Delhi Court February 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.
Nanak Chand Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-07-2002
Reported in: 96(2002)DLT839; 2002(63)DRJ387; 2003(1)SLJ80b(Delhi)
S.B. Sinha, C.J. 1. This writ petition is directed against a judgment and order dated 22nd September 1999 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal ('CAT' for short) Principal Bench in OA No. 2519/94 whereby and whereunder the original application filed by the petitioner was dismissed. 2. The fact of the matter lies in a very narrow compass. 3. Claiming the same pay and arrears as of the respondents No. 4 and 5, the petitioner filed an original application which was marked as OA No. 1294/89. The learned Tribunal came to the conclusion that he had been denied reasonable opportunity to appear at the trade test resulted in his belated promotion as a result whereof the persons who were junior to him got promotion as also the higher pay. However, having regard to the fact that the petitioner approached the Tribunal after a long time, his claim for arrears of pay or monetary benefits had been denied. The said application was allowed by the Tribunal with the direction that the petitioner'...
Amar Singh Vs. Food Corporation of India and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-07-2002
Reported in: 2002VIIIAD(Delhi)242; 97(2002)DLT654
Sanjay Kishan Kaul, J. 1. Rule. 2. With consent of learned counsel for the parties. the petitioner is taken up for final disposal. 3. The petitioner was employed with the respondent Food Corporation of India. An enquiry was held against the petitioner for charges that the petitioner had failed to maintain absolute integrity and due devotion to duty relating to stocks of local depot and loading of the same on train. 4. After due consideration of the facts and evidence on record the enquiry officer submitted a report dated 17.9.1987 holding the prosecution could not place their side of the case well ann since the shortage could be due to the act of others than the consignor or Charge Officer, the Charged Officer cannot be held guilty of the charge when the charge is not proved. 5. Disciplinary Authority thereafter proceeded to hold that charge was correctly proved and directed imposition of penalty of stoppage of three increments of pay with cumulative effect w.e.f. 1.1.1989. 6. The peti...
Krishna Saigal Vs. Kamal Kumar Modi and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-07-2002
Reported in: 2002VAD(Delhi)105; 97(2002)DLT415
Sharda Aggarwal. J.1. Defendants have filed this application under Order 14 Rule 5 CPC for framing of additional issues. The plaintiff did not file reply to this application. However, argument were addressed by counsel for the plaintiff.2. A narration of brief facts is necessary. The plaintiff being owner let out the ground floor of property No. S-48, Panchsilla Park, New Delhi to defendants vide lease deed dated 9th February, 1987 at a monthly rent of Rs. 6,000/-. By a supplement agreement dated 26th May, 1987, defendants were permitted to construct two bed rooms with attached bath and lobby on the first floor of the said building for the cost of Rs. 3,00,000/-. According to the plaintiff, said portion was treated to be under the tenancy of defendants at a monthly rent of Rs. 5,000/-, to be adjusted against the cost of Rs. 3,00,000/-. A fresh lease deed dated 26th December, 1992 was executed. As per the plaintiff, both ground floor and first floor were let out to the defendants at a m...
R.K. Markan Vs. Rajiv Kumar Markan and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-07-2002
Reported in: 2002VAD(Delhi)70; 97(2002)DLT754; 2002(62)DRJ241
Sharda Aggarwal, J. 1. The plaintiff has moved the present application under Order 12 Rule 6 CPC for passing a decree on the basis of the admissions made in the written statement/counter claim of the defendants.2. Plaintiff has filed this suit for partition in respect of property No. B-99, Ashok Vihar, Phase-I, Delhi which undisputably belonged to late Pushpa Markan, wife of the plaintiff and mother of defendants 1 and 2. Smt. Pushpa Markan died on 7th June, 1975. She had left a 'Will' bequeathing the property to the plaintiff and defendants, her two minor sons. The plaintiff had filed a probate case on which Letters of Administration were granted on 24th March, 1977. The name of the plaintiff and the defendants was also mutated in the records of Delhi Development Authority. The plaintiff being one of the legal heirs of deceased Pushpa Markan, claims 1/3rd share in the suit property. The house in question at present is in possession of the defendants. Defendants have filed their writte...
Rajiv Seth Vs. Daya Kishan Mehra and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-07-2002
Reported in: 2002VIAD(Delhi)388; 97(2002)DLT195; 2002(63)DRJ542
Sharda Aggarwal, J. IA. No. 1965/99 1. Defendants 1 to 5 have moved this application for amendment of their written statement. By way of amendment, defendants pray to amend para 16 of the written statement and add a preliminary objection denying the territorial jurisdiction of this Court. Defendants contend that inadvertently they did not object in their written statement to the invocation of this Court's territorial jurisdiction and in para No. 16 of the written statement, the last line 'the jurisdiction of this Hon'ble Court is, however, not denied' be deleted and instead 'jurisdiction of this Court is denied' be inserted. Defendants further seek to add following preliminary objection : '4. That this Hon'ble Court does not have the territorial jurisdiction to entertain the instant suit because none of the immovable properties left behind by late Seth Munni Lal Mehra is situated in Delhi. It is submitted that the defense Colony and the Nai Sarak properties, mentioned in para 2 of the...
