Delhi Court March 2000 Judgments
Home Cases Delhi 2000 Page 19 of about 221 results (0.021 seconds)Attar Kaur Vs. Delhi Development Authority
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 2000VAD(Delhi)376; 2000(53)DRJ513
ORDERDr. M.K. Sharma, J.1. In the year 1979 the Delhi Development Authority, the respondent herein, announced a Scheme for allotment of flats in Delhi to the citizens of India. The said Scheme was called the New Pattern Registration Scheme, 1979 (In short, 'N.P.R.S., 1979'). The petitioner applied for under the said Scheme for allotment of a LIG flat. On the basis of the application of the petitioner her name was registered under the aforesaid Scheme. A priority list was drawn up in the year 1985 by the respondent and the petitioner was allotted a priority number being No.28509. The respondent thereafter floated another Scheme known as 'Avas Sakar Yojna' in the month of November, 1988 wherein an option was given to the registrants of N.P.R.S. 1979 with priority number beyond 10000 to give their willingness to become members of Cooperative Group Housing Societies to be formed under the supervision of the Delhi Development Authority with a stipulation that such Societies would be allotte...
Tag this Judgment!D.T.C. Vs. Shishu Pal and ors.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 2000IIIAD(Delhi)712; [2000(85)FLR431]
ORDERA.K. Sikri, J.1. No rejoinder is filed by the petitioner inspire of various opportunities given and last opportunity given on 2.12.1997. Rule. Respondent workman was employed as Tyre man from May, 1980 and brought on monthly rates of pay with effect from 6.5.1981. From 16.6.1987, he absented himself from duties and in these circumstances, invoking provisions of Clause 14(10) (c) of the D.R.J. Act he was declared as deemed to have resigned from the services. It is stated in the petition that respondent workman was served with two memos dated 24.7.1987 as well as 31.8.1987 asking him to report for duties but when he failed to report for duties provisions of clause 14 (10) (c) of DRJ Act (Conditions of appointment and Services) Regulation 1952 were invoked and it was treated that respondent workman deemed to have resigned from services. Respondent workman raised industrial dispute which was referred to Labour Court and impugned award dated 11.10.1996 is passed as per which the termin...
Tag this Judgment!M.J. Engineering Works Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (2001)(134)ELT140TriDel
1. The appellants herein purchase duty paid galvanized pipes from the open market and subject the pipes to processes of cutting/drilling/punching/pressing so as to give them the shape of earth pipes and cleared them on payment of duty. According to the assessees, no duty was payable on clearance of galvanized earth pipes as the process carried out by them did not amount to manufacture.Hence, they filed a claim for refund of Rs. 98,283/- being the duty paid on the earth pipes. The claim was rejected by the authorities below on the ground that vide separate adjudication order, it was held the process carried out by the appellants amounts to manufacture and, therefore duty was correctly paid. Hence this appeal.2. We have heard Shri J.S. Agarwal, learned Advocate and Shri M.P.Singh, learned DR.3. We find that the assessees filed appeals to the Tribunal against order dated 29-9-1992 of the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), New Delhi on the finding regarding manufacture and the Appeals...
Tag this Judgment!Elecon Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (2000)(70)ECC454
1. The appellants are aggrieved with the Order-in-Original at 16.2.85 passed by Additional Collector of Central Excise, Meerut. By this order, the Id. Addl. Collector has confirred duty amount of Rs. 51,891.84 on aluminium strips and Rs. 18,144 on paper covered aluminium strips. He has also confirmed out demand on 4732.420 kgs., of copper strips besides demanding interest at the rate of 17.5%. He has also imposed an penalty of Rs. 50,000 under Rule 173Q of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. The seized goods were directed to be released on payment of fine of Rs. 5,000. The facts of the case are that on 1.5.84, the Central Excise Officers visited the factory of M/s. Elecon, Partapur, Meerut and found the party engaged in the manufactue of aluminium strips (T.I.27) and paper covered aluminium strips (Conductors) (T.I.68) without having obtained a Central Excise licence. They had only one Central Excise licence for the manufacture of copper strips falling under Item 26A.Scrutiny of the recor...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of C. Ex. Vs. Orient Steel Rerolling Mills
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (2000)(119)ELT152TriDel
1. The issue relates to the availability of the Modvat credit amounting to Rs. 9,387/-.2. The respondents took the Modvat credit under Rule 57Q on the air circuit breaker received by them as capital goods. The original authority by his Order, dated 2-5-1997 disallowed the credit on the ground that it is an independent electrical device which is used for breaking of electric current supply. It is stated that being a seperate electrical device and fitted to the main electrical panel it has no role in the actual production or manufacturing process of any goods or bringing about any changes in any substances as required by the said rule for an eligible capital goods.3. The Commissioner (Appeals), Bhopal in his Order, dated 5/15-2-1999 has relied on the decision of the Tribunal in Uttam Industrial Engineering Ltd. -1996 (86) E.L.T. 498 (T) in which it is held that if the goods performed the function of capital goods even prior to the amendment in the definition of the capital goods vide ex...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Kuldeep Singh and 4 ors.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (2000)(69)ECC725
1. These are 5 appeals filed by the Revenue. One appeal is filed against Shri Ajay Kumar Jain and another appeal has been filed against Shri Hargobind Singh. On careful consideration of the submissions made by Shri R.D. Negi, learned Senior Departmental Representative and Shri Jagjeet Singh, learned Advocate for Shri Ajay Kumar Jain we note that proceedings against Shri Ajay Kumar Jain were dropped and they were not the subject matter of the review before the Central Board of Excise and Customs. Therefore, the appeal filed by Revenue against Shri Ajay Kumar Jain is not sustainable and the same is rejected.2. Insofar as the reduction of the penalty imposed on Shri Hargobind Singh is concerned, we note that Hargobind Singh did not file an appeal before the Tribunal and the Tribunal had not sent back his case for de novo adjudication. Since his case was not sent back for de novo adjudication, therefore the question of reducing the penalty on him did not arise. In the circumstances, the l...
