Delhi Court July 1988 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.
Krishan Lal Dutta Vs. Behari Lal Chhabra
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-22-1988
Reported in: 36(1988)DLT324; 1988(15)DRJ318
P.K. Bahri, J.(1) This civil revision is directed against the orders dated 9th June, 1984 and 10th August, 1984 of Shri A.K. Srivastava, SubJudge, by which he had held that the execution petition moved by the petitioner/decree-holder is inexecutable and the plot in respect of which the decree for possession had been obtained by the petitioner/decree-holder does not exist at the spot and he allowed the objections of the respondent/judgment-debtor holding that the respondent/judgment-debtor is in possession of property A-47 in respect of which the decree-holder cannot get any warrants of possession in execution of the decree obtained by the petitioner/decree- holder against the respondent.(2) The facts of the case in brief are that the petitioner/plaintiff had filed a suit under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act against the respondent/ defendant for getting relief of possession in respect of plot measuring 200 sq. yards bearing No. V/B-64-B in Varinder Nagar bounded on East by service...
Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd. Vs. Dua Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-22-1988
Reported in: AIR1989Delhi44; 1988(2)ARBLR315(Delhi); 36(1988)DLT133
B.N. Kirpal, J. (1) The plaintiff has filed a suit alleging that its registered trade mark 'CALMPOSE' has been infringed by the defendant, who is manufacturing similar medicine and marketing under the mark of 'CALMPROSE'. The prayer in the suit is for a perpetual injunction and for a decree for rendition of accounts. (2) Along with the plaint the plaintiff has also filed an application under Order 39, Rules 1 & 2 Civil Procedure Code and has prayed for an ad interim injunction. It is averred that the plaintiff has had the trade mark registered since 6th March 1970 and has sold 'CALMPOSE' worth about Rs. 40.16 crores since its adoption and has spent about Rs. 16.43 lakhs on sales promotion from January to August, 1987. The said medicine are Diazepam tablets of 5 mg each. It is also contended that not only is the mark of the defendant phonetically and visually similar, but even the packing of the defendant of the said medicine is similar to that of the plaintiff. The plaintiff is using t...
Darshan Garg Vs. Sri Kishan Das
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-22-1988
Reported in: 36(1988)DLT3
P.K. Bahri, J.(1) This is a civil revision petition under Section 25-B(8) of the Delhi Rent Control Act by the landlord for setting aside the judgment dated 28/08/1985, of Shri Ajit Bharihoke, Additional RentController, Delhi, by which he dismissed the eviction petition brought by the petitioner on the ground of bonafide requirement for residence covered by clause (e) of sub-section (1) of Section 14 of the Delhi Rent Controller Act (for short 'the Act').(2) The findings of the Additional Rent Controller that the petitioner is the landlord co-owner of the property in question and the premises which comprises of only one room one the ground floor of house No. 9/6544, GaliNo. 2, Dev Nagar, New Delhi stands let out to the respondent-tenant for residential purposes only are not disputed before me. It is also indeed not disputed that the family of the petitioner comprises of herself, her husband and four daughters out of whom one stands married during the pendency of the eviction case and a...
Bliss Impex Corporation Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jul-21-1988
Reported in: (1988)(18)LC643Tri(Delhi)
1. By appeal No. C/385/88-D the appellants have challenged the Order-in-original No. AP/INT/22/86-Cus., dated 29.9.1987 passed by the Collector of Customs, Cochin in which he has demanded duty of Rs. 6,62,023.60 on the imported white Cardboard which was cleared duty-free under Notification No. 117/78-Cus., dated 9-6-1978. the Collector has also held that the appellants were guilty of mis-declaration in the shipping bills relating to export of frozen shrimps which were liable to confiscation under Section 113 of the Customs Act, 1962 and since the goods were not available for confiscation, he has imposed a penalty of Rs. 50,000/- on the appellants under Section 112 of the Customs Act.The charge against the appellants was that they imported two consignments of White Cardboard through Madras Port free of duty in terms of the above notification against Advance Licence. According to the terms of the Advance Licence, the appellants were to export 2,50,000 Kgs. of frozen shrimps packed in 12...
