Delhi Court March 2000 Judgments
Home Cases Delhi 2000 Page 18 of about 221 results (0.021 seconds)Sar Joo Parshad Vs. Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal No. 1 and o ...
Court: Delhi
Reported in: (2002)IVLLJ532Del
A.K. Sikri, J.1. Rule.2. Petitioner was engaged as Beldar by MCD w.e.f. September 1, 1970. He was assigned duties of Painter on November 15, 1976. 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 1978 and accordingly orders were passed in 1982 regularising him as Beldar w.e.f April 1, 1978. He accepted the same and started working as Beldar on regular basis also getting benefit i.e., salary and allowance 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, he was in fact working as Painter on daily wage basis. The dispute was referre...
Tag this Judgment!Y.N.P. Sinha Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 95(2002)DLT186; 2000(56)DRJ388
A.K. Sikri, J.1. Petitioner is working as General Manager (Coordination) in Nathpa Jhakri Power Corporation Limited/respondent No.3 (hereinafter referred to as NJPC, for short). He is aspiring to become Director (Civil). The post of Director (Civil) is a Board-level appointment and Public Enterprises Selection Board (hereinafter referred to as PESB, for short) considers the candidates for such appointment. As per the procedure prescribed for making Board-level appointments, when such post is advertised/notified the candidates who fulfill eligibility conditions attached to such post and apply for the same are interviewed/considered by PESB. PESB after interviewing the candidates prepare a penal of selected candidates. Thereafter vigilance clearance from Central Vigilance Commission (hereinafter referred to as DVC, for short) is sought and once the names which are cleared by CVC, are sent to AC and ACC may select one of the persons named in the panel after giving due consideration to var...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Mehta Steel Industries
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (2001)(133)ELT768TriDel
1. In this appeal filed by the Revenue, the issue involved herein is regarding the availability of the benefit of Notification No. 111/88, dated 1-3-1988 in respect of the shallow pan (Ghamala/ Tasla).According to the Revenue, the product shallow pan (Ghamala/Tasla) is classifiable only under Heading No. 73.26 of the GET and as such the benefit of the above said notification is not available to the respondents. Whereas the plea taken-up by the respondents is that the product is classifiable under Heading No. 82.01 of the Tariff and they are entitled to take the benefit of the Notification No. 111/88, dated 1-3-1988. The Asstt. Collector accepted the version of the respondents herein and through Order-in-Original, dated 26-10-1990 classified the product in question under Heading No. 82.01. This order was confirmed by the Collector (Appeal's).2. None has appeared for the respondents, M/s. Mehta Steel Indus-tries, although the notice for hearing was sent to them. As the matter is old, we...
Tag this Judgment!Maruti Udyog Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (2003)(161)ELT998TriDel
1. The issue involved in this appeal filed by M/s. Maruti Udyog Ltd. is whether the Waste and Scrap generated during the manufacture of body panels for fuel Efficient Motor Vehicles, is leviable to excise duty.2.1 Briefly stated the facts are that the Appellants manufacture, inter alia, fuel, efficient motor vehicles. For the manufacture of body panels, they imported cold-rolled (CR) steel sheets. They were availing exemption in respect of these C.R. sheets under Notification No.522/86-Cus., dated 31-12-1986 which granted partial exemption of basic customs duty and whole of the additional customs duty to the imported C.R. sheets and steel blanks when used in accordance with the provisions of Section 65 of the Customs Act for the manufacture of the body panels of the fuel efficient motor cars or vans of engine capacity not exceeding 1000 cc. The notification was subject to the condition that nothing contained in the notification shall apply to the Waste or refuse arising in the course ...
Tag this Judgment!Kosan Industries Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (2001)(130)ELT855TriDel
1. In this appeal filed by M/s. Kosan Industries Pvt. Ltd., the matter relates to the classification of the product described as Ethylene Oxide Road Tanker, which was independently built by the appellants for attachment on chassis of transport vehicle. The tanker built by them was to be secured with bolts and nuts on the chassis and used for carrying ethylene oxide and other fluids. The appellants claimed its classification as containers under Heading No. 8609.00 of the Central Excise Tariff while the Asstt. Collector of Central Excise, who adjudicated the matter classified them as bodies for the motor vehicles under sub-heading No. 8707 of the Central Excise Tariff. The view taken by adjudicating authority was confirmed by the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), who observed that the goods were not containers and after making a reference to the HSN Explanatory Notes, he agreed with the view taken by the adjudicating author-iry.2. The appellants have prayed for decision on merits. ...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of C. Ex. Vs. Kanak Fibre Fab (P) Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (2002)(139)ELT718TriDel
1. The Revenue has filed the captioned two appeals on the ground that the Commissioner has erred in holding that the extended period under proviso to Section 11A(1) is not applicable to the cases or the penalties /interests amount imposable/ recoverable under Section 11AC/11AB etc. for the following reasons : Before 1995 Budget, the product was classifiable as textile floor coverings of jute in view of the fact that jute was overall predominant in weight and in accordance with the declaration made. But it was never brought to the notice of the department by the party that 'exposed surface' of the carpet did not contain any jute. This was necessary for the classification of the floor coverings after the changes made in the budget of 1995-96. Predominance of the jute in the floor coverings was no longer relevant for determining the classification as floor coverings and what mattered was the composition of the exposed surface.The vital fact of the exposed surface being synthetic and not ...