Wellman (Hindustan) Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union of India (Uoi)
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-07-2002
Reported in: 2005(122)LC406(Delhi)
ORDERA.K. Sikri, J.1. The petitioners in this writ petition have, inter alia, questioned the show cause notice dated 25th January, 1977 whereby and where under the extended period limitation as contained in the proviso appended to Section 9(2) off the Central Excise Rules, 1994 has been issued. We have been taken through the show cause notice from a perusal whereof it is not stated that the condition prevailing necessary for invoking the said provision has been complied with. The matter is covered by a decision of the Apex Court in the case of Kaur and Singh v. Collector of Central Excise, New Delhi reported in 1997 (94) ELT 289 wherein it has been held that the party to whom a show cause notice of this kind is issued must be made aware of the allegation against it. This is a requirement of natural justice. Unless the assessed is put to such notice, he has no opportunity to meet the case against him. This is all the more so when a larger period of limitation can be invoked on a variety...
Sunil Dutt Vs. Staff Selection Commission
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-07-2002
Reported in: 96(2002)DLT900; 2002(6)SLR383
S.B. Sinha, C.J.1. This writ petition is directed against a judgment dated 14th February 2000 passed by Central Administrative Tribunal in OA No. 1220/95 whereby and whereunder the Original Application filed by the petitioner herein has been dismissed.2. The basic fact of the matter is not in dispute.3. The Staff Selection Commission issued a Recruitment Notification on or about 5th November 1994 stating that a combined competitive examination would be held for posts inviting applications in respect of Sub-Inspector (Excise and Delhi Police) and certain other categories Clause, 14(iv) and 20 of the said Notification read thus:'14. A candidate who is or has been declared by the Commission to be guilty of:-(iv) submitting fabricated documents or documents which have been tampered with, or''20. Selection of Candidates:(a) Posts of Sub-Inspectors (Executive) in Delhi Police:After the examination, in so far as vacancies other than those reserved for departmental candidates are concerned, ca...
Shaktiman Cement (P) Ltd. Vs. Cce
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Feb-06-2002
Reported in: (2002)(81)ECC587
1. The applicant filed this application for waiver of total demand of duty of Rs. 4,30,498. In the impugned Order the benefit of Notification No. 5/94 were denied to the applicants on the ground that they had not filed any declaration for availing the benefit of Notification.2. Heard both the sides. The contention of the applicant is that applicant filed the classification list effective from 9.5.94 and claimed the benefit of Notification No. 1/93-CE and Notification No.5/94-CE. The applicants were manufacturing cement from their two units.The classification list was approved with the remarks that 'for computing the value of slab under Notification No. 1/93 the value of clearance from both the units shall be clubbed together.' The contention of the applicant is that show cause notice was issued on the ground that they had not computed the aggregate value of clearances correctly in terms of the provisions of Notification No. 1/93. Their contention is that the Revenue accepted the aggre...
Rajasthan Tools Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise,
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Feb-06-2002
Reported in: (2002)(141)ELT699TriDel
1. This case has a chequered history. The appellants were engaged in the manufacture of tools for cutting stones like marble, granite etc.They installed three air-conditioners in their Cold Press Room, Metal Powder Storage & Diamond Mixing Room and Quality Control Laboratory.They took Modvat credit on these air-conditioners as capital goods under Rule 57Q after filing the necessary declaration under Rule 57T.The department by letter dated 28-6-95 objected to this, holding that the air-conditioners were not eligible for such credit under Explanation (1) to Rule 57Q. This view of the department was contested by the party in their reply letter. The Asstt. Commissioner, without taking recourse to the normal show cause notice proceedings, personally heard the party and passed order dated 30-11-95 denying them Modvat credit on the air-conditioners. Against this order of the Asstt.Commissioner, the party preferred appeal to the Commissioner (Appeals).The appellate authority found that, a...
Goel Bearing Co. and ors. Vs. Cc
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Feb-06-2002
Reported in: (2002)(102)LC651Tri(Delhi)
1. These four appeals, arising out of a common Adjudication Order No.20/A & R/VZ/2000 dated 11.4. 2000, have been filed against the penalties imposed on all the Appellants under Section 112 of the Customs Act, 1962.2. Briefly stated the facts are that acting on a specific information, the Customs Officers searched the residential premises of Shri Sansar Gupta on 6.7.1998 and nothing incriminating was recovered from the residence. The Officers, however, recovered and seized ball bearings of foreign origin totally valued at Rs. 79,21,970/- from a godown after breaking open the lock thereof in the presence of witnesses. Shri Sansar Gupta, in his statement dated 6.7.1998, deposed that about two months back, he met Ram Niwas of Bombay who agreed to supply to him smuggled ball bearing of foreign origin in bulk quantity which he could sell on a commission of Rs. 150/- per bag. Sansar then took the said godown on rent of Rs. 2000/- per month from one Anil Jain. He received first consignme...
- ‹ Prev
- 17
- 18
- 19
- 20
- 21
- 23
- 24
- 25
- 26
- 27
- Next ›
- Last »