Delhi Court January 2003 Judgments
Home Cases Delhi 2003 Page 20 of about 205 results (0.013 seconds)Bal Vikas Public School and anr. Vs. Govt. of Nct of Delhi and anr.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: AIR2003Delhi125; 2003(67)DRJ720
ORDERManmohan Sarin, J.1. Petitioner by this petition seeks a writ of mandamus for upgradiation of the school from Secondary level to Senior Secondary level, as applied for vide application dated 15-3-1999. Request of the petitioner was declined by the Deputy Director of Education, vide orders dated 21-3-2000. Petitioner preferred an appeal against the order dated 21-3-2000, which was dismissed by the Lt. Governor of Delhi, vide orders dated 31-5-2000, passed in the appeal No. 26/2000 titled Bal Vikas Public School v. Govt. of NCT of Delhi and Ors. 2. Petitioner seeks a writ of certiorari for quashing of the aforesaid orders dated 21-3-2000 and 31-5-2000. 3. Facts relevant for the purposes of disposal of the writ petition may be briefly noted :-- (i) Petitioner's school was granted affiliation with the Central Board of Secondary Education vide certificate dated 13-9-1995, issued by CBSE. The school was recognised up to Class X. Petitioner had in his possession 800 sq. mtrs. of land, on...
Tag this Judgment!Smt. Aisha Jalal Vs. Lt. Governor and ors.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 2003IIIAD(Delhi)303; 104(2003)DLT398; 2003(68)DRJ89
Sanjay Kishan Kaul, J. 1. The petitioner claimed to be occupier/owner of property No.T-235, Id Gah Road, Qadam Sharif Estate, Delhi since 11.3.1986 on transfer of interest by Shri Jagat Ram in her favor. It is stated that Shri Jagat Ram was a displaced person from West Pakistan who occupied the property in question measuring 166 square yards and constructed a double storey building which was subsequently transferred to the petitioner. 2. It may be noticed that no documents of title have been filed and the claim is based on the basis of payment of damages. In fact learned counsel for the petitioner does not dispute that there is no title to the property in question but that Shri Jagat Ram was paying damages earlier and thereafter the petitioner has been paying damages, some of the receipts of which have been filed on record. It is further stated that the property stand mutated in the name of the petitioner by the MCD though the same is for the purpose of house tax. 3. The genus of the d...
Tag this Judgment!Mrs. Poonam Rai D/O Shri Shyambihari Rai Formerly Sr. Telecom Office A ...
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 2003VIIAD(Delhi)227; 108(2003)DLT262; 2003(70)DRJ784; 2004(3)SLJ424(Delhi)
Vijender Jain, J. (Oral)1. Rule.2. The petitioner was appointed as Telecom Officer Assistant (in short 'TOA') vide order dated 31.10.1997 issued by the respondent No. 2, Chief General Manager, Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Limited (for short 'MTNL'). It is the case of the petitioner that although initially the petitioner was appointed in terms of order of appointment, which is dated 31.10.197, at pages 10 to 13 of the paper book, however the petitioner was confirmed on 23.12.197 and service of petitioner was regularised vide order dated 28.2.2002 w.e.f. 31.10.1999. The name of the petitioner figures at Seriall No. 124 of the order dated 28.2.2002 which is at page-25 of the paper book. 3. Mr. H L Tikku, learned counsel for the petitioner, has contended that the impugned order passed by the respondent dated 27.4.2002 is not only illegal but, as a matter of fact, has not taken into consideration the regular appointment of the petitioner, which the respondent itself had made on 28.2.2002. It w...
Tag this Judgment!Dhara Enterprises Vs. Commissioner of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (2003)(153)ELT563TriDel
1. M/s. Dhara Enterprises have filed the present Appeal being aggrieved with the Adjudication Order No. 331/2002, dated 22-7-2002, by which the Commissioner has enhanced the value of the goods imported by them and has confiscated the same with an option to redeem on payment of fine of Rs. 7 lakhs besides imposing a penalty of Rs. 70,000/-.2. Shri L.P. Asthana, learned Advocate, submitted that the Appellants imported 2,000 pieces of second-hand and used monitors and filed Bill of Entry on 5-7-2002 declaring the value to be US $ 12.50 per piece; that as per the examination at Dock the goods were used, but not reconditioned monitors which were of different brand and models; that the report further, mentioned that the value may be determined on the basis of contemporaneous imports; that no basis has been disclosed in the impugned Order for discarding the transactional value that it has been stated that in the recent past similar old and used monitors have been valued at US $ 16 per unit. ...
Tag this Judgment!Noble Plastic Moulds Vs. Cce
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (2003)(108)LC354Tri(Delhi)
1. This appeal has been filed by the appellants against the impugned order dated 4.2.2002 vide which the Commissioner (Appeals) had affirmed the order-in-original of the Asstt. Commissioner dated 31.8.1999, who disallowed the credit of disputed amount of Rs. 7,76,388/- to the appellants and also imposed penalty of Rs. 20,000/- on them.2. The facts are not much in dispute. The appellants availed Modvat credit of the above referred amounts on the basis of CVD paid by Bill of Entry No. 4303 dated 10.3.1992 which was in the name of M/s. Kothari Sales Agency and did not bear endorsement in their favour. They were served with a show-cause notice for the recovery of Modvat credit amount and a penalty was also proposed to be imposed on them on the ground that the Modvat credit was inadmissible to them as the Bill of Entry was not endorsed in their favour and they also did not inform the Asstt. Commissioner of having purchased the goods from the importer on High Sea Sale basis. The appellants ...
