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.
Zazman Exports Vs. Commissioner of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Feb-10-2000
Reported in: (2000)(119)ELT688TriDel
1. Dispute is with regard to import of 6 Nos. of second hand Rubber Sole Direct Vulcanizing Presses and 1 number used pre-heater for vulcanizing presses. The clearance of these goods were sought from the Madras Customs vide Bill of Entry No. 226909 dated 8-7-1999. At the time of import second hand machinery was not permitted to be imported under OGL. Appellant, therefore, required a specific import licence. On account of their inability to produce the same, the goods have been confiscated under Section 111(d) of the Customs Act. The Adjudication also took the view that, the goods being second hand, invoice value cannot be straightaway accepted, as there is no standard price available for enabling comparison. The adjudicating authority, therefore, fixed the value after giving a depreciation of 70% from the value of original machinery at $10,000 indicated in the certificate of the Chartered Engineer, which accompanied the goods. Therefore, the adjudicating authority also held that the v...
Overseas Auto Parts Vs. Collector of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Feb-10-2000
Reported in: (2000)(72)ECC304
1. In this appeal filed by M/s. Overseas Auto Parts Manufacturers, the matter relates to the classification of the following products of copper/brass - The appellants had sought their classification under Sub-heading 7419.99 of the Central Excise Tariff, as other articles of copper/brass, while the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals) had classified the same under subheading No. 8481.99 of the Central Excise Tariff, taking the goods in question as parts of tap, cock, valve etc.The appellants had filed classification list under letter dated 26-7-1991. Under communication dated 9-1-1992, printed technical literature along with the information regarding end-use was sought by the jurisdictional central excise officers. The classification list was not approved and the show cause notice dated 5-3-1992 was issued. The above products were used where air or liquid was to be drained and were used in radiators (which were used for cooling water). The Asstt.Collector of Central Excise, Bombay, w...
Radhey Shyam Gupta Vs. Municipal Corporation of Delhi and Others
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-10-2000
Reported in: 2000IIIAD(Delhi)115; 87(2000)DLT308
ORDERA.K. Sikri, J.1. Petitioner has challenged the promotion of respondent Nos. 3 to 16 to the posts of Asstt. Engineers (Civil) and has also challenged the impugned note dated 1st May, 1976 and impugned order dated 20th May, 1976 reverting the petitioner from the post of Asstt. Engineer (Civil) w.e.f. 1st May, 1976. 2.Petitioner was appointed as senior most Overseer in the erstwhile Delhi State Electricity Board now Delhi Vidyut Board (hereinafter referred to as DVB. for short) on 1st March, 1968 at that time petitioner's qualification was Intermediate Science and higher grade certificate and Civil Engineering awarded by Government of Madras. Said Board was taken over by Municipal Corporation of Delhi (hereinafter referred to as MCD for short) in the year 1958 and petitioner became employee of the MCD. In the year 1968 Delhi Electric Supply Committee (hereinafter referred to as Committee for short) started exercise of framing Recruiting Regulations for the post of Asstt. Engineer (Ci...
R.L. Chablani and anr. Vs. Municipal Corporation of Delhi and Others
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-10-2000
Reported in: 2000IIIAD(Delhi)19
ORDERA.K. Sikri, J.1. This writ petition has been filed by two petitioners who were also promoted to the post of Assistant Engineer on ad hoc basis. They were reverted vide order dated 20.5.1976 as a result of abolition of 8 posts. The arguments in this writ petition are same as noticed in CWP No. 748/76, namely, while reverting the petitioner the respondents should have adhered to quota rule. In view of my discussions held in CWP No. 748/76 holding that the contentions made by the petitioner are without any merit, this writ petition also fails and is dismissed. ...
Jeevan Das Vs. Shri Anil Sharma and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-10-2000
Reported in: 2000IIIAD(Delhi)235; 84(2000)DLT559; 2000(56)DRJ139
ORDERVikramajit Sen, J.1. This application has been filed on behalf of the Plaintiff under Order XXXX ,Rule 1 read with Section 151 CPC. It has been prayed that a Receiver of the business may be appointed. The allegations in the plaint are that the Plaintiff till 1993 was participating in the business of selling of flowers at the Hanuman Mandir, Baba Kharak Singh Marg, Connaught Place, New Delhi, along with the Defendants. However, thereafter he has not been permitted to participate in this business and has also not been given his share of the profits. A specific grievance has been made that the Defendants have not complied with the orders of the Court whereby they were directed to file statements of accounts of this business. It is in these facts that the Plaintiff has alleged that he is suffering irreparable loss and injury if the Receiver of the business is not appointed. 2. In the course of arguments, learned counsel for the Plaintiff had stressed that a perusal of the accounts wou...
