Delhi Court July 2000 Judgments
Home Cases Delhi 2000 Page 11 of about 277 results (0.021 seconds)Unified Agro Industries (India) Ltd. and ors. Vs. Debts Recovery Tribu ...
Court: Delhi
Reported in: AIR2000Delhi394; 2000(56)DRJ307
Devinder Gupta, J. 1. Order passed on 5.5.1999 by Debt Recovery Tribunal, Delhi constituted under Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 (Act No. 51 of 1993) (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') is under challenge by the petitioners in these two separate petitions filed under Article 226 read with Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The petitioners have prayed for setting aside of the said order dated 5.5.1999 by which the Tribunal has allowed the application of the respondent Bank for passing an order against the petitioners on the alleged admissions. 2. The grievance of the petitioners is that the application of the respondent Bank was allowed and final order was passed by the Tribunal: (a) without holding trial on disputed facts emerging from pleadings of the parties and without adjudicating upon bank's claim submitted for adjudication, in view of the disputes stated there and contrary to the manner mandated by the provisions of the Act. The Proc...
Tag this Judgment!S.B. Vohra and ors. Vs. Union of India (Uoi)
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 2000(55)DRJ39
Devinder Gupta, J.1. Directions are sought in this petition against the respondents to forthwith revise the existing pay scales for the post of Assistant Registrars and posts higher thereto as per the recommendations made by Chief Justice in his letter dated 15.10.1991 and to pay to them the revised scales of pay w.e.f. 1.1.1986, the date with reference to which . scales of pay for the posts of Superintendents, Court Masters and Private Secretaries were revised.2. The petitioners are employees of this Court. It is their case that Fourth Pay Commission was set up through Resolution dated 29.7.1983, which was required to inquire into and make recommendations inter-alia, on the structure of. emoluments and conditions of service of different classes of Central Government employees and those of union territories. Employees of Supreme Court and Delhi High Court were outside the scope of inquiry of commission, in view of provisions of Articles 146 and 229 of the Constitution of India. After F...
Tag this Judgment!K.N. Khanna Vs. B.K. Khanna
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 2000(55)DRJ544
Devinder Gupta, J.1. There two appeals arise out of common order dated 14.7.1999 passed by learned Single Judge of this Court deciding objections old the appellant to the execution of decree and thereby holding the Execution Application maintainable and consequently, directing the properly in question to be put to sale by advertisement.2. Facts in brief are that property No. 22, Ratendon Road, now known as 22 Amrita Shergil Marg, New Delhi including leasehold rights in the plot of land measuring 0.91 acre was purchased jointly on 12-5-1955 by K.N. Khanna, the appellant and his late brother B.K. Khanna. Their divorced sister Mrs. Kamla Rathour and mother Mrs. Shama Khanna also lived in the property, in separate portions. On 6-2-1973 suit No. 59/73 was filed by Industrial Finance Corporation of India (IFC1) against K.N. Khanna and B.K. Khanna and the family Company, namely B.K. Khanna and Company Private Limited, who were guarantors to the loan advanced by IFC1 to Shama Forge Limited, a ...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Bhilai Engg. Corp.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (2000)(121)ELT536TriDel
1. This appeal has been filed by the Revenue against the impugned order dated 1-3-1994 passed by the Collector (Appeals) vide which he had reversed the order-in-original of the Assistant Collector who confirmed the duty demand of Rs. 2,923/-, Rs. 3,16,717/- and Rs. 1,65,694/- on the strength of three show cause notices dated 4-11-1992, 14-12-1992 and 3-2-1993 and also imposed penalty of Rs. 10,000/- on the respondents.2. The respondents are 100% EOU. They received certain fabricated structures from M/s. Bhilai Engineering Corporation and colour coated corrugated sheets from M/s. Nippon Denro Ispat Ltd. by claiming exemption under Notification No. 123/81-CE but it was found that exemption under this notification was not available to them and they were served with three show cause notices vide which recovery of different duty amounts was proposed to be made from them. After getting their reply to those show cause notices, the Assistant Collector confirmed the duty demands of all the amo...
Tag this Judgment!Utkal Hydrocarbons Vs. Cce
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (2001)(73)ECC329
1. The appellants filed this appeal against order in appeal date 21.7.99 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals).2. In the impugned order the 'Furnace Oil' manufactured by the appellants was held to be classified under heading 2707.90 of the Central Excise Tariff Act. The Ld. counsel appeared on behalf of the appellants submits that appellants filed classification list classified this product under heading 2710.90 and the classification list was duly approved. He submits that the present show cause notice was issued on the ground that the product in question has a predominance of aromatic constituents hence it is classified under heading 2707.90 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act. He submits that adjudicating authority relied upon the letter from M/s SAIL the supplier of the inputs to the appellants. He submits that adjudicating authority after relying upon the letter held that supplier of the inputs i.e. M/s SAIL have confirmed the predominance of aromati...
