Delhi Court March 2001 Judgments

M.P. Pandey and ors. Vs. Manohar Lal and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2001IVAD(Delhi)861; 90(2001)DLT546; [2001(91)FLR321]

B.A. Khan, J. 1. These two appeals involving common questions of facts and law are being disposed of by this common order. 2. Respondents 1 to 14 were working as LDCs in respondent MCD and were aspirants for promotion to post of Jr. Stenographer. A test was held on 30.10.1973 for promotion to the post and they were selected and consequently promoted on ad hoc basis to the post by orders dated 2.11.1973 and 29.3.1974. One of the disgruntled candidates who had failed to qualify in the test complained and alleged that the test was illegally held upon which respondent No. 17 passed order dated 2.11.1973 setting aside the test held on 30.10.1973 and also the consequent ad hoc promotions made of respondents 1-14 and invited fresh applications for the post. Respondents 1-14 were accordingly reverted to post of LDC after 10 months and appellants were selected and promoted to post of Jr. Stenographers by various orders in 1975 and onwards in the new selection. 3. Respondents 1 to 14 felt aggrie...

Amrik Singh Lyallpuri Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2001IVAD(Delhi)994; 2001(58)DRJ509

Vijender Jain, J.1. In view of the counter affidavit filed by the respondent where requirement is not that when has been stated in the petition but in view of the amendment in Rule 4 of Delhi Hindu Marriage Registration Rule, 1956 notified vide Notification dated 28.2.1961, which reads as under :-'On receipt of the application the Registrar shall enter the particulars in the Register in Form B after the parties to marriage appear before him and are identified to his satisfaction.'2. Mr. Shali has contended that in the meeting of the Deputy Commissioners held under the Chairmanship of Divisional Commissioner regarding the issue of identification of the parties to the satisfaction of the marriage officer which was held on 5.6.2000, certain categories of officers, who have been allowed for the purpose of identification, are Gazetted Officer of the Central Government & Government of Delhi and employee (except Group D employee) of the Central Government/Government of Delhi and following cat...

Delhi Development Authority Vs. Labour Court No. Viii and anr.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: (2001)ILLJ1652Del

Vikkamajit Sen, J.In the writ petition the following prayer has been made.'In the circumstances, it is most respectfully prayed, this Hon'ble Court shall be pleased to issue a Writ in the nature of a Writ of Certiorari or any other writ order or direction, quashing the impugned Award dated August 4, 1989 and the Order dated August 30, 1993 passed by the Respondent No. 1 in L.C.I.D. No. 349 of 1987 with a direction to the Respondent No. I to hear the matter afresh and then decide the same or call for the records of the case and decide the same and or pass such other or further order or orders as may be deemed fit and proper.'2. A reading of the prayer reveals that when the writ petition was filed the Petitioner had not sought the relief of the case being remanded to the Labour Court. This was obviously for the reason that it was not in the contemplation of the parties that the Labour Court was not rendered functus officio thirty days after the passing of the Award as this was the prevai...

M/S. Unipatch Rubber Ltd. Vs. Cce, Jaipur

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. Shri M.P. Devnath, Advocate submits that in this case the matter relates to the modvat credit, which was denied by the Asstt.Commissioner of Central Excise and in pursuance of the order, the modvat credit was reversed. The order of the Asstt. Commissioner was confirmed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals) and when the matter came-up before the Tribunal while disposing their Appeal No.E/1169/97 NB (SM) vide Final Order No. A/276/98 NB (SB) dated 26.3.98, the order was passed in favour of the appellants. Thereafter they requested the Department that the amount already debited in modvat account should be allowed to be taken credit of. This was not allowed and the proceedings were draw. The matter was decided against the appellants on the basis of time bar.2. Shri M.P. Devnath, ld. Advocate submitted that it is not a case where the duty was paid or the modvat credit was taken at the stage of the assessment. It was a case where in pursuance of the valid adjudication order, th...

Collector of Central Excise, Vs. M/S. Supreme Electrical

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2001)(131)ELT271TriDel

1. The brief facts of the case are that the factory premises of the respondent herein were visited by the Central Excise Officers on 29.7.89, on receipt of information that the unit was clandestinely manufacturing and removing excisable goods. Spot enquiry revealed that the respondent was the proprietory concern of Shri Mehta and was engaged in the manufacture of mix grinders under the brand names 'Maggi' and 'Soni'. It was noticed that the assessee was procuring Electric Motors exclusively from M/s. Magnetic Controls situated at Goregaon, Bombay which was a proprietory concern of Smt. Mehta, wife of Shri Mehta.M/s. Magnetic Controls was exclusively selling the Electric Motors to the respondent who in turn was selling the mid grinders to M/s. Swaraj Agencies, a trading proprietory concern with Smt. Swadesh Mehta, mother of Shri Mehta as sole-proprietre. Investigations revealed that Shri Mehta set up several companies engaged in trading. On the basis of the above enquiry, SCN was issue...

