Delhi Court December 2002 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
Harish Singh Negi, S/O Late S.S. Negi Vs. Union of India (Uoi), Throug ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-04-2002
Reported in: 101(2002)DLT466; 2003(66)DRJ554; [2003(96)FLR1007]
Vijender Jain, J.1. Rule.2. The writ petition has been filed against the order of termination. It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner was appointed as messenger on 31.10.86 in the office of respondent No. 2 on compassionate grounds. The petitioner was put in the scale of pay of Rs. 196-3-220-EB-3-232.3. Ms. Palli counsel for the petitioner has contended that initially the appointment of the petitioner was for one year on probation. It is contended that the petitioner had been working for over 12 years and was getting the regular pay scale of a messenger Gr.II and was also getting H.R.A. and bonus. In February 1999, the petitioner went on 18 days medical leave. However, when he came to join the duty he received an order No. 201/99, dated 25.2.99, which is to the following terms:'The services of Sh. Harish Singh Negi, Messenger Gr.II, are, hereby, terminated with immediate effect in terms of para 3 of the terms of appointment contained in the offer of appointment letter No....
Dr. (Mrs.) Vimla Rajan Vs. Municipal Corporation of Delhi and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-04-2002
Reported in: 102(2003)DLT466
Sanjay Kishan Kaul, J. 1. The petitioner has impugned the orders of the Assessing Authority as well as the Appellate Authority fixing the rateable value of property No. L-21, Green Park Main, New Delhi.2. The only contention advanced on behalf of the petitioner is that the impugned assessment orders have been passed without taking into consideration the principle of parity. In support of his contention learned Counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in Dr. Balbir Singh and Ors. v. M.C.D. and Ors. : [1985]152ITR388(SC) ; Lt. Col. P.R. Chaudhary (Retd.) v. Municipal Corporation of Delhi and Anr. 85 (2000) DLT 223 (SC); and MCD v. Dhunishaw Framroz Daruwala, : 100(2002)DLT679 . Learned Counsel for the respondent also seeks to rely on the aforesaid two judgments of the Supreme Court to contend that the principle of parity as laid down in the said judgments would not apply after the DMC (Determination of Rateable Value) Bye-laws, 1994 came into force sin...
Sharma Enterprises Vs. National Building Construction Corporation Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-04-2002
Reported in: I(2003)BC398; 2003(66)DRJ334
J.D. Kapoor, J. 1. The petitioner entered into a contract for the construction of Railway Station Building-cum-Commercial Complex at Vashi at New Bombay with respondent-NBCC. However, certain disputes arose during the execution of the work. Bank guarantees were also furnished against mobilisation advances. The disputes were referred to the Arbitrator on 2.12.1997. However, the petitioner could not succeed in obtaining the relief o stay against the invocation of Bank guarantees.2. This court vide order dated 2.12.1997 made the observations that the petitioner has failed to make out a prima facie case in its favor for grant of ad interim injunction restraining the respondent from encashing the Bank guarantees and that balance of convenience also does not lie in its favor nor would it cause irretrievable injustice to the petitioner as disputes have already been referred to an independent arbitrator for adjudication. It was observed that in these circumstances it cannot be said that there ...
Union of India (Uoi) Thru G.M. Western Railway Vs. Sanjay Kumar Jain
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-04-2002
Reported in: 2003(1)SLJ183b(Delhi)
Anil Dev Singh, J. 1. By this writ petition the petitioner challenges the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench dated 15th April, 2002 in OA 439/2001.2. The respondent is working against the post of ASO II, a group 'C' post. The petitioner in order to fill up the Group 'B' posts of the ACOS in Store Department by promotion of eligible Group 'C' staff from amongst persons working against group 'C' posts held a written test, in which the respondent participated. It appears that seven persons qualified in the written test including the respondent whose name appeared at Seriall No. 5 in the list of successful candidates. The petitioner however did not call the respondent for interview on the ground that the respondent was suffering from Rita It is Pimentos and specifically excluded him from participating in the interview vide order dated 20th September, 2000. The stand of the petitioner was based upon a circular of the Railway Board dated 31st October, 1991. While d...
M.C.D. Vs. Nand Kishore
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-04-2002
Reported in: 2003(66)DRJ135; [2003(97)FLR158]
ORDERAnil Dev Singh, J.C.M. 860/2002 :Delay condoned. Application stands disposed of. LPA 415/2002:1. We do not find any infirmity in the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge.2. The respondent was employed as driver in the Health Department on 10th December, 1957. He retired from service on 30th June, 1998. The appellant paid a sum of Rs. 1,09,098/- to the respondent as gratuity. The respondent not being satisfied with the amount of gratuity paid to him, filed an application before the Controlling Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972. The Controlling Authority held the respondent entitled for an additional sum of Rs. 47,301/- which was short paid to him by the appellant. The main grievance of the appellant is that the Controlling Authority did not take into consideration delay of the respondent in filing the application under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 and the rules framed there under. The grievance of the appellant is misconceived as the non-payment of...