Tag this Judgment!Sudhir Kapoor Vs. Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Ltd. and Another
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 2000VAD(Delhi)18; 85(2000)DLT668; 2000(54)DRJ300
ORDERDr. M.K. Sharma, J. 1. The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking for issuance of a writ quashing the award dated 31.12.1998 passed by respondent No.2 under Section 7(B) of the Indian Telegraph Act. 2. There were two telephone connections, both in the name of the petitioner. Telephone No.6801740 was released to the petitioner sometime in November 1989 Along with STD/ISD facilities. The said telephone was however, disconnected in the month of October, 1993. On the basis of another application filed by the petitioner he was allotted with another telephone No.6803600 which was released in the month of October, 1991 and the said telephone also had STD/ISD facilities. So far as telephone No.6801740 was concerned regular bills were not issued from time to time due to fault in the computer but a bil with due date of payment as 18.5.1993 was issued to the petitioner for the period from 30.5.1990 to 15.4.1993. The said bill included charges for rent, installation ch...
Tag this Judgment!Amir Ali Vs. Mst. Amina Begum
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 2000VAD(Delhi)24; 85(2000)DLT689
ORDERK. Ramamoorthy, J.1. The first respondent-plaintiff Mst. Amina Begum instituted the suit for partition on 7.9.1971 and she is yet to see the light at the end of the tunnel. She claimed 15/16 of share in the suit property. On 30.1.1982 a preliminary decree was passed. After the first respondent had complied with the order passed by the lower court directing her to deposit a sum of Rs. 20,000/- towards the 1/16th share of the first defendant in the suit in the final decree proceedings she applied for possession. That is being delayed by the petitioner. The first defendant in the suit was the mother of the first respondent. She died on 18.1.1987. The petitioner in the revision petition Amir Ali had been abusing the process of law by projecting his case by diverse pleas on different occasions. He sought an order from the lower court that the decree obtained by the first respondent had become a nullity on the ground that the L/Rs of the first defendant were not brought on record on tim...
Tag this Judgment!Trishul Enterprises and Other Vs. Smt. Shobha Rani Mehra
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 2000VAD(Delhi)249; 2000(54)DRJ134
ORDERDr. M.K. Sharma, J.1. The present revision petitions are directed against the order dated 7th December, 1998 passed by the Civil Judge, Delhi in Suit No. 55/1997 dismissing the two applications one filed under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure and the other under Order 12 rule 6 of the Code of Civil Procedure. As both these petitions arise out of the same order passed by the trial court and as the issues arising for consideration are overlapping and similar, I propose to dispose of both the petitions by this common order. As both the plaintiff as also the defendants filed separate revision petitions in this court as petitioners, I propose to describe them as plaintiff and defendants in the present order in order to avoid any confusion. 2. Smt. Shobha Rani Mehra filed a suit in the court of the Civil Judge, Delhi which was registered as Suit No. 55/1997. It was alleged in the plaint that the ground floor portion of property No.13/29-30, W.E.A., Karol Bagh, New Delhi wa...
Tag this Judgment!Nimai Sarkar Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 2000VAD(Delhi)364; 2000CriLJ3556; 86(2000)DLT448
ORDERM.S.A. Siddiqui, J.1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order of conviction dated 17.11.1997 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Delhi in Sessions Case No. 21/97 convicting the appellant under Section 20 of the Narcotic Psychotropic Substances Act (for short the Act') and sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years and to pay a fine of Rs. 50,000/- or in default to suffer further rigorous imprisonment for one year. 2. Briefly stated the prosecution case is that on 31.12.1995, at about 10.15 p.m. the appellant, on suspicion was apprehended by the police at the railway platform of Old Delhi Railway Station. The appellant informed the police about presence of Ganja in the suitcase and the bedding which he was carrying. The appellant was given the option for being searched before a Gazetted Officer or a Magistrate. He declined the offer. Thereafter Sub Inspector S.S. Rana (P.W. 9) took search of the appellant's bedding and the suitcase and recove...
Tag this Judgment!