Delhi Court March 2000 Judgments
Home Cases Delhi 2000 Page 17 of about 221 results (0.022 seconds)Naval Gent Maritime Ltd. Vs. Shivnath Rai HarnaraIn (i) Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 2000(54)DRJ639
Vikramajit Sen, J. 1. By this order I propose to dispose off the present application filed on behalf of Respondent under Order VII rule 11 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure. This application has been filed in OMP 200/99 which has been preferred under Section 9 of the, Arbitration and conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). On being satisfied that the circumstances of the case so warrant, I had restrainedthe Respondent from selling, alienating or creating any third party interests in properly bearing No. B-16, Bhagwan Dass Nagar. New Delhi. On receiving notice of the Petition, this application has been filed in which the substantial challenge is centered on the maintainability of the Petition itself. As the first order dated 16.7.1999 will indicate, it is not in controversy that when the Petition was filed, the disputes were alreadybeing adjudicated in London before Mr. Clive Aston, Arbitrator, pursuant to orders of the High Court of Justice at Lo...
Tag this Judgment!Commr. of C. Ex. Vs. Surya Jyoti Safety Products (i)
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (2000)(122)ELT467TriDel
1. In this appeal the issue involved is whether the Assistant Collector had power to review the classification list of the assessee after having once approved the same.3. The appellants are engaged in the manufacture of toughened glass and solar cooker/collector parts. They classified their product under subheading 7321.90 of the CETA and the same was approved by the Assistant Collector w.e.f. 18.01.91. However, later on it came to the notice of the department that the product has been wrongly classified by the appellants under subheading 7219.90 of the CETA as it was classifiable only under sub-heading 7004.10 of the CETA. Show cause notice dated 16.07.91 was accordingly issued to them and demand of differential duty was also raised from them by alleging that they wrongly classified the product under sub-heading 7219.90 of the CETA.4. They, however, contested the correctness of that notice by alleging that they had correctly classified their product and that the Assistant Collector h...
Tag this Judgment!Jay Rapid Rollers Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (2000)(69)ECC520
1. These are three appeals - two filed by M/s. Jay Rapid Rollers Ltd. and its Managing Director and the one filed by the Revenue, being aggrieved with the common order-in-original dated 21-10-1998 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Gurgaon. They were heard together and are being disposed of by this common order.2. The matter relates to the modvat credit in respect of the inputs used in the re-rubberisation of old and used rollers which were removed after re-rubberisation without payment of any central excise duty. A modvat credit of Rs. 22,63,884.75 was alleged to had been utilised unauthorisedly by suppressing the facts of utilisation of modvated inputs in such exempted goods. The Commissioner of Central Excise, Gurgaon (Delhi-Ill), who adjudicated the matter observed that the use of the inputs in respect of which the appellants had availed of modvat credit of duty, in the re-rubberisation of old and used rollers on which no duty had been paid, had never been intimated to ...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of C. Ex. Vs. Godrej and Boyce Mfg. Co. Pvt. Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (2001)(134)ELT227TriDel
1. The brief facts of the case are that the respondents herein are inter alia engaged in the manufacture of excisable goods namely Multi-flex systems and Heavy Duty systems. They were filing classification lists for Multi-flex systems under TI 68 of the Schedule to the erstwhile Central Excise Tariff prior to 28-2-1986 and thereafter under Chapter 73 of the Schedule to the CETA 1985.Investigation revealed that although classification lists had been submitted for parts, the as-sessees were actually marketing Multi-flex systems/components and Heavy duty systems and components as such, consisting of a combination of slotted angles, panels, cladding sheets, panel dividers etc. As per printed literature, Multi-flex systems were designed for normal loads in the homes, sheds, offices, shops, etc. and Heavy Duty systems were recommended for storage of very heavy and bulk loads. The systems could be assembled into a variety of useful items such as shelves, racks, cat walks, sheds etc.2. Statem...
Tag this Judgment!S.C. Sharma Vs. Union of India
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 2000IVAD(Delhi)10
ORDERA.K. Sikri, J. 1. Petitioner was enrolled in the Indian Air Force as AC(U/T) in the trade of ACH/GD w.e.f. 17th November, 1972. He was promoted to the rank of Sergeant in the Air Force on 5th October, 1986 and completed his initial term of engagement of 15 years on 17th November, 1987. He was given this extension of service for another six years i.e. up to 17th November, 1993. When this period expired he was given another extension of service for a period of 5 years i.e. 17th November, 1998. In the year 1996 he applied for further extension of service for a period of three years. However this request of the petitioner was rejected by order dated 6th November, 1997 and order of discharge was issued on 25th November, 1997 discharging the petitioner from service w.e.f. 30th November, 1998. As the representation of the petitioner did not evoke any response he filed present writ petition in which he seeks direction that his case be considered for grant of extension for another three ye...
