Delhi Court February 2001 Judgments

M/S Accurate Tubes Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Cce Delhi - Iii

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. In this case the Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise Division-IIII, Faridabad vide his order dated 3.9.97, disallowed the modvat credit of Rs. 27,381.00 and Rs.38057.00 availed by the appellants on the strength of the invoices No. 90 dated 28.2.95 and NO.312 dated 6.3.95 issued by the dealers. He therefore imposed penalty of Rs.5000/- on them. The Original Authority denied modvat credit on the first invoice as the same did not contain the details of manufacture's invoice such as description and chapter heading of goods, assessable value and quantity of the goods and the amount of duty as required under notification No. 32/94-CE(NT) and 33/94-CE(NT) both dated 4.7.94.The modvat credit on the second invoice is denied on the ground that same did not bear the discription "duplicate for transporter" in printed form.2. The appellants filed an appeal before Commissioner (Appeals) New Delhi and appellants authority vide her order dated 28.12.99 allowed modvat credit in respect of the ...

The Commissioner of Income-tax Delhi-ii Vs. M/S. Riviera Apartments Co ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2001IIIAD(Delhi)460; (2001)167CTR(Del)501

ORDERD.K.Jain, J.1. Pursuant to the directions issued by this Court under Section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short 'the Act'), at the instance of Revenue, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal Delhi Bench-E ('the Tribunal' in short), has referred the following questions for our opinion:'1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was correct in law in holding that the assessed firm was genuinely constituted and was eligible for the benefit of registration under the Income-tax Act, 1961 for the assessment year 1971-72 ?''2. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was correct in law in holding that omission of certain partners as mentioned in the partnership deed dated 27.3.1969 from the partnership deed dated 14.5.1969 and 19.5.1969 did not tantamount to a major change in the constitution of the assessed firm and did not adversely affect the grant of registration in this case ...

Union of India and Another Vs. Major Singh and Chander Pal Singh

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2001IIIAD(Delhi)376; 2001(58)DRJ282

ORDERDalveer Bhandari, J. 1. By this common judgment we propose to dispose of LPA Nos 341 of 1998 and 291 of 1998 as the questions of law arising in them are common. Both these LPAs have been preferred by the Union of India and the Director General, Border Security Force. 2. The short question which arises for the determination of this court in these appeals is whether the Appellate Authority enjoys the powers and jurisdiction to impose the punishment in the nature of 'removal from service' which is not enumerated and Seriallized as one of the punishments under Section 48 of the Border Security Force Act (in short 'BSF Act'). 3. The respondents in these appeals were tried by the Summary Security Force Court on a charge under Section 19(a) of BSF Act for remaining absent without leave. During the course of their trials, the respondents pleaded guilty and the court awarded them the sentence of dismissal from service. 4. The respondents herein preferred statutory petitions before the Dire...

M/S Amalgamated Machines Corpn. Vs. P.O. Industrial Tribunal and Other ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2001IIIAD(Delhi)692; [2002(92)FLR211]; (2001)IILLJ309Del

ORDERMukul Modgal, J.1. In this writ petition an application , CM.8496/97 for early hearing was allowed on 29th July, 1998 and matter was directed to be listed for final disposal in the category of 'Regular Matters' in first five cases on 17.11.1998. Thereafter the matter was listed on 19th December, 2000 when none appeared for any of the parties. The matter is thereafter listed today. There is no appearance on behalf of any of the parties. Accordingly, the matter which is of the year 1994 is being taken up today for hearing.2. This writ petition challenges the Award passed by the Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal-II in I.D.No.1112 of 1984 dated 4th December, 1992.3. By the impugned Award the Tribunal held the termination of the workman-respondent No.2 to be illegal and directed his reinstatement with full back wages and 'continuity in service. The workman-respondent No.2 in this Court, had pleaded before the Tribunal that he had been working with the petitioner-management with ef...

Smt. Pushpa Soni and Another Vs. Smt. Sarbati Devi and Another

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2001IIIAD(Delhi)873; 90(2001)DLT634; 2001(58)DRJ157

ORDERVikramajit Sen, J.1. In this Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the Tenant/Petitioner has assailed the Order of the Additional Rent Controller dismissing her Review Petition filed under Section 25B(9) of the Delhi Rent Control Act (DRC Act). The brief facts of the case are that the Respondent/Landlady had filed a Petition for the eviction of the Tenant under Section 14(1)(e) read with Section 25B of the DRC Act. Notice/Summons were ordered on 9.7.1999 returnable on 9.8.1999. The Tenants were not served either by the ordinary process or by Registered post Acknowledgment Due. The order was repeated on the next date of hearing and service was ordered returnable on 1.9.1999. But again the Tenants were not served. The Reports were to the effect that Shri Anil Soni was out of station; Shri Kishore Soni did not reside at the premises; and Smt.Pushpa Soni had gone out of Delhi. In this sequence, an application dated August 31, 1999 had been filed by the Landlady unde...

