Delhi Court February 2000 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
Gujarat Aluminium Extrusions (P) Vs. Collector of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Feb-18-2000
Reported in: (2001)(130)ELT464TriDel
1. This issue involved in this appeal filed by M/s. Gujarat Aluminium Extrusions Pvt. Ltd. is whether the excise duty is payable on aluminium ingots and waste & scrap manufactured and cleared by them to M/s.Gujarat Casting Corporation (G.C.C.).2. Shri K.K. Anand, Learned Advocate, submitted that both Appellants and M/s. G.C.C.'s factory were shown in the ground plan filed by the Appellants, that M/s. G.C.C. had taken on hire by way of lease the machinery from them and were manufacturing aluminium castings from aluminium ingots and scraps supplied by the Appellants; that the entire premises shown in the ground plan constituted indivisible and inseparable factory premises and not two different factory premises; that the casting produced by M/s. G.C.C. in the Casting Section were shown by the Appellants as manufacturing work done by them only and excise duty liability was discharged by them; that as such they were treated as manufacturer of castings; that the classification lists and...
Collector of Central Excise Vs. Cands Electricals (P) Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Feb-18-2000
Reported in: (2001)(130)ELT860TriDel
1. The department is in appeal against the order of the Collector of Central Excise, dated 21-2-1994 holding lock for breaker control switch as classifiable under Chapter sub-heading 8301.00 and spare coil and magnetic coil under sub-heading 8538.00.2. In the grounds of appeal, the appellant Collector has contended that the mere reading of the name of the product would show that they are not used as locks but as parts of machines only. The basic function of these locks were to control different types of systems and not to function as a lock. As regards the spare coils and magnetic coils, it is contended, that these are nothing but induction coils classifiable under Chapter Sub-heading 8504.00. Reliance has been placed on Section Note 2(a) of Section XVI of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 under which parts which are goods included in any of the headings of Chapter 84 or 85 are to be classified in their respective headings. HSN Explanatory Notes at pages 1337 and 1338 also suggested...
Frick India Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Feb-18-2000
Reported in: (2000)(119)ELT676TriDel
1. Appellants are engaged in the manufacture and clearance of refrigeration and air-conditioning appliances falling under Item 29A of the First Schedule to the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944. Those goods are classifiable under Chapter 84 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. The Department got information that manufacturers were grossly undervaluing the products and thereby evading payment of duty. Modus operandi adopted by them was to divert larger portion of the actual value to the accessories. On account of this, the manufacturer evaded duty to the tune of Rs. 4,45,19,321.17 during the period from 1-3-1981 to 24-8-1985. Show cause notice dated 31-3-1986 was issued requiring the manufacturer to show cause why the said amount should not be claimed as differential duty. Detailed reply to the show cause notice was submitted by the manufacturer. After considering the contentions raised the adjudicating authority confirmed the demand of Rs. 3,91,15,883.53. This orde...
Dr. Lyakat Ali Vs. Vice-chancellor Jawahar Lal Nehru University
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-18-2000
Reported in: 2000VAD(Delhi)346; 86(2000)DLT59
ORDERK. Ramamoorthy, J.The petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs:- 'It is, thereforee, respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may graciously be pleased to:- (i) a writ in the nature of prohibition restraining the respondent from finalising and declaring the result of the interview held on 16.8.99 for the post of Assistant Professor in North African Studies at School of International Studies, in Jawahar Lal Nehru University, New Delhi; (ii) a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the proceedings held by the Interview Board in interview on 16.8.1999 for the post of Assistant Professor in North African Studies at School of International Studies in Jawhar Lal Nehru University, New Delhi; (iii) a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent to hold the interview afresh and consider the candidature of the petitioner on the basis of merit and the essential on the basis of merit and the essential qualification which is required for the post of Assistant profess...
Gurvinder Kang and ors. Vs. Director of Education and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-18-2000
Reported in: 2000IVAD(Delhi)449; 2000(53)DRJ332
ORDERA.K. Sikri, J.1. Petitioners are the teachers teaching in Air Force Bal Bharti School, Lodi Road, New Delhi which is arrayed as respondent No.3 in this case. This school is being run by Air Force Educational and Cultural Society (Regd.) which is imp leaded as respondent No. 2. The demand of the petitioners is that they should be given HRA which is wrongly denied to them by the respondent school. The prayer is couched in the following words: 'Pass a writ, order or direction in the nature of declaration to the effect that the denial of HRA to the petitioners is vocative of Articles 14 & 16 of the Constitution of India and also vocative of Section 10 of the Delhi School Education Act. Pass a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the Respondents 2 and 3 to release HRA to the petitioners at least with effect from the date of the coming into force of the recommendations of the Vth Pay Commission and thereafter to continue paying the same and pass any such other o...