Sh. Rabul Hasan Khan, Sh. Samyak Vs. Cc, Lucknow

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. These appeals are coming up in the second round of litigation on the same set of facts. In the earlier round, these appellants had filed appeals against an order of the Collector or Customs on the main ground that the said order had been passed in violation of the principles of natural justice. Those appeals were disposed of by this Tribunal as per order No. 202/CAL/87 dated 6.11.87 remanding the matter to the Collector for fresh adjudication in accordance with the principles of natural justice. It was clearly mentioned in that order that the appellants were at liberty to adduce fresh evidence before the adjudicating authority in accordance with law. Pursuant to the remand order of the Tribunal, ld. Commissioner of Customs passed order dated 13.12.99 confiscating a Motorcycle and Scooter and India currency of Rs. 6.88 lakhs and imposing penalties of Rs. 50,000/-, Rs. 5,000/- and Rs. 5,000/- on the appellants in the present Appeal Nos. C/89 to 91/2000 respectively. In lieu of confis...

M/S. Modi Arc Electrodes Company Vs. Cce, Meerut

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. In this appeal filed by M/s. Modi Arc Electrodes Company, the order against which the appeal has been filed is extracted below:- Please refer to your letter No.9378 dated 03.02.99 on the above subject.It this context, it is to intimate that the Commissioner has rejected your request due to non observance of procedure on the following grounds:- 1. The claim for remission of duty has not been submitted in the proper proforma as prescribed under T.No.No.20/84 dated 01.12.84. 2. Intimation of loss or destruction by fire has not been given to the Department within 24 hrs. 4. The fire broke out in your unit in 1996 also,but no mention of this fact has been made in the claim,in terms of para 3(ii) of the Trade Notice.2. Both the sides agree that it is not a speaking appealable order. As per record, on 19.1.98, the Commercial Manager has reported to the Superintendent of Central Excise,Modi Nagar that there was a fire in their godown on 17.1.98. Some inquiries were made and the case was fo...

Ex. Constable Narender Kumar Vs. Lt. Governor and ors.

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

1. The applicant, a Constable in Delhi Police has assailed and order dated 1.5.96 whereby he has been dismissed from service. The appeal preferred was also rejected vide order dated 23.9.96 as well the revision petition on 6.9.98 and lastly the review petition was also rejected on 30.10.98. All these orders are assailed in the present OA.2. The brief facts leading to the case are that the applicant had been proceeded against in a preliminary enquiry on the ground that he had committed a misconduct under Rule 21 of the CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964 as he had married to one Ms. Suresh Bala on 24.9.90 and also contracted another marriage with Ms. Sudesh on 29.5.91 and had concealed the fact of marriage with Sudesh from Suresh Bala and managed to get the marriage with Suresh Bala registered in the Marriage Office at Tis Hazari on 25.6.91. The applicant was also alleged to have induced Ms.Anita to have matrimonial relations with him. It is further alleged that the applicant had provided unauth...

Sh O.P. Ahuja Vs. Controller of Estate Duty

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2001IVAD(Delhi)461; 91(2001)DLT364; 2001(59)DRJ46

ORDERArijit Pasayat, C. J. 1. At the instance of Sh.O.P.Ahuja (hereinafter referred to as the accountable person), following questions have been referred for opinion of his Court by the Income-tax Appellate, Tribunal Delhi Bench-E, Delhi (in short the 'Tribuna'), under Section 64(1) of the Estate Duty Act, 1953.(1) Whether the Appellate Tribunal was justified in law in upholding the inclusion of an amount of Rs.1,41,828/- in the dutiable value of the estate of the deceased, on the ground that the decreased and his, one son Shri Om Parkash each had 50% share in the net assets valued at Rs.2,83,656/- belonging to the smaller HUF of the decreased, to the exclusion of Smt. Vishanbai, wife of the decreased? (2) Whether the Appellate Tribunal was justified in law in upholding the inclusion of an amount of Rs.1,41,828/- for rate purposes in the dutiable value of the state of the decreased, on the ground that the decreased and his one son Shri Om Parkash each had 50% share in the net assets va...

Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. M/S. Gowar Sons Publication (Pvt.) Limi ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2001IIIAD(Delhi)802

ORDERArijit Pasayat. C. J.1. At the instance of Revenue, following question has been referred for opinion of this court under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act. 1961 (in short 'Act') by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal Delhi Bench-D, Delhi (in short 'Tribunal'):-'Whether on the facts and in the circumstance of the case, the Hon'ble Tribunal was right in holding that an amount of Rs.48,161/- in respect of interest payable/paid was an allowable deduction?'The dispute relates to the assessment year 1975-76.2. Background facts, so far as relevant, in a nutshell, are as follows:-assessed company carried on business as printers and publishers. Until 30th September 1972, business was being carried on by partnership firm styled M/S. Goverdhan Kapoor and Sons. As per agreement dated 1st October 1972, the business was taken over as a running concern by the assessed company for a consideration of Rs.8,31,133/-. As per paragraph (2) of the agreement, assessed agreed to take over all the assets...