Tag this Judgment!Omega Alloys Castings (P) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (2000)(121)ELT336TriDel
1. G.A. Brahma Deva, Member (J)]. This appeal arise out of and is directed against the order-in-appeal dated 2-7-1999 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), Central Excise, Bhopal.2. Shri Bipin Garg, ld. Advocate appeared for the appellant submitted that the issue relates to refund claim. Refund claim was dismissed by the authorities below on the ground that it was time-barred. He said that the question of time-bar issue does not arise in this case because of the fact that on merits the party has challenged the proceedings of the Tribunal and the Tribunal has remanded the matter as per order dated 27-9-1991 allowing the appeal with consequential relief. He also submitted that the duty amount was paid under protest. In these circumstances, he requested to allow the appeal.3. In the facts and circumstances and in view of the fact that the Tribunal has allowed the appeal filed by the party with consequential relief, the question of time-bar does not arise as it was rightly argued on behal...
Tag this Judgment!Avs Industries Ltd and anr. Vs. Aaifr and Others
Court: Delhi
Reported in: [2003]115CompCas255(Delhi); 86(2000)DLT683; 2000(54)DRJ902
ORDERArijit Pasayat, CJ. 1. Rule D.B. Since a short point is involved, with the consent of counsel for parties, this petition is taken up for final hearing. 2. Controversy in this petition lies within a very narrow compass, to appreciate which, a brief reference to factual aspects would suffice: Petitioner No. 1 filed an application before Board for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction (BIFR in short) under Section 15(1) of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') After hearing on certain dates, BIFR passed an order on 16th November, 1999, inter alia, with the following directions : 'Therefore, IFCI is appointed as Coordinating Agency u/s 16(2) of the Act. CA would appoint a Chartered Accountant for conducting SIA and report in 8 weeks after holding a joint meeting of all secured creditors and company/promoters. Till then out orders on declaring the company as sick will continue to be reserved and after examining SIA report,...
Tag this Judgment!Suresh Chand Ahuja Vs. Govt. of Nct of Delhi and ors.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 2000(53)DRJ377
ORDERMukul Mudgal, J.1. This is a petition under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996, seeking reference of the claims as stated in Para 7(xiii) to the appointed arbitrator Shri Y.P.C. Dangay in terms of the Clause 25 of the Contract for adjudication. 2. It is stated that Mr. Y.P.C. Dangay has been appointed as an arbitrator by the respondents to adjudicate the claims/disputes of the petitioner. However, the learned counsel for the petitioner states that only three claims out of the claims enumerated in Para 7(xiii) have been referred and rest of the claims including the claim for interest has not been referred without there being any basis and justification for the same. 3. No reply has been filed on behalf of the respondents despite the time granted on 4th February, 2000. Accordingly, after hearing the learned counsel for the parties, the petition is allowed. The claims enumerated in Para 7(xiii) are referred to the appointed Arbitrator, i.e., Mr. Y.P.C. Dangay i...
Tag this Judgment!Council of the Institute of Chartered Accountants of India, N.D. Vs. R ...
Court: Delhi
Reported in: AIR2000Delhi375; [2000]102CompCas452(Delhi); 2000(56)DRJ525
ORDERArijit Pasayat, CJ. 1. This is a reference under Section 21 of the Chartered Accountants Act, 1949 (for short the Act) by The Institute of Chartered Accountants of India (hereinafter referred to as the Institute). Proceedings were initiated against Shri Rishi K. Gupta, F.C.A., a member of the Institute (hereinafter referred to as the respondent), alleging that he was guilty of professional misconduct. Starting point for the same was a complaint received by the Council of the Institute from General Manager(Inspection and Finance), State Bank of Patiala, (hereinafter referred to as the 'complainant'), alleging that M/s Rishi Gobind & Associates, Chartered Accountants of which respondent was a partner had submitted bogus bills/receipts in respect of their claim of halting allowance, expenses for the audit of bank's four branches for the year ended 31.12.1984. Disciplinary Committee constituted under the Act came to the conclusion that respondent was guilty of professional/other misco...
Tag this Judgment!M/S. Sadi Ram Sheo Shankar Vs. Madan Lal and Others
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 2000(56)DRJ587
ORDERK.S. Gupta, J.1. This Order will govern the disposal of I. A. Nos. 9487/97 and 8049/98. I.A. 9487/97 under Order xxxvII Rule 3(7) read with section 151 CPC and Section 5 of the Limitation Act has been filed by defendant No. 3 seeking condensation of 46 days delay in entering appearance. I. A. 8049/98 under Order xxxvII Rule 2(3) and section 151 CPC has been filed by the plaintiff seeking passing of decree for the suit amount against the defendants. It is alleged that although defendant No. 3 was served with summons on 20th September, 1995, it entered appearance only on 15th November 1995. Defendants 1 & 2 were served by publication on 27th June, 1998, still defendant No. 1 has not entered appearance till date. 2. As is manifest from the order dated 3rd February 2000 the counsel of the plaintiff was asked to show how this suit against defendant No. 3 is maintainable under Order xxxvII CPC. I have heard Sh. Surindra M.Mittal for plaintiff and Sh. Kailash Gambhir for defendant No. 3 ...
Tag this Judgment!