanded the issue of classification of chillers manufactured by the appellants herein, on the ground that the review order passed under Section 35E(2) based upon which the appeal was filed by the Revenue before the Commissioner (Appeals), relied upon a report of the Central Economic Intelligence Bureau alleging that the manufacturers of chillers were clearing goods under Chapter 84.18 as heat pumps, which report was a fresh piece of evidence, for the purpose of enabling the respondents to make their submissions in the matter. According to the appellants who are represented by their Counsel, Shri R. Krishnan, the review order raises an entirely new point which was not raised in the show cause notice, and therefore, the review order is ...
Tag this Judgment!