Delhi Court February 2000 Judgments

Sh. Chhajjoo Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

1. The applicant is aggrieved by the decision of the respondents, communicated to him by order dated 30.11.95, regularising him in a Group 'D' post of Khallasi. His claim is that he should have been regularised in Group 'C' post as skilled Fitter.2. The brief facts of the case arc that the applicant was engaged as temporary Fitter under Inspector of Works, Gajraula w.e.f 5.9.74 and according to him, he had been continuously working as a Fitter with the respondents. These averments have been made in paragraph 4.1 of the OA and in the reply filed by the respondents, it is noted that they have admitted these facts. The applicant has staled that he was sent for medical examination in 1983 and he was found fit and according to him he was appointed and continued to work as Fitter for more than 20 years. He has submitted that the respondents had failed to hold any screening in his case until 199 1 when he was called and thereafter the impugned order dated 30.11.95 was issued regularising him...

international Buildg. and Furnishing Co. (Cal) Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Indian Oi ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2000IIIAD(Delhi)225; 84(2000)DLT483; 2000(53)DRJ242

ORDERS.K. Mahajan, J. IA. No. 11923/991. This order will dispose of the application of the defendant for amendment of the written statement filed under Order 6, Rule 17 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The facts in short which are relevant for purposes of deciding this application are :- 2. That the plaintiff company had carried out certain interior works, furniture and furnishing, etc. for the defendant at its office if Gurgaon in the State of Haryana. According to the plaintiff, though it had executed work to the tune of Rs. 13,30,933/- but the defendant failed to make any payment and the plaintiff was, thereforee, entitled to the aforesaid amount besides certain other reliefs as have been claimed in the suit. 3. Notice of the suit having been given to the defendant, it filed the written statement. The stand taken in the written statement was that though the contract value was over Rs. 77 lacs, the plaintiff did not execute any work and the work was got executed ...

Prag Mittal Vs. Smt. Vikita Mittal

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2000IIAD(Delhi)569; AIR2000Delhi304; 84(2000)DLT470; 2000(53)DRJ162; (2000)125PLR16

ORDERVijender Jain, J.1. Aggrieved by the order of the Additional District Judge dismissing the petition of the appellant under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act for dissolution of his marriage against his wife, Smt. Vikita Mittal, the appellant has preferred the present appeal. 2. Before I deal with the impugned judgment of the Additional District Judge it is relevant to place on record that the marriage was shortlived between the parties. The marriage was solemnised on 12.10.1994 at Delhi and thereafter the parties lived together till 5.6.1995, i.e. barely for eight months. Ms. Gita Mittal, learned counsel for the appellant has contended that the petition for divorce was filed by the petitioner inspire of numerous notices issued to the respondent respondent chose to remain absent from the proceedings. However, with the intervention of some friends and relatives, the articles of dowry were returned to the respondent and in token thereof, the respective fathers of the parties...

Om Prakash Gulati Vs. Union of India and Others

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2000IIIAD(Delhi)607; 2000CriLJ1928

ORDERC.M. NAYAR, J.1. The petitioner has filed this writ petition impugning the Order in appeal dated October 31, 1977 passed by the Appellate Tribunal for forfeited property. The Order was passed by the Competent Authority under Section 7(1) of the Smugglers and Foreign Exchange Manipulators (Forfeiture of Property) Act, 1976 whereby the initiating properties were ordered to be forfeited to the Central Government:- (i) Investment in business.Gulati General Store, Hall Bazar,Amritsar. (ii) House Property No.168, Shivala Road,Amritsar. 2.The petitioner who has since expired and is now represented by his legal representatives had been detained under the COFEPOSA Act, 1974 on December 19, 1974 and was thus a person covered by the provisions of Section 2(2)(b) of the Smugglers and Foreign Exchange Manipulators (Forfeiture of Property) Act, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'). The Competent Authority issued a show-cause notice under Section 6(1) of the Act on November 8, 1976 after...

Bhushan Kumar Dewan Vs. State and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 84(2000)DLT679

Dr. M.K. Sharma, J.1. This appeal arises out of the judgment and order dated 22.3.1997 passed by the Additional District Judge, Delhi in Probate Case No. 566/ 94 dismissing the petition for grant of probate/letter of administration in respect of the estate of late Smt. Ishar Devi widow of late Shri Deena Nath, with the Will annexed dated 22.9.1978.2 Late Smt. Ishar Devi, widow of late Shri Deena Nath Dewan was the owner of house No. D-3, Kailash Colony, New Delhi. She had three sons and three daughters. Shri N.N. Dewan, the elder son of Smt. Ishar Devi had pre-deceased her leaving behind his widow, Smt. Damyanti Devi and a daughter, Smt. Renu Chaudhary. She was survived by two sons, namely, Shri Vasheshar Nath and Shri Vishwa Nath and three daughters, namely, Smt. Shiela Rani, Smt. Shanti Rani and Smt. Shakuntala Rani. It is the case of the petitioner that prior to her death, late Smt. Ishar Devi had executed a registered Will dated 22.9.1978 in favor of her grandsonShri Bhushan Kumar ...

