Delhi Court April 2000 Judgments
Home Cases Delhi 2000 Page 2 of about 143 results (0.015 seconds)Subhra Ranjan Mishra Vs. the Chairman, U.P.S.C. and Another
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 86(2000)DLT344
ORDERManmohan Sarin, J.1. The petitioner seeks quashing of the order dated 19.3.1998, passed by the U.P.S.C. debarring the petitioner from all examinations/selections for a period of 10 years w.e.f. 5.3.1998 and cancelling his candidature for the Civil Services (Main Examinations) 1997. The petitioner was found adopting unfair means in as much as one of the answers to question 3(b) in the petitioner's answer book tallied verbatim with the incriminating material recovered from the petitioner. He found to be in possession of study material and notes while answering the question paper in contravention of Instruction No.4(d). The petitioner in the writ petition had prayed in the alternative for reduction of the punishment imposed to a maximum period of debar of 2 years. 2. Notice to show cause was issued on 2.9.1999. Pleadings have since been completed. The petitioner also moved CM No.2296/2000 praying for being permitted to take the forthcoming Civil Services Examination in June, 2000. At...
Tag this Judgment!Sunita Srivastava Vs. Union of India and anr.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 2000VAD(Delhi)973; 2000(56)DRJ105
ORDERA.K. Sikri, J.1. Petitioner graduated from Delhi University and also holds diploma in Typing and Shorthand. She applied for the post of Steno-cum-Typist in response to advertisement dated 15.1.94 issued by Respondent No. 2, namely, Export Credit Guarantee Corporation of India Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as Respondent Corporation). Written test and Typing test were conducted on 8.10.94. Petitioner undertook the said tests. Thereafter she received letter dated 18.10.94 informing her to appear before the Interview Board on 11.11.94. List of successful candidates was declared by respondent No. 2 for appointment to the post of Steno-cum-typist. Name of the Petitioner, however, appeared in the waiting list at Seriall No. 9 for general category candidate for appointment in Delhi region. 2. Petitioner was, however, taken in the employment of respondent-corporation w.e.f. 1.8.95 for a period of three months i.e. up to October, 1995. Since parties are at dispute about the circumstances un...
Tag this Judgment!Smt. Surinder Kaur and Amrik Singh Saluja Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ...
Court: Delhi
Reported in: [2000]245ITR135(Delhi)
1. In a search conducted at the residential premises of the petitioner by the authorities under the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act (for short, 'the FERA') on August 15, 1997, cash amounting to Rs. 1,18,00,000 was seized. Thereafter proceedings under the FERA were initiated against Amrik Singh, petitioner. The proceedings are continuing. Shri Amrik Singh as well as his wife, Smt. Surinder Kaur, have challenged the action of the respondents by way of the present petitions.2. Rule D. B. was issued vide order dated January 19, 2000. The petitioners in both the writ petitions have moved the present applications praying that the seized amount be released to them subject to the petitioners furnishing bank guarantee(s) for refund of the amount. The applications have been mainly contested on behalf of the Income-tax Department. So far as learned counsel appearing for the Director of Enforcement is concerned, his main concern has been that in the event of order of confiscation being passed in t...
Tag this Judgment!Mac Venetians Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (2001)(130)ELT105TriDel
1. The appellants - M/s. Mac Venetians, are manufacturers of 'Venetian blinds' and 'Vertical blinds'. The dispute relates to payment of central excise duty on vertical blinds manufactured and cleared during the years 1989-90,1990-91,1991-92 and 1992-93. The goods had originally been cleared without payment of duty as exempted under Notification No.65/87 dated 1-3-1987 as made without the aid of power. After investigations, show cause notice dated 13-12-1994 was issued holding that the goods were actually manufactured with the aid of power and therefore, this notice invoked the extended period as contemplated in proviso to Section 11A of the Act on the allegation that the manufacturers had wilfully suppressed facts with intent to evade payment of duty on the goods manufactured by them. The adjudication Order No. 7/98, dated 23-7-1998 impugned in this appeal was passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Delhi-I confirming duty demand of Rs. 26,63,825 /-. The order also imposed a pen...