Subhash Chandra Vs. Delhi Development Authority
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-18-2000
Reported in: 1999VAD(Delhi)277A
ORDERDr. M.K. Sharma, J.1. The present writ petition has been preferred by the petitioner seeking for issuance of a writ of mandamus against the respondent quashing the demand raised by the respondent under letter dated 26th June, 1998 regarding allotment of category II flat bearing No. 438, Ground Floor, Sector 12, Pocket -I, Dwarka, New Delhi with a further direction to the said respondent to allot flat on payment of the charges as charged from the other allottees under the 9th Self Financing Scheme and as per brochure of the 9th Self Financing Scheme. 2. The petitioner registered himself under the 1979 HUDCO Scheme seeking for allotment of a flat. Subsequently, however, on 28th September, 1993, the petitioner submitted an application for conversion of registration from MIG to Self Financing Scheme VI-B Category -II. Respondent under letter dated 7th August, 1996 intimated to the petitioner that the petitioner was registered with DDA for allotment of Category-II SFS flat under VI-B, ...
Sh. Mahendra Pal Vs. the Administrator, N.C.T of Delhi and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-18-2000
Reported in: 2000IIIAD(Delhi)417; 85(2000)DLT97
ORDERDevinder Gupta, J.1. The order (Annexure-P. 4) passed on 1.6.1993 by the 1st respondent in exercise of powers conferred by sub-rule (3) of Rule 16 of All India Services (Death-cum-Retirement Benefits) Rules, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as ' the A.I.S. Rules') read with Rule 27 of the Delhi Higher Judicial Service Rules, 1970 (hereinafter referred to as 'the D.H.J.S.Rules') ordering petitioner's retirement from D.H.J.S. with immediate effect, on his attaining the age of 50 years on 11.8.1988, is under challenge in this writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 2. The petitioner in 1968 was declared selected in Judicial Officers Cadre in a competitive examination conducted by the Public Service Commission of Uttar pradesh. He remained posted in Uttar Pradesh till 16.9.1971. On being selected, he was absorbed in Delhi Judicial Service on 17.9.1971 and was posted at Parliament Street, New Delhi as Judicial Magistrate. He remained posted as Sub Judge 1st Cla...
Padam Singh Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-18-2000
Reported in: 2000IIIAD(Delhi)430
ORDERDevinder Gupta, J.1. The petitioner, a member of Delhi Higher Judicial Service, has in this writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India sought quashing of the order dated 24th May, 1993 passed by respondent No.2 withdrawing entire judicial work and the order (Annexure-P.12) dated 1st June, 1993 passed by respondent No. 3 in exercise of the powers conferred by subrule (3) of Rule 16 of the All India Services (Death-cum-Retirement Benefits) Rules, 1958 read with Rule 27 of the Delhi Higher Judicial Service Rules, 1970, compulsorily retiring him from service with immediate effect. The challenge to the impugned order has been made, inter alia, on the following grounds :- 2. The provisions of sub-rule (3) of Rule 16 of All India Services (Death-cum-Retirement Benefits) Rules, 1958, which has been made applicable to Delhi Higher Judicial Service suffers from non-application of mind and confers arbitrary powers and is vocative of Articles 14, 16(1) and 311(2) of th...
M.G.F. India Ltd. Vs. Lakha Singh and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-18-2000
Reported in: 2000IIIAD(Delhi)455
ORDERMukul Mudgal, J.1. This is a petition on behalf of the petitioner under Section 11 of Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 praying for reference of disputes to arbitration. 2. The respondent No. 1 has been proceeded ex parte as per Order dated 23rd February, 1998. 3. I have heard the counsel for both the parties. 4. The arbitration clause in the agreement between the parties reads as follows : 'All disputes, differences and/or claims arising out of this Agreement, shall be settled by arbitration in accordance with the provisions of the INDIAN ARBITRATION ACT, 1940 or any statutory amendments thereof and shall be referred to the sole arbitration of Shri Inderjit Gulati, Advocate, Delhi or in case of his death, refusal, neglect, incapability to act as an Arbitration to the sole arbitration of Shri D.L. Bhargava, Advocate, Delhi. The reference to the arbitrator shall be within the CLAUSES, TERMS AND CONDITIONS of this Agreement. The Award given by the Arbitratorn shall be final and b...
Hans Rolling Shutter Works Vs. Airmen and Sailors Co-op. Group Housing ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-18-2000
Reported in: 2000VAD(Delhi)521; 25(2000)DLT466; 2000(53)DRJ558
ORDERJ.B. Goel, J. 1. This is an application under Order 6, Rule 17 CPC filed by the defendant seeking certain amendment in its written statement. 2. The plaintiff has filed a suit for recovery of his dues. He is a building contractor and was engaged for carrying out certain works of providing steel doors etc. in the residential units constructed at Rohini by the defendant on the terms agreed in agreement dated 8.9.1985. Another agreement dated 15.12.1985 for additional works also entered into. Both the works are alleged to have been executed but his final bill of Rs.4,71,732.50 submitted on 16.10.1987 remained unpaid. Hence this suit for its recovery along with interest @ 24% per annum has been filed. The defendant in its written statement, inter alia, has taken the pleas that (1) the suit is time barred; (2) there is no cause of action and nothing is due from it to the plaintiff and that the claim is false, fabricated and mala fide. Issues had been framed and both the parties have le...
- ‹ Prev
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 15
- Next ›
- Last »