Hi Line Pens (P) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Dec-03-2002
Reported in: (2003)(85)ECC633
1. The issue involved in this Appeal filed M/s. Hi Line Pens (P) Ltd., is whether the principle of unjust enrichment is applicable to the refund of Customs duty claimed by them.2. Shri Naveen Mullick, learned Advocate, submitted that the Appellants manufacture writing instruments for which they import various type of parts; that accordingly they imported metal parts which were cleared on payment of duty; that subsequently they made the request for converting the Bill of Entry from standard rate of duty to Nil rate of duty under DEEC Scheme under Notification No. 79/95-Cus; they filed four refund claims on the ground that Bills of Entry had been got converted and the goods had been cleared by the Customs under duty free advance licence, procured by them from market on payment of premium; that the Assistant Commissioner, under the Adjudication Orders Nos. 118-121/99 dated 16.1.99 sanctioned the refund claims but ordered the same to be credited to the Consumer Welfare Fund observing that...
Hero Cycles Ltd. and Essar Steel Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Dec-03-2002
Reported in: (2003)(86)ECC341
1. The issue involved in these two appeals, filed by M/s. Hero Cycles Ltd. and M/s. Essar Steel Ltd. arising out of a common Adjudication Order No. 14/2002 dated 3.4.2002, is whether the Appellant No. 1 has rightly taken the Modvat credit of the duty paid on the inputs supplied by the Appellant No. 2.2. Shri B.L. Narsimhan, learned Advocate, submitted that M/s. Hero Cycles Ltd. Appellant No. 1 manufacture Cold Rolled Strips (C.R.Strips) for which raw material is H.R. Coils in respect of which they avail MODVAT Credit under Rule 57 A of the Central Excise Rules 1944; that they mainly purchase H.R. Coils from M/s. Essar Steel Ltd. Appellant No. 2, M/s. TISCO and M/s. SAIL; that during the disputed period, the practice in the Steel Industry was that the products were cleared from the factory on stock transfer basis to the various depots at a particular price; that the price at which the products were sold from the Depots Was also not a conclusive price; that after negotiation and based u...
Rochees Watches Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Dec-03-2002
Reported in: (2003)(152)ELT420TriDel
1. These appeals have been preferred against the common order-in-original dated 16-11-2001 vide which the Commissioner of Central Excise has confirmed the duty demand of Rs. 35,88,013/- with equal amount of penalty for the period 1-4-2000 to 30-8-2000, against the appellants.2. The appellants are engaged in the manufacture of exempted as well as dutiable wrist watches and wrist watch cases. The wrist watches with maximum retail price (MRP) up to Rs. 500/- per piece were exempted from levy of Central Excise duty vide Notification No. 6/2000-C.E., dated 1-3-2000 whereas the watches with MRP exceeding Rs. 500/- per piece continued to attract duty @ 16% adv. The appellants were also availing SSI exemption on wrist watch cases during the financial year 2000-2001.They were availing Cenvat credit facility on all the inputs meant for use in the manufacture of dutiable as well as exempted wrist watches but maintaining combined records in respect of receipt, consumption and inventory of the inp...
Exotic Fashions Vs. Commissioner of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Dec-03-2002
Reported in: (2003)(152)ELT173TriDel
1. The common issue involved in these three appeals, arising out of a common Adjudication Order, is whether Penalty under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act is imposable on the Appellants.2.1 Shri L.P. Asthana, learned Advocate, submitted that M/s. Exotic Fashions are exporters of raw silk garments; that on the basis of the exports made by them, they were granted Advance Licence No. 2048595, dated 7-10-92 under Notification No. 204/92-Cus. under DEEC Scheme permitting them to import 4480 kilos of 100% Mulberry Raw Silk (MRS) duty free within the CIF value of Rs. 35 lakhs; that since they had already exported garments which contained 4518.7 kilos of raw silk, the import entitlement was enhanced to 6326.18 kilos of MRS; that as the export obligation had already been fulfilled, the licences were transferred by them to certain firms who imported raw silk and obtained the duty exemption benefit.2.2 He, further, mentioned that a show cause notice dated 22-6-98 was issued to them and the impo...
Commissioner of C. Ex. Vs. Creative Engineers Pvt. Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Dec-03-2002
Reported in: (2003)(152)ELT77TriDel
1. In this appeal, filed by Revenue, the issue involved is whether the extended period of time-limit as provided under proviso to Section 11A of the Central Excise Act is available to demand duty of excise from M/s. Creative Engineers Pvt. Ltd. 2. Shri Rajeev Tondon, learned SDR, submitted that on the visit of the factory of the Respondents on 21-1-98, the Central Excise Officers found that they were manufacturing Glued Insulated Rail Joints and Rail Trolley/Diplorry/Complete Bush Trolley for Indian Railways; that the Additional Commissioner, under Adjudication Order No. 116/2001, dated 17-9-2001 demanded Central Excise duty amounting to Rs. 17,82,866 for the period from 1994-95 to 1997-98 besides imposing penalty of Rs. 13,17,589 under Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act and a penalty of Rs. 7 lakh under Rules 9(2), 173Q and 226 of the Central Excise Rules; that the Commissioner (Appeals) under the impugned Order, however, has held that the extended period could not be invoked and...
- ‹ Prev
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 16
- 18
- 19
- Next ›
- Last »