G.E. Capital Transportation Financial Service Ltd. Vs. Sks Limited and ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2001IIIAD(Delhi)550; 2001(2)RAJ219

ORDERSharda Aggarwal, J.1. The applicant. G.E.Capital Transportation Financial Services Ltd. formerly known as S.R.F. Finance Limited has filed the present application under Section 8 read with Section 11 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996 (hereinafter referred as the Act) for the appointment of an Arbitrator in addition to the Arbitrator already appointed by them so that the two Arbitrators may appoint a presiding Arbitrator so that the Arbitral Tribunal may adjudicate upon the disputes having arisen between the applicants and the respondents relating to the lease agreement dated 21st March, 1992 executed between the parties.2. By virtue of this lease agreement the applicants had leased out to the respondent No.1 seven numbers of equipments described as 'Alloy Steel Rolls'. The lease agreement was for a period of sixty months and the respondent No.1 had agreed to pay specific lease rentals to the applicants as per the terms of the lease. The lease equipment however, remained to ...

Dhanpatlal Virmani Senior Secondary School and Another Vs. Shri J.D. K ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2001IIIAD(Delhi)770; 90(2001)DLT441; 2001(58)DRJ21

ORDERDalveer Bhandari, J.1. This appeal is directed against the order of the learned Single Judge dated 27.7.1998 passed in Civil Writ Petition No. 4471 of 1995.2. Brief facts necessary to dispose of this appeal are recapitulated as under :3. During the year 1982-83 the task of compilation and preparation of results of Class VI-B was entrusted/assigned to the class in charge, Radhey Shyam Gupta, rained Graduate Teacher (for short hereinafter referred to as TGT) working in the school of appellant No.1. The results for the said year were scheduled to be declared by 30.4.1983.4. It is alleged by the appellant that despite having made several requests, respondent No.4 failed to return the relevant record. The Principal of the school vide letter dated 20.4.1983 advised respondent No.4 to return the complete result sheets and the award lists of Class VI-B. It is further alleged by the Principal of the school that the peon reported to him that respondent No.4 tore the original letter along wi...

M/S Harsha Tractors Ltd. Vs. Secretary, (Labour) and Others

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2001IIIAD(Delhi)746; 90(2001)DLT385; [2001(89)FLR894]; (2001)ILLJ1549Del

ORDERMukul Mudgal, J.1. There is no appearance for any of the parties. There was no appearance for any of the parties on 9.1.2001 also. Accordingly, the writ petition which is of the year 1984 is being taken up today for hearing.2. On 17th of February, 1984, notice was issued by this Court confined to the question that as to Labour Court's award of disproportionate and excessive compensation of Rs.60,000/- to workman-respondent No.3 in lieu of reinstatement by the impugned Award dated 23rd July, 1983.3. This writ petition is thus confined to the quantum of compensation of Rs.60,000/- awarded in lieu of reinstatement. One cannot lose sight of the fact that the invalidity of the termination of services of the petitioner stood upheld by this Court's order dated 17.2.1984. I am only required to determine the plea raised by the petitioner that the amount awarded as compensation in lieu of reinstatement was excessive. Considering the fact that the petitioner-management's did not deny that ne...

Dr. Hari Prakash Vs. All India Institute of Medical Sciences

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2001IVAD(Delhi)429; AIR2001Delhi296; 91(2001)DLT199; 2001(58)DRJ746

ORDERManmohan Sarin, J. 1. The petitioner Dr. Hari Prakash, head of the Dental Faculty of the respondent All India Institute of Medical Sciences (hereinafter referred to as AIIMS). has filed this writ petition. He seeks quashing of the decision dated 23.3.2000 of the Academic Committee of the AIIMS, nominating and electing Dr. Naseem Shah as the representative of AIIMS to the Dental Council of India. The petitioner also seeks a declaration that he stands elected to the Dental Council of India under Section 3(d) of the Dentists Act 1948. 2. The grievance of the petitioner is that on 18.10.1999, the Dental Faculty of AIIMS, unanimously proposed his name as the representative of the respondent AIIMS to the Dental Council of India, for a term of 5 years under Section 3(d) of the Dentists Act 1948, yet the Academic Committee did not forward his name to Dental Council of India. The representative of the respondent AIIMS, to the Dental Council of India was to be elected out of the Dental Facu...

Ms. Saramma Ninan Vs. Mr. Ninan John and Others

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2001IVAD(Delhi)439; 91(2001)DLT60; II(2001)DMC43

ORDERArijit Pasayat, C.J.1. This matter has placed before this Bench because of the following order passed by learned single judge on 11th December, 2001'Since the constitutional validity of a statute is involved, List the matter before an appropriate Division Bench, subject to the orders of Hon'ble the Chief Justice, on 9th January, 2001.'2. When the matter was taken up we wanted to find out from the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as to how virus of certain provisions of Indian Divorce Act, 1869(in short the 'Act') can be decided in an original petition filed under Section 10 of the Act. Learned counsel for the petitioner referred to order XXVIIA of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908(in short the 'Code') and Section 113 thereof. Reference was also made to Article 228 of the Constitution of India, 1950(in short the 'Constitution'). Reference was also made to a decision of the Apex Court in Ganga Pratap v. Allahabad Bank Ltd., : [1958]1SCR1150 to contend that it is not impe...