Delhi Court December 2004 Judgments

S.C. Chaturvedi and anr. Vs. Industrial Finance Corporation

Court: DRAT Delhi

1. Respondents have filed Original Application No. 314/98 before the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Delhi -(hereinafter referred to as 'the D.R.T.') against the appellants for an order directing the appellants to pay Rs. 1,39,37,688.02 with interest to the respondent No.1; to pay Rs. 94,86,867.05 with interest to the respondent No.2; to pay Rs. 1,44,34,000/- with interest to the respondent No.3; and also to pay the costs.2. The appellants filed an application before the D.R.T. under Order VII, Rule 11 of the C.P.C. to reject the Original Application on the ground that it is barred by limitation, urging that the appellants allegedly executed a deed of guarantee on 26th June, 1985 with regard to the loan allegedly disbursed to Agra Construction Company Ltd., that the said company committed default in repayment of the principal amount and the interest, that a notice dated 16th May, 1989 was issued to the said company calling upon the same to repay the amount with interest, but the company fail...

B.G. Verghese and ors. Vs. the Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 116(2005)DLT569

Vikramajit Sen, J.1.This suit concerns the National Police Memorial located in a large public park at the Teen Murti End of Shantipath in an area that has come to be commonly known as the Diplomatic Enclave of New Delhi. Most of the embassies are located on either side of this road. The entire area is remarkable not only because of the foreign missions but also because of its vast and open expanses of greenery. It may well be an ideal location for a national memorial provided it galls and not jars merges and does not ma with its environs. There is a perception that our police force is greatly ignored when compared to the armed forces, in terms of their respective working and living conditions. Police officers have to work long and unregulated hours, and their housing is dismal when compared with other government servants. With the egregious escalation in terrorist activities within our country, the casualties in the police and armed forces are largely comparable. thereforee, none can l...

D.R. Srivastava and ors. Vs. Delhi Development Authority

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 116(2005)DLT689; 2005(79)DRJ590

Manmohan Sarin, J.1. The above two writ petitions have been filed by Legal Assistants and Junior Law Officers, working with respondent-DDA. The first writ petition being WP(C) 6637/2002 has been filed by four Legal Assistants, seeking implementation of the recommendations of Vth Pay Commission report and grant of pay scale of Rs. 6500-10500 to them with effect from 1st January, 1996. The second writ petition being WP(C) 5728/2003 has been filed by four Junior Law Officers, seeking implementation of the Vth Pay Commisson Report and grant of pay scale of Rs. 7500-12000 to them w.e.f 1st January, 1996.2. Petitioners in first writ petition being WP(C) 6637/2002 state that the post of Legal Assistant, in the respondent authority was created in 1979. The pay scale was Rs. 425-700. This was revised to Rs. 550-900. The post of Legal Assistant was brought at par with the post of Superintendent in the office of respondent and made Group-B (Gazetted) post w.e.f 12th August, 1981 in terms of offic...

Shri Pramod Sharma and ors. Vs. Delhi Development Authority and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2005(80)DRJ184; 2006(2)SLJ94(Delhi)

Manmohan Sarin, J.1. Petitioners by this petition seek quashing of list of Junior Engineer (Civil) Annexure P-6, dated 5th February, 2003 at page 66. Petitioners also seek a mandamus that Junior Engineers (Civil) who were selected after interview by MCD (Annexure P-3) be placed on deputation. On 13th May, 2002, DDA had issued a circular regarding temporary filling up the posts of Junior Engineers (Civil) which were lying vacant in the Engineering Wing of General Wing of MCD on deputation basis. The scale of pay was Rs. 5000-8000 plus allowances. The eligibility qualification given was Degree in Civil Engineering or Diploma in Civil Engineering with two years professional experience. The circular invited applications from Junior Engineers (Civil) through proper channel. MCD also requested DDA to nominate 25 Junior Engineers who were not facing any departmental action or police complaints along with their complete biodata and character rolls and VCR for the last five years.2. In the even...

Sri Ballabh Marbles and 26 ors. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 117(2005)DLT387

A.K. Sikri, J.1. The issue involved in both the writ petitions is common. Challenge in these two writ petitions is to the same Notification dated 5th April, 1999 issued under Section 4 read with Section 17(1) and 17(4) of the Land Acquisition Act 1894 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act')- The grounds for challenge are also the same. It is for this reason that both the writ petitions were heard together and are disposed of by this common judgment. For the sake of convenience, facts from W.P. (C) No. 4933/1999 are taken note of.2. It is the case of the petitioners that they purchased plots of land in Rajouri Garden Colony from DLF Housing Construction somewhere between 1955-58. DLF had purchased this land in village Basai Darapur, Delhi and Rajouri Garden Colony was carved out by the said company. Layout plan of the colony was sanctioned and approved by the then Delhi Development Provisional Authority in the year 1954-55.3. In the year 1957, the Delhi Development Act came to be enacted...