Tag this Judgment!C.J. International Hotels Ltd. Vs. New Delhi Municipal Council
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 2000IVAD(Delhi)45; AIR2001Delhi435; 85(2000)DLT587
ORDERA.K. SIKRI, J.1. Petitioner No.1. a Public Limited Company, is the owner of a 5-star Hotel called Hotel Le Meridien. This Hotel is constructed at 8, Windsor place. New Delhi, after taking the land from Respondent N.D.M.C. on license basis for which license Agreement dated 16.4.1981 was executed. Whereby plot of land measuring 4.5 Acres (Approx.) was licensed to M/s. Pure Drinks New Delhi Limited. This agreement was substituted with another license Agreement dated 14.7.1982 between N.D.M.C. and M/s. C.J. International Hotels Limited hereinafter referred to as petitioner. Notwithstanding the lapse of almost 18/19 years. Since the aforesaid agreement which, inter alia. Incorporated the clauses relating to license Fee payable by the petitioner to N.D.M.C., a dispute in respect of the said license Fee still persists and has become subject matter of long drawn controversy between the parties. This is, in fact, second round of litigation, the first dispute having started with the filing ...
Tag this Judgment!Durga Charan Hansdah Vs. State of Delhi and Another
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 2000IVAD(Delhi)857; 2000CriLJ3530; 86(2000)DLT795; 2000(56)DRJ383
M.S.A. Siddiqui, J. 1. This revision arises out of circumstances which may be shortly stated as follows. 2. Petitioner's first wife (respondent No. 2) aggrieved by her husband's conduct in marrying a second wife laid a complaint under Sections 494/109 IPC against him and his second wife Smt. Hansfha. On the complaint being filed, process was issued against the petitioner. After recording precharge evidence, the learned Metropolitan Magistrate discharged the petitioner on the ground that the respondent No. 2 had failed to prove that the second marriage contracted by the petitioner with Pankajani attracts the penal provision of Section 494 I.P.C. Aggrieved thereby, respondent No. 2 moved the Additional Sessions Judge by filing a revision, which was allowed vide orders dated 26.2.1997 and the trial court was directed to frame a charge under Section 494 IPC against the petitioner. Hence this revision. 3. Assailing validity of the impugned order, learned counsel for the petitioner has stren...
Tag this Judgment!M/S. V.K. Designers Vs. M/S. Menson Accessories and ors.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 2000IVAD(Delhi)887
ORDERVikramajit Sen, J.1. This suit is for the recovery of Rs. 10,45,000/- being the equivalent of U.S. $24,000. Initially, it had been filed, against M/s. Menson Accessories and three other parties, but these parties were deleted by orders dated 29.3.1995. Thereafter, being unsuccessful in serving the Defendant in the ordinary manner, M/s. Menson Accessories was served through publication in the Statesman (Overseas Edition) on 28.2.1998. No appearance had been entered on behalf of the Sole remaining Defendant M/s. Menson Accessories. The provisions of Ors. xxxvII are explicit and postulate that on the failure of the Defendant to enter appearance the allegations in the Plaint shall be deemed to be admitted and the Plaintiff shall be entitled to a decree for any sum not exceeding the sums mentioned in the summons together with interests at the specified rate and to costs as determined by the Court. 2. A perusal of the plaint discloses that a contract for the supply of 1500 pieces of lea...
Tag this Judgment!D.C. Verma Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and anr.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 2000IIIAD(Delhi)880; 85(2000)DLT230; 2000(53)DRJ796
A.K. Sikri, J. 1. Petitioner is a retired employee of Registry of the Delhi High Court and joined the Registry on 15th November, 1987 as Jr. Translator. On 6th October, 1977 he was promoted as interpreter and was confirmed on this post w.e.f. 4th August, 1982. He retired as Interpreter on attaining the age of superannuation, w.e.f. 31st January, 1985. At the time of his retirement the post of interpreter carried the pay scale of Rs. 775-1200/-. The pension of the petitioner was accordingly fixed taking into consideration the pay which he was drawing at the time of his retirement. At that time there were three permanent posts of interpretator. Two were redesignated as Court Master w.e.f. 6th August, 1985 and the third post was also redesignated as Court Master w.e.f. 30th May, 1987. It may be mentioned that as per Item No. II of Schedule II to the Delhi High Court Staff (Seniority) Rules, 1971 post of interpreter was an equal status post with the post of Superintendent, Court Master, Pr...
Tag this Judgment!Kashi Ram Vs. Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal No. 1 and ors.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: (2001)IIILLJ909Del
ORDERA.K. Sikri, J.1. Rule.2. Petitioner was engaged as Beldar by MCD w.e.f. January 1, 1966. He was assigned duties of Mate on April 14, 1972. Respondent MCD has scheme for regularisation of daily wage workers and the seniority list of such daily wage workers is maintained as per which daily wagers are regularised on their turn when the posts on regular basis become available. The name of the petitioner was entered in the list of daily wage Beldars and as per that list his turn to get regularised on the post of Beldar came in 1975 and accordingly orders were passed regularising him as Beldar w.e.f. April 1, 1975. He accepted the same and started working as Beldar on regular basis and also getting benefit of regularisation i.e. salary and allowances etc. However thereafter he raised industrial dispute raising the grievance that he should have been regularised as painter as on the date when he was regularised as Beldar, as he was in fact working as Painter on daily wage basis. The dispu...
Tag this Judgment!