Tag this Judgment!Parveen Kr. Saraogi and Rustam Ali Vs. Cc
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (2003)(160)ELT533TriDel
1. The above-captioned appeals have been preferred against the common Order-in-Appeal dated 18.9.1998 vide which the Commissioner (Appeals) has affirmed the order-in-original of the Addl. Commissioner who ordered the confiscation of the seized goods and the vehicle and also imposed personal penalty of Rs. 75,000 on appellant No. 1 and of Rs. 20,000 on appellant No. 2.2. The facts of the case may briefly be stated as under--On 6.12.1995, the DRI Officials intercepted truck bearing No. BHC-2586 when some bundles from that truck were being transferred to Maruti No. DL 3C 1336. Those bundles contained silk yarn of Chinese origin and also carried printed labels bearing description 'Blossoms While Steam Filature China National Silk Import and Export Corporation Made in China'. The present two appellants were also present at the spot at that time along with Shri Vijay Kumar Lilha and Shri Pramod Kumar, who are not appellants in this appeal. Their statements were recorded. They could not prod...
Tag this Judgment!Dr. Y.C. Verma Vs. M.C.D. and ors.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 2003IVAD(Delhi)91; 109(2004)DLT483; 2004(75)DRJ367; 2004(3)SLJ410(Delhi)
S.K. Mahajan, J. 1. RULE. 2. With the consent of the parties, the matter has been heard and disposed of by this order. 3. The petitioner was appointed as Civil Assistant Surgeon Grade-II with the respondent in March, 1958. In 1975, he was promoted to the post of resident Medical Superintendent and with effect form 11th August, 1986 he was promoted to the post of Deputy Health Officer in the pay-scale of Rs.3,700 - 5,000 and up to 16th May, 1989 he was posted in the Maternal and Child Welfare Department of the respondent - Corporation. From 17.5.989 till 31.1.1991 he was posted as Deputy Health Officer (Malaria Department). On 31.1.1991, petitioner attained the age of superannuation, however, before he could be relieved from service, a charge-sheet was served upon him in the afternoon of 31.1.1991. There is no dispute between the parties that charges were finally dropped and no action was taken against the petitioner on the basis of this charge sheet. 4. In the meantime, recommendation ...
Tag this Judgment!Babloo Sharma Vs. M.C.D. and ors.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 109(2004)DLT746; 2003(70)DRJ336
S.K. Mahajan, J. 1. RULE. 2. With the consent of the parties, the matter has been heard and disposed of by this order. 3. The petitioner was appointed for the first time to work as Chowkidar as a daily wager on 20.10.1995. He had been working intermittently till 1999 as a daily wager sometimes for a period of 26 days and sometimes for 22 days, etc. In the year 1999, the petitioner worked for 174 days as a daily wager in different schools run by the respondents. The petitioner is allegedly working continuously as a daily wager since the year 2000 at the post of Chowkidar in different schools assigned to him by the respondent. It is alleged that while the petitioner worked for 362 days in the year 2000, he worked for 359 days in the year 2001 and he had worked for more than 300 days in the year 2002 till the filing of the writ petition. The petitioner has, thereforee, filed this writ petition for issue of a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction for regulariza...
Tag this Judgment!Municipal Corporation of Delhi Vs. Jai Veer and anr.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 2003IIIAD(Delhi)714; 106(2003)DLT531; 2003(67)DRJ706; 2003LabIC3014; 2004(2)SLJ261(Delhi)
S.K. Mahajan, J.1. Admit.2. With the consent of the parties, the matter has been heard and disposed of by this order.3. The Labour Court by the impugned Award made in a reference under Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act had held that since the workmen had worked for more than 240 days in a calendar year previous to the date of his termination he was entitled to the compensation in accordance with the provisions of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act and that having not been done, the workmen was entitled to be reinstated with full back wages and continuity of service. The Award of the Labour Court has been challenged only on the ground that the workmen was not in continuous service for a period of one year as he had not completed 240 days of service with the petitioner in one calendar year and was thus not entitled to either the notice or retrenchment compensation in accordance with provisions of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act. For this reliance is placed by...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Dalmia Dadri Cement Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: (2003)180CTR(Del)486; [2003]263ITR364(Delhi)
D.K. Jain, J. 1. At the instance of the Revenue, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench-C, New Delhi (for short the Tribunal), has referred, under Section 256(1) of the IT Act, 1961 (for short the Act), the following questions for our opinion : '1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in observing that if a proper scheme and rules and regulations existed under which the gratuity was payable to the employees, and the latter could enforce the same, the gratuity amount of Rs. 1,34,689 should be allowed as a permissible deduction in the previous year relevant to the asst. yr. 1972-73 ?' 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was correct in holding that the assessed was entitled to the relief claimed under Section 80-I in respect of the profits and gains attributable to the limestone production business of the assessed and as such in setting aside the orders of the authorities below and restoring the...
Tag this Judgment!