Delhi Court August 2004 Judgments

i.D. Sharma Vs. Union of India (Uoi)

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 113(2004)DLT698

ORDERSanjay Kishan Kaul, J.1. Rule.2. Learned Counsel for the respondent accepts notice of rule.3. The writ petition is taken up for final disposal at this stage with the consent of learned Counsel for the parties.4. The petitioner joined the Department of Post and Telecommunications in the Ministry of Commerce in the year 1952 and worked in different capacities. On 9.9.1985, the petitioner was posted to the Postal Staff College by the then Member (Finance) of the Telecom Commission.5. The petitioner states that on 23.4.1986, the petitioner was transferred from the Postal Staff College on his promotion as a Chief Accounts Officer to MTNL, but was not allowed to join in view of a letter addressed by the then Director of the Postal Staff College to the Department of Telecommunications (for short, 'DoT'). The said letter is as under:'DO No. PSC/3-250/85Dated: April 23, 1986My Dear Balakrishnan,As you are aware, Shri I.D. Sharma, an officer in the Junior Time Scale of APS joined the Colleg...

Lt. Governor of Delhi and ors. Vs. Gurpratap Singh and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 113(2004)DLT690

D.K. Jain, J. 1. This appeal under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent applicable to this Court, is directed against order, dated April, 2004, passed by the learned Single Judge, where order passed by the Revenue Assistant (Hauz Khas) on 31 July, 2003, directing ejectment of the petitioner from the subject land and its vesting in the Gaon Sabha has been quashed. By the said order, which was affirmed by the Collector and the Financial Commissioner, the Revenue Assistant had held that the approval obtained by the petitioner from the Delhi Development Authority (DDA for short) and the Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD for short) for construction of a motel could not supersede the provisions contained in Section 23 of the Delhi Land Reforms Act, 1954 (for short 'the Land Reforms Act') and, thereforee, in the absence of permission to change land user under the said provision, construction of motel cannot be permitted, even if the plans for construction of the motel had been sanctioned by the ...

Modipon Fibres Co. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2004)(173)ELT23TriDel

1. The appellant filed this appeal against the Order-in-Appeal passed by the Commissioner (Appeals). Brief facts of the case are that the appellants are engaged in the manufacture of filament yarn and they are availing the benefit of Notification No. 31/93-C.E., dated 23-2-93. The benefit of the notification was denied for the period 23-4-93 to 1-6-93 on the ground that the yarn was of more than 210 deniers. As per the notification, the benefit is available to the yarn which is having 210 or less deniers.2. The adjudicating authority confirmed the demand and the Commissioner (Appeals) dismissed the appeal. The appellant filed appeal before the Tribunal and the Tribunal remanded the matter to the adjudicating authority for deciding afresh after following the principles of natural justice. On remand proceedings, the adjudicating authority again confirmed the demand.3. The contention of the appellant is that the sample was taken and it was not tested as per the provisions of Note 2 of Ch...

Sona Udyog Ltd. Vs. Cce

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2005)(98)ECC279

1. The applicant filed these applications in pursuance to the order dt 2.9.03 passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 1458/03.2. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant claimed the refund of differential duty and the refund was rejected by the adjudicating authority as well as by the Commissioner (Appeals).3. On appeal filed by the appellant, the Tribunal vide Final Order No.253/02-D dt. 10.10.02 dismissed the appeal by observing that on the unjust enrichment issue, it has been clearly found by the Ld.Commissioner (Appeals) that no evidence was adduced by the appellants to show that the burden of duty on the subject clearance for the material period had not been passed on to their customers. This finding of fact has not been challenged in the present appeal, nor has any evidence been adduced before us by the appellants to discharge their burden of proof under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act.4. On appeal filed by the appellant, Hon'ble Supreme Court dismiss...

Atma Ram Properties (P) Ltd. Vs. Allahabad Bank and anr.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 113(2004)DLT424; 2004(76)DRJ412

Sanjay Kishan Kaul, J. 1. The petitioner is a perpetual lessee of premises bearing Office No. 2, First Floor and Servant Quarter 113 and 115, Atma Ram Mansion (Scindia House), Connaught Circus, Janpath, New Delhi which was given on lease to respondent No.1, a nationalised bank. The petitioner terminated the lease vide a legal notice dated 17.8.1991 issued under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act. The notice was replied to by respondent No.1, the bank on 8.9.1991 alleging that the premises in question are covered by the provisions of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as 'the PP Act') and claiming that the provisions of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rent Act') are not applicable. Respondent No.1 thus refused to vacate the premises.2. The petitioner thereafter issued a notice dated 13.9.1991 to respondent No.2, Secretary, Ministry of Finance asking for the appointment of an Estate Office...

i.S. Goel and anr. Vs. the Commissioner - Transport and anr.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: III(2004)ACC6; 113(2004)DLT407; 2004(76)DRJ343