Tag this Judgment!Vinitec Electronics Laboratory Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (2000)(71)ECC665
1. The common issue arising for determination in these appeals is the classification of UPS systems manufactured by the appellants herein.The Revenue authorities have classified the goods under CET Chapter heading 8543 as against the assessees claim for classification as Static convertors under Chapter heading 8504 and as a result of classification under Chapter heading 8543, demands have been confirmed on clearances during the period from July 1995 to July 1996.2.1 We have heard Shri Naveen Mullick, learned Advocate and Shri Ashok Kumar, learned DR. The appellants have filed two Misc Applications. The prayer in E/M/10/ 2000-B is for permission to raising the following additional grounds of appeal: The classification lists of the appellants filled till the year 1994-95 including classification lists w.e.f. 1.4.95 had already been approved by the proper officer by classifying UPS under heading No. 85.04. While filing their classification declaration w.e.f. 1.5.95, it was again claimed ...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Avon Cycles Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (2000)(120)ELT640TriDel
2. The issue relates to Modvat on parts of Crane. It is settled position now that Crane is held to be an item of capital goods. When once crane is considered to be capital goods, obviously parts and accessories of the capital goods are covered under Clause (b) of the explanation to Rule 57Q. I find that the issue involved herein has been properly analysed by the Commissioner (appeals) in the impugned order.Accordingly, I do not find any infirmity in the impugned order. In the result, the appeal is dismissed....
Tag this Judgment!Deputy Commissioner of Vs. Satnam Paper Mills (P.) Ltd.
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Reported in: (2001)77ITD267(Delhi)
1. This is an appeal filed at the instance of revenue against the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) on 1-2-1994 relevant to assessment year 1991-92. The solitary ground projects the grievance of the revenue as under: "The learned Commissioner (Appeals) has erred in Law and on the fads of the case in holding that tubewells are 'Plant' and in directing the Assessing Officer to allow depreciation on 'tubewell' at the rates applicable to plant, when, as per note 1 below the appendix 1 to IT Rules, 1962, 'tubewell' is included in the term 'building' and accordingly the Assessing Officer had correctly calculated depreciation on 'tubewell' at the rates applicable to 'buildings'.2. The facts of the case lie in a narrow compass. The assessec included tubewelt in plant and machinery and claimed depreciation at the rate of 33.33%. The Assessing Officer, while framing assessment under section 143(3), treated the tubewell as apart of building and allowed depreciation accordingly. Aggrieve...
Tag this Judgment!Hari Chand Vs. Government of Nct of Delhi and Another
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 2000VAD(Delhi)220; 86(2000)DLT590
ORDERA.K. Sikri, J.1. Petitioner was employed by respondent No. 2 - M/s. Ashok Hotel as painter on daily wage basis w.e.f. 1st May, 1971. His services were terminated on 1st February, 1978. He raised industrial dispute challenging his termination which was referred for adjudication to Labour Court IV. Labour Court gave award dated 22nd April, 1993 holding that termination of petitioner's service were illegal and unjustified and he was entitled to be reinstated with full back wages and continuity of service. Pursuant to this award petitioner was allowed to join the duties on 6th July, 1995 as 'Technical Grade-III' in the pay scale of Rs. 1050-1425/-. On 20th September, 1994 petitioner protested against the grant of this pay scale and demanded the pay scale of Rs. 1100-1640/- w.e.f. 17th May, 1998. In January 1995 he even lodged a complaint with Labour Commissioner against the Management that it was committing unfair labour practice. It was followed with many representations. Ultimately ...
Tag this Judgment!L.N. Soni Vs. Union of India and Another
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 2000(56)DRJ98
ORDERManmohan Sarin, J.1. Petitioner is aggrieved by letter dated 17.12.1999, Annexure-E, appearing at page 77 of the paper book, by which the petitioner's application for granting conversion of leasehold rights into freehold rights in respect of his flat over a shop has been declined. Respondents while declining the request for conversion stated that the amount of conversion fee, remitted alongwith the application would be refunded shortly. 2. Petitioner has a lease in respect of residential flat No.52, First Floor, Khan Market, New Delhi, which is in occupation of a tenant. There is a shop underneath. The position, thereforee, is that as far as the plot is concerned shop on the ground floor is commercial while flat is residential. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in this case, flat is fully built up and petitioner is entitled to the benefit of conversion. On reading of the policy, I am unable to agree with the submissions. The policy starts with, 'Considering the lo...
Tag this Judgment!Vandana Rolling Mills Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (2001)(130)ELT321TriDel
1. In this Appeal the dispute is on determination of the Annual Production capacity of re-rolling mill.2. The facts of the case in brief are that the applicants are re-rolling mill. They furnished figures for determination of the Annual Production Capacity of their re-rolling mill. In the Rules, there was a provision. In case, the annual capacity determined by the formula in sub rule (3) of Rule 3 in respect of a mill, is less than the actual production of the mill during the financial year 1996-97, then the annual capacity so determined shall be deemed to be equal to the actual production of the mill during the financial year 1996-97. The case of the appellant as contended by the ld. Counsel is that the parameters, especially 'd' factor was changed inasmuch as during the financial year 1996-97 the value of 'd' factor was 225 mm which was reduced to 203 mm and intimation thereof was sent on 1-9-97 though the change was effected on 30-7-97. Ld. Counsel contended that since 1996-97 fina...
Tag this Judgment!