Guru Overseas Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2000)(120)ELT209TriDel

1. This appeal has been filed by the appellants being aggrieved by the order of the Ld. Collector (Appeals) holding - "I find that the appellants deny the right of modification of the classification list on the ground that the earlier approved classification lists were at variance with the impugned approval. This is not acceptable. It is noticed that the appellants themselves have not been consistent in their claims and been primarily guided by the effective rate of duty on the said goods. They have invariably opted for a lower rated chapter classification. Besides; the same car seats are usable as O.E. and accessories. Admittedly without seats the vehicle is incomplete and unusable. So far as the cited order of the Collector Central Excise, Delhi is concerned, it is established that the final order has been passed holding that the impugned show cause notices were time barred. Therefore, it has no quotable or precedent value. I hold that the impugned order-in-original is maintainable ...

Collector of C. Ex. Vs. Glossy Paints and Chemicals P.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2000)(120)ELT211TriDel

1. In these two appeals filed by the Revenue the issue involved is whether the product "stiff paint" manufactured by M/s Glossy Paint & Chemicals (P) Ltd. is classifiable as "Paint" under sub-heading 3208.90 of the schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, as claimed by the Revenue, or as Tigment' under sub-heading No. 3212.90, as ordered by the Commissioner (Appeals) in the impugned order.2.1 Dr. R. Babu, Learned D.R., submitted that the Commissioner (Appeals) has classified the impugned product under sub-heading 3212.90 on the following grounds.2.2 The learned D.R. mentioned that the characteristics mentioned in serial Nos (i) and (iii) are equally attributable to Paints under heading No. 32.08 and as such reliance on these two grounds is not of any consequence. He further mentioned that as such the fact that the impugned product is of a kind used in the manufacture of paint can be stated to be the conclusive ground adopted in the impugned order; that this conclusion is not cor...

Commissioner of C. Ex. Vs. Pan Asia Corporation

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2001)(131)ELT175TriDel

1. In this appeal filed by the Revenue the matter relates to the classification of a product described as "Energy Saving Combination, refrigerated closed loop fluid cooler and hot air paper dryer." The assessee had claimed classification of this new product under sub-heading 8419.00 which covered machinery, plant or laboratory equipment for the treatment of materials by a process involving a change of temperature, etc. The Assistant Collector of Central Excise held the classification, as submitted by the assessee and dropped the demand of Rs. 18,900/-and also held that the benefit of small-scale exemption under Notification No. 175/86-C.E., dated 1-3-1986 was available to the goods in question. The appeal filed by the Revenue was dismissed by the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals') who also referred to the earlier decision of the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals) order dated 10-12-1990 which is at page 9 of the paper book.In that earlier decision the appellate authority had obs...

Bhilwara Spinners Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2000)(118)ELT591TriDel

1. The issue involved in this appeal filed by M/s Bhilwara Spinners Ltd. is whether the activity of forming the aluminium card cans from the parts amounts to manufacture.2. Shri Jitendra Singh, learned Advocate, submitted that in 1994, they placed an order for 140 Card Cans complete with all accessories with M/s. Sidhartha Tubes and Containers Pvt. Ltd. that the card cans were assembled in their factory by Sidhartha Tubes and Containers' mechanic.He, further, submitted that assembling of card cans received in CKD condition does not amount to manufacture; that the goods supplied were complete card cans but in unassembled condition; that it was held in T.I. Cycles of India v. U.O.I., 1983 (12) E.L.T. 681 (Mad.); that mere assembly of cycle parts into complete cycle does not amount to manufacture. He also relied upon the decision in Shrike Construction Equipments Pvt. Ltd. v. C.C.E. Pune,Walchand Nagar Industries v. C.C.E. Pune, 1995 (79) E.L.T. 485, and India X-erographic Systems Ltd. v...

Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. R.N. Gupta and Co.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2000)(120)ELT158TriDel

1. The revenue filed this appeal against the order-in-appeal dated 24-7-1999 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals). In the impugned order, the benefit of Modvat credit on electric motor and hydraulic tracer and flat template is allowed as capital goods under Rule 57Q of the Central Excise Rules.2. Ld. D.R., appearing on behalf of the Revenue, submits that the goods, in question, do not qualify as capital goods from their functional use in terms of Clauses (a) to (c) of the Rule 57Q of the Central Excise Rules having no direct nexus to manufacturing stream in the factory. He submits that the goods, in question, are not covered under the definition of the capital goods as provided under Rule 57Q of the Central Excise Rules. He, further, submits that vide Notification 11/95-CE (NT), dated 16-3-1995 and Notification No. 14/96-CE (NT), dated 23-7-1996, the credit on the goods, in question, was allowed.Therefore, before issuing of these notifications, the benefit of credit,...