ORDERThe bus (Transport Vehicle) No. DL1P 1090 owned by you had been registered on 01-Jan-1992 under the provision of Sec.39 of Motor Vehicle Act, 1988. Whereas this bus/ vehicle has already been covered over 08 years on 01-Jan-2000. And whereas the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has passed order of 28-07-1998 that no bus (Transport Vehicle) more than 08 years old shall ply in NCT of Delhi after 31st March 2000 except on clear fuel CNG and thus the said transport vehicle is covered by the directions issued by the court in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 13029 of 1985 on vehicular pollution. Whereas the Registration Certificate of the said Transport Vehicle (bus) stands automatically cancelled on 01-Apr-2000 under Section 55 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 and Rules framed there under. And, thereforee, the owner as per record of the Transport Deptt. is directed to surrender the Registration Certificate, Fitness Certificate and Permit of the aforesaid bus (Transport vehicle) for cancellation of...

Harpreet Singh Vs. State (Nct of Delhi)

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 114(2004)DLT410

S.K. Agarwal, J.1. By way of this petition under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C petitioner is seeking quashing of the condition imposed vide order dated 9.4.2003 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge granting bail to the petitioner, that he shall not leave the country without prior permission of the Court concerned in the case FIR No. 22/2003 under Sections 406/498A/116/342/34, IPC, registered at P.S. Greater Kailash-I, Delhi.2. The petitioner, who is present in person, submits that he was married to Smt. Usha Maniktala, on whose complaint above case was registered. Allegations against the petitioner are false. The petitioner has joined investigation and paid Rs. 12,00,000/- towards her claim for the unrecovered articles of Stridhan, without prejudice to his defense on merits. It is pleaded that the petitioner is an exporter and has to travel abroad, in connection of his business, at very short note. Learned Court, while granting anticipatory bail vide order dated 9.4.2003 imposed a condi...

Life Insurance Corporation of India Ltd. and Others Vs. A.K. Kalra

Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi

J.D. Kapoor, President: 1. The appellant is aggrieved of the order dated 27.5.2002, passed by the District Forum (Central) whereby it has been directed to pay Rs. 1,18,000/- on account of medical expenses against life insurance policy. The impugned order has been assailed mainly on the premise of term 11(b) Sub-clause (1) which is a benefit clause and reads as under: Benefit (B)If any one of the contingencies given in paragraph 11(b), subject however to the conditions mentioned in paragraph 11(a) of the Conditions and Privileges when referred to occurs during the term of the policy, then the following benefits will be available: (i) Immediate payment of 50% of the sum assured. (ii) Payment of balance 50% of the sum assured along with vested bonuses, if any, in the event of the life assured surviving the stipulated date of maturity or at his death or earlier. (iii) Payment of an amount equal to 10% of the sum assured, every year, commencing from the policy anniversary falling on or imm...

Ganesh Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. and Vs. C.C.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. The above captioned two appeals have been directed; against the common Order-in-Appeal vide which the Commissioner (Appeals) has confirmed the Order-in-Original of the Adjudicating Authority who directed the confiscation of the goods under Section 113(d) and 113(1) of the Customs Act with an option to get the goods redeemed on payment of redemption fine of Rs. 2,00,000 and imposed also penalties on both the appellants as detailed therein i.e. Rs. 5,00,000 on the company (Appellant No. 1) and Rs. 2,00,000 on its Director (Appellant No. 2).2. The validity of the impugned order has been challenged by the learned Counsel mainly on two grounds. Firstly, that the provisions of Section 113(d) and (i) of the Customs Act are not at all attracted to the case of the appellants. Secondly, there had been no violation of Rule 13 of the Customs & Central Excise, Duties Drawback Rules, 1995 (in short Rules, 1995).3. To elaborate the first ground, the learned Counsel has contended that the good...

Shri Ganesh Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2004)(97)ECC764

1. The above captioned two appeals have been directed against the common Order-in-Appeal vide which the Commissioner (Appeals) has confirmed the Order-in-Original of the adjudicating authority who directed the confiscation of the goods under Sections 113(d) and 113(i) of the Customs Act with an option to get the goods redeemed on payment of redemption fine of Rs. 2,00,000/- and imposed also penalties on both the appellants as detailed therein i.e. Rs. 5,00,000/- on the company appellant No. 1 and Rs. 2,00,000/- on its Director (Appellant No. 2).2. The validity of the impugned order has been challenged by the learned Counsel mainly on two grounds. Firstly, that the provisions of Section 113(d) and (i) of the Customs Act are not at all attracted to the case of the appellants. Secondly, there had been no violation of Rule 13 of the Customs and Central Excise Duties Drawback Rules, 1995 (in short Rules 1995).3. To elaborate the first ground, the learned Counsel has contended that the good...