Tag this Judgment!Dr. Ranjit Sinha and Others Vs. Indian Railway Constn., Company Limite ...
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 2000VAD(Delhi)101; 2000(54)DRJ514
ORDERK.Ramamoorthy, J.1. The petitioner in CW. 2296/95 had prayed for the following reliefs in the amended writ petition:- 'It is, thereforee, most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to:- (i) to issue a writ of certiorari or any other writ or writs quashing the impugned Memorandum dated 7th June, 1985, with a direction to the respondent to adhere to the policy of seniority vis-a-vis contractual/ad-hoc re-employed staff; (ii) to issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondent to release the withheld salary in foreign emoluments US$ 1450, instead of US$ 1300 per month, with statutory interest of 2% per month; (iii) to issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ directing the respondent to place the petitioner in the pay-scale of Rs. 2200-4000 from the pay scale of Rs.2000-3500 which is the revised scale to the pre-revised scale of Rs.650-1200.' 2. CM.3624/98 was filed by the LRs of the deceased petitioner, Dr.Ranjit Singh, to bring themselves on re...
Tag this Judgment!ArwachIn Bharti Bhawan Vs. the Directorate of Education
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 2000VAD(Delhi)169; 86(2000)DLT99; 2000(54)DRJ124
ORDERK. Ramamoorthy, J.1. The petitioner/management of the school has filed the writ petition challenging the order of the Delhi School Tribunal dated 13.8.1996. 2. A few facts necessary for the appreciation of the question raised by the petitioner could be noticed as under: The second respondent was appointed as an Assistant Teacher in the petitioner school and she was confirmed on 9.3.1972. Disciplinary action was taken against her and she was kept under on suspension by order dated 27.4.1981. As per the provisions of the Delhi School Education Act, 1973 and the Rules thereunder, a Committee for holding a domestic inquiry was constituted and, consequently, the second respondent was removed from service vide order dated 19.9.1987. That was challenged by the second respondent before the Delhi School Tribunal. The Delhi School Tribunal set aside the order of removal holding that the Disciplinary Committee constituted was biased against the second respondent and in that two members of th...
Tag this Judgment!O.P. Thomar Vs. the Commissioner, Municipal Corpn. of Delhi and ors.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 2000IVAD(Delhi)433; 2000(56)DRJ355
ORDERA.K. Sikri, J.1. Admit. 2. This appeal is directed against Judgment and decree dated 18th January, 1999 passed by Shri Ved Prakash Vaish, Additional District Judge, Delhi dismissing the appellant/plaintiff's Suit for recovery of Rs 177048.58 p holding it to be barred by limitation. Learned counsel for the parties urged that as the trial court record has been and the point involved is short, the appeal be finally heard. Accordingly by this judgment the appeal is being disposed of. 3. Facts giving rise to this appeal briefly are : that the appellant (plaintiff) filed a suit against the respondents (defendants) for recovery of Rs. 1,77,048.58p with costs and interest @18% per annum from the date of filing of the suit till the date of realisation alleging therein that the defendant No. 2 is the sole proprietor of defendant No. 1, M/s. National Steels; that defendants had been purchasing iron steel goods from the plaintiff's firm and had been making part payments from time to time; as ...
Tag this Judgment!Ashok K. Khurana Vs. M/S. Steelman Industries and anr.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: AIR2000Delhi336; [2000]100CompCas659(Delhi); 85(2000)DLT398; 2000(56)DRJ818; (2000)125PLR39
ORDERS.K. Agarwal, J.1. Admit. 2. This appeal is directed against Judgment and decree dated 18th January, 1999 passed by Shri Ved Prakash Vaish, Additional District Judge, Delhi dismissing the appellant/plaintiff's Suit for recovery of Rs 177048.58 p holding it to be barred by limitation. Learned counsel for the parties urged that as the trial court record has been and the point involved is short, the appeal be finally heard. Accordingly by this judgment the appeal is being disposed of. 3. Facts giving rise to this appeal briefly are : that the appellant (plaintiff) filed a suit against the respondents (defendants) for recovery of Rs. 1,77,048.58p with costs and interest @18% per annum from the date of filing of the suit till the date of realisation alleging therein that the defendant No. 2 is the sole proprietor of defendant No. 1, M/s. National Steels; that defendants had been purchasing iron steel goods from the plaintiff's firm and had been making part payments from time to time; a...
Tag this Judgment!