Court : Delhi
Decided on : Aug-10-1992
Reported in : 1992(24)DRJ180; 1993(41)ECC97
santosh duggal, j.(1) the issue involved in this writ petition falls within a very narrow compass. before proceeding to determine the issue, it is necessary to briefly notice the facts of the case. (2) the petitioner is a processor, purchasing fabrics for embroidery work and effecting clearances of the embroidered fabric. according to the petitioner's case, the goods were purchased directly from the mills, and at times from the open market, and it was not possible to ensure that the goods were received in mill packed condition, or were accompanied by documents certifying their duty paid character. (3) the dispute arose in respect to the extent of the liability of the petitioner for payment of excise duty on the goods cleared by them. the period involved is june 1970 to march 1971. a demand of short levy, amounting to rs. 13,891.45 was raised by means of show cause notice dated 12.5.1971, alleging that the petitioner were clearing cotton fabrics, after making embroidery, assessable under tariff item no. 19-1 (2) of the central excise tariff, and that for the cotton fabrics (base fabrics) which they had received from the open market, they had not been able to establish their identity with the duty paying documents, and as such the differential duty equivalent to the excise duty payable on the base fabrics was demanded from the petitioner. the relevant entry, as in force, at the time, reads as under: 19 cotton fabrics. ii embroidery in the the duty for the time piece, in strips .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Delhi
Decided on : Feb-07-1992
Reported in : 47(1992)DLT342
s.b. wad, j. (1) this lpa is filed by the union of india against thejudgment of the learned single judge dated 7/07/1988. the learned single judge had quashed the show-cause notice dated 18.2.88 and the order of removal dated 15.11.78, passed by the union of india against the respondent.the respondent was working as a captain in the army. he was served with a show-cause notice under rule 14 of the army rules, calling upon him to explain as to why he should not be removed from service. the show-cause notice reads:-'show-cause' notice under army rule 14(1) it has come to notice that you addressed an application dated 13/08/1977 pertaining to service matters direct to shri shanti bhushan, the law minister in violation of the provisions of para 557 'of regulations for the army,1962. in doing so you have committed grave irregularity and misconduct unbecoming the position, conduct and code of discipline expected of an armyofficer.(2) it is further observed that this is not the first time you have committed a grave irregularity. in the past also you had indulged in acts of commission/commission which were against the norms of army discipline and unbecoming conduct of an army officer. some of the instances are asfollows:- (a)in may 74, while you were attached to 14 gtc, you sent an application no. 1c 20942/ak/p dated 15 mar. 74 direct to gen.t.n. raina, the then goc-in-c, western command in contravention of the provisions of para 552 of the regulations for the army and ao 227/71.(b) .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Delhi
Decided on : Nov-18-1992
Reported in : 49(1993)DLT360; 1992(24)DRJ590; 1993LabIC612; (1993)IILLJ384Del; 1993RLR67; 1993(2)SLJ44(Delhi)
d.p. wadhwa, j.(1) rule d.b.(2) members of the delhi judicial: services association, the petitioner no. 1, belong to delhi judicial service which is a class i service. at the time when this petitioner was filed it was stated that the strength of the judicial officers belonging to delhi judicial service was over 150. the second petitioner mr. s.k. tandon is the secretary of the first petitioner. the petitioners seek a writ, order or direction to the respondents for grant of initial outfit allowance to the members of the first petitioner. they also pray that direction be issued to the respondents to grant initial outfit allowance of rs. 5,500.00 renewable every five years and also grant reasonable kit maintenance allowance to them. the delhi administration, the union of india through secretaries in the ministries of home affairs and law and justice and finance (department of expenditure) and the delhi high court are the respondents in the petition.(3) the petitioners have referred to para 30 of volume iv of the punjab high court rules and orders as applicable to delhi prescribing cannone of judicial ethics which is as under:- 'the dress of the presiding officers should be in keeping with the dignity of his office. shorts and shirts sleeves are quite unsuitable for the presiding officers of acourt. subordinate judges and magistrates should wear a white shirt, black coat and necktie and grey or white trousers.'(4) the petitioners also refer to certain observations in the reports .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Delhi
Decided on : May-29-1992
Reported in : II(1992)BC344; 48(1992)DLT468; 1992(23)DRJ371
arun kumar, j.(1) this order will dispose of the interim applications filed by the plaintiff in the above suits to restrain the defendant from encashing the bank guarantees furnished by the plaintiff in pursuance of the contract between the parties. these are six suits filed by the plaintiff m/s v.k. constructions works ltd. against the army welfare housing organisation. there are six independent contracts between the parties and thereforee these six suits. in each case there are two applications by the plaintiff regarding relief of injunction sought by the plaintiff against encashment of bank guarantees by the defendant. this order will dispose of all the 12 applications. two sets of bank guarantees are involved. one set is regarding bank guarantees for the due repayment of the mobilization advance. the other set of bank guarantees is that of the performance guarantees. the bank of rajasthan ltd., panchsheel park, new delhi has furnished all the bank guarantees. the letters of invocation of bank guarantees are similar in language and content in all the cases, except for the variation in the amounts. the language of the bank guarantees to cover the mobilization advance is identical in all the cases except variation in the amounts. similarly the language of the performance guarantees is similar in all the cases except the variation in the amounts, thereforee, all these cases raise py?3 common questions of fact and law and the injunction applications are being disposed of by .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Chennai
Decided on : Apr-29-1992
Reported in : 1992(40)ECC49
venkataswami, j.1. except in t.c. no. 57 of 1991, in all other ten cases, the common question that arises for our consideration is, whether stainless steel wires are declared goods falling under entry 4(xv) of the second schedule to the tamil nadu general sales tax act, 1959 (hereinafter called 'the act'). the question that arises for our consideration in t.c. no. 57 of 1991 is, whether stainless steel tube is an item of declared goods falling under item 4(xi) of the second schedule to the act. 2. before going into the questions as such, a small preface is necessary. the revenue as well as the sales tax appellate tribunal seem to have taken different views at different stages on the above questions. the tribunal, in t.a. nos. 574 and 583 of 1978 dated december 2, 1978, in t.a. no. 408 of 1986 dated october 31, 1988 and in t.a. no. 90 of 1986, etc., dated march 10, 1989, has taken the view that stainless steel wires are declared goods, while in t.a. no. 1919 of 1983, etc., dated april 25, 1985 and t.a. no. 589 of 1987 dated august 10, 1988, the tribunal has taken the view that they (stainless steel wires) are not declared goods, against which all the present tax cases (revisions) are filed. 3. the revenue, on their part, while issuing clarificatory letters or circulars, had taken the following stands at different times. in the following instances, the revenue has held that they are declared goods : d.d. 7226/83 acts cell ii dated february 27, 1984, d. dis. 31050/86 dated march .....Tag this Judgment!