K.S. Randhawa Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-10-2000
Reported in: 2000IIIAD(Delhi)285
ORDERMukul Mudgal, J.1. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner is a Contractor and is carrying on the business of construction works for the Union of India. The petitioner was awarded contract No. 1/MRMVI/75-76 for provision of road at Butwal Nepalganj, Sector of MRM (Central Sector of EWH) Nepal Subhead. That certain differences and disputes had arisen between the parties and as per the Agreement Clause Mr. S.S. Juneja (respondent No. 3), Ministry of Urban Development was appointed as an Arbitrator, who made and announced his award granting a sum of Rs. 1,20,258/- to the petitioner on 13th April, 1992 after giving full opportunities to both the parties. 2. The present suit is filed by the petitioner for making the Award a Rule of the Court. Objections (IA. 9124/96) were filed by the Union of India/respondents to the Award dated 13.4.1992. 3. In Union of India Vs . Rallia Ram : [1964]3SCR164 it was held : 'The award is the decision of a domestic tribunal chosen by the part...
Premier Auto Electric Ltd. Vs. Shri Jitender Kumar Budhiraja
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-10-2000
Reported in: 2000IIAD(Delhi)533; 84(2000)DLT672; (2000)125PLR9
ORDERVikramajit Sen, J.1. This is a suit for recovery of Rs. 6,64,370/- together with pendente lite and future interest at the rate of 21 per cent per annum till realisa-tion of the decretal amount and for award of costs. Summons/notices were issued from time to time and finally Mr. T. Parasher, Advocate appeared on behalf of the Defendant on 9.7.1999. Written Statement was ordered to be filed within six weeks. As this was not done on the following date i.e. 4.10.1999 costs of Rs. 500/- was imposed on the Defendant and he was granted six weeks further time to file Written Statement. This opportunity has also not been availed of. Order VIII Rule 10 prescribes that where a party from whom a Written Statement is required fails to present the same within the time permitted by the Court, the Court shall pronounce judgment against him and a decree would be drawn up consequently. However, I have perused the contents of the plaint in order to satisfy myself of the veracity of the averments con...
Gopal Singh Vs. Indian Railway Const. Company Ltd.(ircon)
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-10-2000
Reported in: (2000)IILLJ845Del
ORDERK. Ramamoorthy, J.1. There are five petitioners in CWP. 629/98. Their services have been dispensed with by the Indian Railway Construction Company Limited, hereinafter called the IRCON. They have challenged the orders passed by the first respondent. Before I notice the case of the petitioners, it will be relevant to state about the formation of the IRCON. 2. IRCON was incorporated in the year 1976 under Indian Companies Act, 1956. It is a Government of India enterprises, run under the aegis and control of the Ministry of Railways. The main purpose for which the Company was formed was for the construction of railway tracks, roads, highways, buildings for Government and other works working under the Government, canals and other construction activities on commercial basis. It has its central office in New Delhi. The Company has a few engineers, other professionals and staff for the purpose of administration. The IRCON undertakes projects at various places in India and abroad. Dependi...
Kanak Lata and Another Vs. Sh. Ranjit Singh and Others
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-10-2000
Reported in: I(2000)ACC348; 2001ACJ1933; 2000IIAD(Delhi)758; 84(2000)DLT266; 2000(53)DRJ78
ORDERVijender Jain, J. 1. Aggrieved by the order passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, the widow of deceased and minor daughter have filed the present appeal against the respondents. 2. Respondent No.1 was the drive of the vehicle and respondent No. 2 was the owner of the vehicle. Respondent No. 3 is Insurance Company. inspire of various opportunities, nobody appeared on behalf of the respondents. Learned Counsel for the appellants has contended that the Tribunal did not take into consideration that the deceased was 35 years old at the time of his death. He was serving in Indian Air Force and was getting Rs.1250/- per month and after his successful service in the Indian Force, he was working as a Liaison Officer of Kingston Electronics and he was getting Rs.1,400/- per month. 3. Learned counsel for the appellants has also placed on reliance on PW.8/1 and has contended that the Tribunal has lost sight of the fact that after six months of the appointment of the deceased with King...
Tapas Kumar Vs. State of Nct of Delhi
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-10-2000
Reported in: 2000IIAD(Delhi)760; 84(2000)DLT208; 2000(53)DRJ414
ORDERM.S.A. Siddiqui, J. 1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order of conviction dated 10.3.99 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge in S.C. No. 47/98 convicting the appellant under Section 376 IPC and sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 7 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/- or in default to suffer further rigorous imprisonment for 6 months. 2. Briefly stated, the prosecution case is that on 18.12.1997 at about 4 P.M. while the prosecutrix Smt. Margeena (PW-3) was alone in her jhuggi, the appellant secured his entry inside the jhuggi and committed rape on the prosecutrix. The prosecutrix raised an alarm which attracted Smt. Maryam (PW-7) to the spot, seeing whom the appellant showed his heels. However, immediately after the alleged occurrence the appellant was apprehended near the railway track. At about 6.30 P.M. Smt. Margeena (PW-3) lodged the FIR (Ex. PW-1/A) at the Police Station Lodhi Colony. Investigation pursuant thereto culminated in submissi...
- ‹ Prev
- 14
- 15
- 16
- 17
- 18
- 20
- 21
- 22
- 23
- 24
- Next ›
- Last »