Delhi Court January 2001 Judgments

National Agricultural Co-operative Marketing Federation of India Ltd. ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2001IIIAD(Delhi)887; 90(2001)DLT754; 2001(58)DRJ799

ORDERArun Kumar,J. 1. National Agricultural Co-operative Marketing Federation of India Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as NAFED, for short) has filed this Letters Patent Appeal against judgment dated 19th July, 1999 rendered by learned Single Judge in Civil Writ Petition No. 6239 of 1998. The writ petition was filed by two petitioners (respondents herein) namely, NAFED Processed Foods Employees Union (Regd.), and NAFED Process Food Karamchari (Workers) Union. By the impugned judgment the aforesaid Civil Writ Petition No.2. 6239 of 1998 of the respondents herein has been allowed. Orders passed by the appellant herein under Clause 17(IV)(d) of the Staff Regulations dated 23/24th December, 1998, 23rd December, 1998, 4th January, 1999 and 5th January, 1999 in respect of 67 employees have been set aside holding that they are arbitrary, unreasonable and vocative of Article 14 of Constitution of India and thereforee amounted to illegal and arbitrary mode of retrenchment. It may be mentioned tha...

Municipal Corporation of Delhi Vs. Parveen Kapoor

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2001VIAD(Delhi)717; 90(2001)DLT517

C.M. 2979/2000: S.K. Mahajan, J. 1. On 13th September, 2000, the Counsel for the petitioner sought time to verify the fact whether vigilance enquiry has been completed or not and whether the documents relating to Vigilance have been filed in Court or not. On this request being made, the Court adjourned the case for 31st January, 2001 subject t payment of costs of Rs. 2,500/-. 2. This application has now been filed for modification of the order on the ground that the complaints by the public to the Vigilance Department were enquired into and the concerned officers were charge-sheeted and suspended. It is further stated that the evidence is being recorded before the Vigilance Department and findings of the Central Vigilance Commission would be filed in due course and appropriate action will be taken. It is, thereforee, stated that this Court was misled by the petitioner and the cost of Rs. 2,500/- was, thereforee, imposed. It is submitted that the petitioner being a public Corporation, i...

Manjit Malik Vs. Ramesh Kumar Malik and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2001VAD(Delhi)244; 90(2001)DLT488; 2001(58)DRJ143

S.K. Mahajan, J.1. The petitioner has filed a suit being S. No. 38/96 for injunction restraining the respondents from interfering in any manner with the ownership rights of the plaintiff in the property in his possession. The suit was filed during vacations in December, 1995 and on 29th December, 1995 the Court while issuing notice to the respondents directed status quo to be maintained as on that day. It appears that despite the reply having been filed by the respondent the application for interim injunction was not being decided by the Trial Court and the petitioner, thereforee, filed this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for a direction to the Trial Court to decide his interim applications without any further delay. All these applications have since been decided by the Trial Court. It appears that the respondent had also filed a suit for possession being S. No. 665/95 and the said suit is also being tried with the suit filed by the petitioner. A perusal of the...

Anand Dev Tyagi Vs. Indraj Yadav and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2001VAD(Delhi)245; 90(2001)DLT496

S.K. Mahajan, J.1. Despite the case having been passed over once, no one is appearing on behalf of the petitioner.2. By judgment dated 16th August, 1996 while disposing of the writ petition, the Court respondent No. 4 not to treat the petitioner under suspension on and from 25th July, 1994 and as a consequent thereto further direction was given to pay all consequential benefits to the petitioner as regards pay and allowances subject, of course, to the petitioner satisfying respondent No. 4 during that period he was not gainfully employed. The payment was not made by respondents to the petitioner which resulted in the petitioner filing the present petition for initiating proceedings for contempt against the respondents.3. The case of the respondents in reply is that in terms of undated letter received by the respondents on 10th September, 1996 the petitioner has himself admitted that he was helping his wife with tuitions from September, 1994 onwards and at the relevant time there was ab...

G.C. Ghosh @ M. Karim Ghazi Vs. Sushmita Ghosh

Court: Delhi

Reported in: I(2001)DMC469

Arun Kumar, J. 1. The respondent/plaintiff had instituted a suit in this Court against the appellant/defendant. The suit a was filed under Section 18 of Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956 for maintenance and for separate residence. Appellant/defendant is the husband of the respondent/plaintiff. The respondent filed the aforesaid suit, inter alia, on the averments that the appellant had abandoned and deserted her in July, 1992 because he developed intimate relations with a lady named Vanita Gupta with whom he subsequently got married to after conversion into Islam religion with he mala fide intention of marrying for the second time. He in fact married her later. If it snot necessary to give other details. Purpose would be served by mentioning that after the trial of the suit, the learned Single Judge recorded the following conclusion and findings:(1) The defendant in order to get married to Vanita Gupta converted himself into Islam religion. (2) The plaintiff possesses a degree o...

Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. G.K. Chadha

Court: Delhi

Reported in: [2001]252ITR617(Delhi)

Arijit Pasayat, C.J. 1. Heard. 2. All these reference applications are interlinked in the sense that they relate to the same assessed and the dispute revolves round the allowability of interest to the Hindu undivided family (for short 'the HUF'), of the assessed. The references have been made under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short 'the Act'). So far as the assessment years 1971-72, 1972-73 (I. T. R. Nos. 187-88 of 1981) and 1973-74 (I. T. R. No. 148 of 1981) are concerned, the Revenue is in reference against the Tribunal's decision that interest was allowable as expenditure both under Section 36(1)(iii) and Section 37 of the Act. So far as these references are con-cerned, the Revenue's stand is that on the death of Shri B. N. Chadha, his son, i.e., the assessed, could not have constituted a Hindu undivided family. We find that there was no dispute by the Revenue before the Tribunal on the point that with effect from December 31, 1969, the capital account standing in...

Eicher Goodearth Ltd. Vs. Dy. Cit

Court: Delhi

Reported in: (2001)71TTJ(Del)841

ORDERKrishnan Swarup, A. M.This is an appeal by the assessed against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals), New Delhi, dated 2-11-1994, for the assessment year 1991-92.2. The first two grounds of appeal, which relate to the same issue, read as under :'1. That the Commissioner (Appeals), New Delhi has grossly erred on facts and in law in confirming the action of the assessing officer in restricting the claim for deduction under section 80HHC of the Income Tax Act, 1961 to Rs. 12,04,575 as against the appellants claim of Rs. 46,93,152.2. That the Commissioner (Appeals), New Delhi has grossly erred on facts and in law in confirming the action of the assessing officer in excluding the amount of Rs. 76.85 lakhs on account of income from interest and dividend from the 'Business Income' for the purpose of computing deduction under section 80HHC of the Income Tax Act, 1961.'3. The facts in brief are that the assessed had claimed deduction under section 80HHC at Rs. 46,83,152 with reference t...

M/S. Special Tools Vs. Cce, Meerut

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. The appellants in these two appeals are manufacturers of excisable goods covered by Chapter 84 and 87 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 and are availing the facility of modvat credit on inputs under Rule 57A of the Central Excise Rules 1944. During the relevant periods, they manufactured parts of car air-conditioners and cleared the same on payment of Central Excise Duty to certain manufacturers of car air conditioners. Some of the parts so supplied by the appellants were found to be defective and hence returned to them by the manufacturers of car air conditioners and, when this was done, the latter duly paid duty of excise on the defective goods removed from their factory to the appellants. The appellants, on their part, treated the defective parts as their inputs and used them for manufacture of defect-free parts, which were subsequently supplied on payment of duty of excise to the same customers. In doing so, the appellants took modvat credit on the aforesai...

M/S. Shiv Pratap Verma Sr Mills Vs. Cce, Allahabad

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. For hearing their appeal M/s. Shiv Pratap Verma SR Mills Ltd. are required to pre-deposit a sum of Rs.5000/- imposed on them by way of penalty. Shri A.P. Mathur, Advocate submits that the goods seized had been provisionally released and the appellants had paid the appropriate Central Excise duty.2. We have heard Shri A.P. Mathur and Shri Mewa Singh, SDR and have gone through the facts on record. In the facts and circumstances of the case we waive the requirement of pre-deposit of Rs.5000/ (Rupees five thousand) by way of penalty and stay its recovery till the disposal of the appeal. Shri A.P. Mathur, Advocate prays for early hearing of the matter as the appeal itself was filed in the year 1991. To come up for regular hearing on 6.7.2001....

Crompton Greaves Ltd. Vs. C.C.E. Chandigarh

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. The Rule 173 L of Central excise Rules, 1944 provides that the Commissioner may grant refund of the duty paid on manufacture of excisable goods issued for home consumption form factory which are returned to the same or any other factory for being re-made, refined, reconditioned or subject to any other similar process in the factory.2. The appellants filed two refund claims of Rs. 89,712.78 and Rs. 1,29.702.97, both on 24.9.1997 in respect of goods cleared by them earlier on payment of duty and returned to them in terms of the provisions of this rules. These refund claims were however, rejected by the Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise, Chandigarh vide his Order dated 16.7.1999/5.8.1999 by observing that the party had given intimation of the receipt of the rejected goods but they failed to submit duty paying documents against which the said D-3 intimation was filed. He has observed that since the party has failed to provide the duty paying document in support of their refund c...