Delhi Court March 2000 Judgments

Ashok Kumar Vs. Union of India (Uoi)

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

1. Applicant impugns the Notification dated 20.10.93 (Annexure A-2) and the seniority list dated 15.12.94 (Annexure A-1). He seeks a declaration to respondents to prepare the seniority list of 1989 batch of I.P.S. probationary officers in accordance with unamended Rule 10 I.P.S. (Probation) Rules, 1954, with consequential benefits.2. Admittedly applicant appeared in Civil Services Examination, 1988 and was allotted to I.P.S. (1989 Batch). He joined the service on 22.8.89 and reported for the Foundation Course (FC) at Lal Bahadur Shastri National Academy of Administration, Mussoorie. Some of his I.P.S. batchmales took exemption from joining F.C. in order to appear in CSE, 1989 to improve their prospects. Those who could not improve their prospects joined the F.C. in 1990 and completed their probationary training in due course.3. Rule 3(3) IPS (Regulation of Seniority) Rules, 1988 governs the fixation of seniority of direct recruit IPS Officers. Prior to the amendments, an exempted prob...

Wings Wear Workers Lal Jhanda Union Vs. Management of Wings Wear P. Lt ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2000IVAD(Delhi)254; 85(2000)DLT565; 2000(53)DRJ523; [2000(86)FLR348]

ORDERA.K. Sikri, J.1. Petitioners' union has filed this writ petition against award dated 11.12.1997. The union had raised the dispute which was referred for adjudication vide order dated 22.8.1996 with the following terms of reference: 'Whether the transfer of the workmen mentioned at Annexure-A from 24/A, Najafgarh Road, to Palla, Near Bus Stand, Delhi-110036 by the management is illegal and/or unjustified and if so, to what relief are they entitled and what directions are necessary in this respect?'2. Thus the question which was referred is whether the transfer of workmen mentioned in Annexure-A was illegal and and unjustified. The tribunal in the impugned award noticed that this very question was referred earlier also for adjudication and against the decision of the award, management had filed the writ petition in which it was held that job of the workmen was transferable from one establishment to other and the employer had right to transfer the workmen. This judgment is reported i...

Municipal Corporation of Delhi and ors. and Delhi Development Authorit ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2000IVAD(Delhi)325; 85(2000)DLT491; 2000(54)DRJ84

ORDERS.K. Agarwal, J.1. Above noted two appeals are directed against the judgment dated 1st June, 1984 passed by the learned single Judge of this Court, allowing the writ petition of respondents No. 1 to 7 (for short, the contesting respond- ents), thereby quashing the letter dated 10th May, 1974 issued by the Municipal Corporation of Delhi (for short M.C.D.), the appellant in LPA No. 91/84, directing it to sanction the building plans to construct a cinema hall on the plot of land measuring 4166.70 sq. yards, Shankar Road, Rajin- dra Nagar, (for short 'the plot'). Further directing the Delhi Development Authority (for short D.D.A.) the appellant in LPA No. 99/84, not to show the plot, in the zonal development plan, as an open park prepared under the Delhi Development Act, 1957, and directing Union of India, not to pass any such plan, if submitted by the D.D.A., affecting the said plot. It may be noticed here that vide order dated 3.1.95 this Court had allowed Gulmarg Builders (Pvt. Ltd...

State Bank of Hyderabad Vs. M/S. Shri Rani Sati Trading Co. and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2000IVAD(Delhi)563

ORDERVikramajit Sen, J.1. This suit for recovery of Rs. 7.17,426,45 has been filed by the plaintiff, State Bank of Hyderabad, in March 1993. Several attempts were taken for serving the Defendants. Finally, appearance was entered on behalf of Defendants 1 to 3, 6 and 7 on 9.12.1996. The Defendants were granted six weeks time to file their Written Statement. On 1.9.1997 all the Defendants were proceeded ex-parte as none was present on behalf of any of the Defendants. As Defendants 1 to 3, 6, and 7 failed to file their Written Statement as per Orders date 9.2.1996 the Plaintiff was permitted to lead ex-parte evidence by way of affidavits. 2. A perusal of the plaint discloses that Defendant No. 1 through its partners and guarantors had approached the plaintiff Bank in the month of April, 1990 for the grant of Cash Credit (Hypothecation) Limit of Rs. 5,00,000/-. On 30.4.1990 on their executing the following documents the Plaintiff Bank granted the said facility on that date: (i) Demand Prom...

Mrs. Surender Bala and Another Vs. M/S. Sandeep Foam Industries P. Ltd ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2000IVAD(Delhi)730; AIR2000Delhi300; 85(2000)DLT478

ORDERS.K. Agarwal, J.1. This appeal is directed against judgment and decree dated 27th March, 1999 passed by the court of Mrs. Manju Goel, Additional District Judge, Delhi dismissing the appellant/plaintiff's suit for possession and damages against the respondent/defendant holding that the service of notice terminating the tenancy was not proved. 2. Facts giving rise to this appeal briefly are: that appellants filed a suit against the respondent for recovery of possession of the premises No. C-772, New Friends Colony, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as suit premises) along with its fittings and fixtures and for recovery of damages, alleging therein that plaintiff No.1 as the owner of the suit premises and plaintiff No. 2 as the owner of the fittings and fixtures provided therein and they had, by two agreements dated 10th August, 1993, leased out the Ground Floor of the suit premises for purposes on a monthly rent of Rs. 8,000/- and fittings and fixtures attached in the suit premises...