P.L. BhasIn and ors. Vs. Union of India (Uoi)

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2005(82)DRJ109

S. Ravindra Bhat, J.1. The petitioners here question under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the validity of acquisition proceedings initiated in the year 1980, which culminated in a declaration under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereafter ''the Act'') n the grounds that the same are beyond the time prescribed.2. Two notifications were issued under Section 4 of the Act; one on 5.11.1980 and the other, on 25.11.1980. In the first notification the Government proposed acquisition of areas in the villages of Tughlakabad, Tigri, Deoli, Khanpur, Said-ul-Ajaib, Nebarai, Hauz Rani and Khirki. The subsequent notification proposed acquisition of the entire lands situated in the revenue estates of the villages Chatterpur, Satbari, Maidan Garhi, Shayur Pur and Rajpur Khurd. The declarations in respect of these notifications were made under Section 6 on different dates, namely, 27.5.1985, 6.6.1985, 7.6.1985 and 26.2.1986. The question raised in these petitions is that those ...

Sh. Gulshan Ahuja and ors., Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2005CriLJ1667; 115(2004)DLT691; 2005(79)DRJ260; 2005(99)ECC46

Sanjay Kishan Kaul, J.1.The action taken by the competent authority under the Smugglers and Foreign Exchange Manipulators (Forfeiture of Property) Act, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as SAFEMA) against the properties held by or on behalf of Hari Kishan Sarin has given rise to the present proceedings. The petitioners are impugning the decision of both the competent authority and the appellate authority forfeiting the property in question.2. SAFEMA was enacted to provide for forfeiture of illegally acquired properties of smugglers and foreign exchange manipulators, whether such property is held in their own name or in the name of their relatives, associates and confidants. Section 2(1) makes provisions of the Act applicable to persons specified in sub-section (2). Sub-section (2) defines ''every person'' and clause (b) stipulates that the same includes a person in respect of whom an order of detention has been made under the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Act...

Dinesh Girl Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2005CriLJ1214; 116(2005)DLT330; 2005(79)DRJ244

Mukundakam Sharma, J.1. This petition is filed by Sh. Dinesh girl son of Sh. Mahavir Giri, a detenu under the National Security Act, as a habeas corpus petition seeking for quashing and setting aside his order of detention dated 1.4.2004 passed by the Commissioner of Police, Delhi.2. The Commissioner of Police, Delhi acting as the detaining authority and being so empowered under sub-section (2) of Section 3 of the National Security Act, passed an order of detention in the case of the petitioner after recording his satisfaction that the petitioner is being detained with a view to prevent him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order.3. Grounds of detention were also served on the petitioner. In the aforesaid grounds of detention, reference is made by the detaining authority to 29 criminal cases registered against the petitioner. It is also indicated therein that out of the aforesaid 29 criminal cases registered against the petitioner, the detenu has been a...

Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Blue Star Spinning Mills Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2005)(98)ECC759

1. In this Appeal, filed by Revenue, the issue involved is whom the Commissioner, Central Excise can empower to file an Appeal after reviewing the Adjudication Order under Section 35E(2) of the Central Excise Act.2. Shri D.N. Choudhary, learned Senior Departmental Representative, mentioned that a show cause notice was issued by Joint Commissioner for denying the benefit of Notification No. 8/99-CE dated 28.2.1999 to M/s.Blue Star Spinning Ltd.; that the Additional Commissioner, under Order-in-Original No. 36/2000 dated 31.3.2001, extended the benefit of Notification to the Respondents; the Commissioner, Central Excise reviewed the said Adjudication Order under Section 35E(2) of the Central Excise Act and Directed the Deputy Commissioner, Central Excise to file Appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) against the said Order-in-Original; that the Commissioner (Appeals), under the impugned Order, has dismissed the Appeal filed by the Department, being not maintainable since the appeal wa...

Samtel Electron Devices Ltd. Vs. Cce

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. The issue involved in this appeal is whether the appellants are entitled for credit of additional duty of customs on the basis of copy of the bill of entry duly certified by the Customs authorities. The triplicate copy was lost by the appellants in their factory before submission to the Range Officer for defacing the same.2. The lower authorities have denied the credit on the ground that the bill of entry was not lost in transit between the customs house and the factory of the appellants and they have not produced a certified copy of bill of entry from the proper officer of the Customs before taking credit. They submitted only an attested photocopy of the 4th copy of bill of entry.3. Shri R. Chibber, ld. Advocate pleaded that the Tribunal has even allowed the credit on the photocopy of the bill of entry duly attested by the Customs and TR-6 challans in case of Commissioner of Central Excise v. SRF Ltd (2000 36 RLT 90). He stated that in the present case they have submitted an attes...