Wipro Finance Ltd. Vs. M/S. Dee Pharma Ltd.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2000VAD(Delhi)967; 86(2000)DLT45; 2000(54)DRJ199

ORDERJ.B. Goel, J.1. This is a petition under Section 9 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short 'the Act') for appointment of a Receiver to seize the leased plant and machinery. 2. Briefly, the case of the petitioner is that the petitioner, a non- banking financial company engaged in the business of leasing and hire of equipment and plant and machinery etc. On the request of the respondent had given to the respondent the following plant and machinery on lease:- 2 number, Steam Sterilizer (Autoclave)Type : KE- SS-30 Horizontal Rectangular High Pressure Vacuum, Steam Sterilizer. 1 number, Rubber Stopper Treatment system Air Handling, Air Filtration System of Bulk & Sterile Formulation Plant. 1 set Linear Vial Washer with in feed loading platform, unscrambler, pumps, filters, controls etc. & Sterilizing Tunnel with drying-sterilizing-cooling stabilizing zones,electrical control panel, S.S. biopragm. for which lease agreement No. 03/BLR/L/088 dated 25.3.1995 was entered into...

Fargo Freight Ltd. (Formerly Electric Exports Ltd.) Vs. Commodities Ex ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: [2001]106CompCas545(Delhi); 2000(54)DRJ411

Vikramajit Singh, J.1. This is an application filed on behalf of defendant No. 3 under Order 39, Rule 4, read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, for variation of the interim orders dated July 24, 1996 and August 29, 1996. The application has been preferred in the suit for mandatory and permanent injunction directing the defendants to keep the irrevocable letter of credit issued by defendant No. 3 alive till the culmination of proceedings before the arbitral forum. By a detailed order K. Ramamoorthy J. had granted the injunction in the following words :'There shall be a direction to the defendants/respondents, their employees, agents, attorneys or any other person either directly or indirectly claiming through the defendants shall keep irrevocable letter of credit, issued by Global Trust Bank, Calcutta No. CA/FLC/011/96, dated May 20, 1996, in the sum of USD 267.000 alive and shall not allow the same to be expired during the pendency of the suit.The first defendant h...

Balaji Steel Tubes and Pipes Ltd. Vs. Cce

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2000)(69)ECC684

1. These are two appeals. Since the issue for determination in these two appeals is same, therefore, they were heard together and are being disposed of by this common order.2. The issue is whether Modvat credit can be taken on the strength of invoices/challans which do not bear the details of manufacturer with complete address, address of Central Excise Range Division and Collectorate, Invoice No., Date and time of issue, total quantity, value rate and amount of duty covered under such invoice. The Department alleged that since these particulars were not disclosed by the appellants, therefore, Modvat credit was wrongly taken on the strength of these incomplete invoices.3. Shri R. Santhanam, Ld. Counsel appearing for the appellants submits that the appellants received inputs from M/s. Steel Authority of India Ltd. and their stock yards under their challan/invoice. He submits that most of the particulars required in terms of Notification No.33/94-CE(NT) dated 4.7.94 were available in th...

Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Buckau Wolf India Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2001)(130)ELT661TriDel

1. In this appeal preferred by Revenue the issue involved is whether Gravel Gate Valve manufactured by M/s. Buckau Wolf India Ltd. is classifiable under Heading 84.31 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act as claimed by the Revenue or under Heading 84.28 of the Tariff as classified by the Respondent's and confirmed by the Collector (Appeals) under the impugned order dated 30-6-1993.2. Shri M.P. Singh, learned DR submitted that Heading 84.31 applies to parts suitable for use solely or principally with the machinery of Heading Nos. 84.25 to 84.30; that the impugned goods is solely used in material handling equipment and as such rightly classifiable under Heading 84.31; that the Gravel Gate Valve is positioned between belt conveyor and the grinding mill; that the material is handled through the conveyor consisting of Gravel Gate Valve which cannot function without belt conveyor; that as per respondents' operational manual the bulk material is fed to the Gate proportionately and...

Saurabh Alloy Castings Ltd. and Vs. C.C.E.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2000)(69)ECC692

1. Under Tribunal's Stay Order No. S/90-91 /99-D dated 16.12.99, order dictated in the Open Court, M/s. Saurabh Alloy Castings Ltd. were directed to pre-deposit Rs. 15,00,000 (Rupees fifteen lakhs only) towards duty and Rs. 1,00,000 (Rupees one lakh only) towards penalty.The amount was to be deposited within 8 weeks from that date i.e. from 16.12.99.2. When the matter came up for noting the compliance and further orders, Shri R. Holani, C.A. appearing for the appellants herein submitted that due to financial constraints, the appellants have not been able to comply with the terms of the Tribunal's Stay Order. He submitted that Shri Yogesh Sood, who was directed to deposit Rs. 50,000 towards penalty, has since deposited that amount.4. Shri R. Holani, C.A. prays for one month's time from today i.e.15.3.2000 for making the compliance.5. In view of the plea of the appellants, in the interest of justice, one month's time is given from today i.e. 15.3.2000 for making the compliance of the Tr...