Wealth-tax Officer Vs. Tej Partap Singh
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Decided on: Jul-21-1988
Reported in: (1989)28ITD420(Delhi)
1. These appeals by the revenue are directed against the consolidated order of the Commissioner of Wealth-tax (Appeals), New Delhi, dated 12-11-1987 relating to assessment years 1970-71 to 1975-76. A common and solitary ground taken for all the years reads as below : On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned CWT (Appeals) erred in annulling the assessment holding it as time-barred.In order to appreciate the factual back-drop of the case, we bring into focus the facts which are relevant for determination of this issue.2. The assessee is a Hindu undivided family and from the following tabulated data the date of filing the original return, the date of assessment and the net wealth assessed can be seen placed in juxtaposition :S. No. Year of Date of Net Net Date of Assessment original wealth wealth assessment Return returned assessed The statistical data noted supra shows that the Wealth-tax Officer completed the assessments for the assessment years 1970-71 to 1974-75...
Surat Singh Vs. Municipal Corporation of Delhi
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-21-1988
Reported in: AIR1989Delhi51; 1988(15)DRJ336
D.P. Wadhwa, J. (1) This is the plaintiffs second appeal. He succeeded in the first court in a suit for malicious prosecution which was decreed for Rs. 500.00 in his favor but the first appellate court reversed that judgment.(2) Surat Singh, the appellant, filed a suit for recovery of Rs. 500.00 against four respondents. The suit was brought on 11-5-1970. Defendant No. 3 was the Commissioner of the Municipal Corporation of Delhi. He is not being proceeded against and is not a respondent before me. There are, thereforee, three respondents who were originally defendants Nos. 1,2 and 4. As the title would show defendant No. 1 is the Municipal Corporation of Delhi, a body corporate constituted under the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957. Defendant No. 2, Delhi Electric Supply Undertaking (for short 'the DESU') is one of the undertakings of the first defendant under the aforesaid Act. One of the purposes of the Desu is to provide electricity to various persons. Under Section 277 of the ...
Silfer Enterprises and anr. Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jul-20-1988
Reported in: (1988)(18)LC577Tri(Delhi)
1. M/s. Silfer Enterprises, Ahmedabad and Shri H.D. Silva, Prop. M/s.Silfer Enterprises have filed two appeals being aggrieved from orders in original Nos. 3/85 and 4/85 dated 15th November, 1985 both passed by the Collector of Customs, Rajkot. Shri Nitin Kanta-wala and Shri M.A.Rangaswamy, Advocates have appeared on behalf of the appellants and Shri S. Krishnamurthy, S.D.R. has appeared on behalf of the respondent.Both the sides have put forth the common arguments for both the appeals and as such the same are being disposed of by this consolidated order.Briefly the facts of the case are that a consignment of 1513 cases of Ball bearings arrived at Kandla port in the month of March, 85 by C.V.Silver Star from the port of Rotterdam. M/s. Silfer Enterprises filed four Bills of Entry namely F-308, F-309, F-310and F-311 dated 15.3.1985 and had declared the value at Rs. 8,90,026.10. M/s. Silfer Enterprises had claimed to be the Agents of M/s. Elecon Engineering, Vallabh Vidyanagar in terms ...
State Vs. Vijay Kumar and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-20-1988
Reported in: 1989(2)Crimes546; 37(1989)DLT16
Charanjit Talwar, J.(1) A preliminary objection to the maintainability of this appeal by which acquittal of the respondents is sought to be set aside has been raised. The plea is that the appeal is time barred. (2) The application seeking leave to appeal (Cr. M.No 30 of 1986) was filed or July 9, 1986. The grounds of appeal also dated July 9 1986 were filed along with the said application. On an objection raised by the Registry that the appeal was filed after the period of limitation Cr.M Application No. 30-A of 1986 was filed by the State on August 19 1986 As no affidavit in support of the application bad been filed, it was returned to the counsel. The application was refiled on September 1, 1986. It was 17 placed for hearing on November 10, 1986. The following order was passed thereon:- 'Let the application be registered. Delay is condoned subject to just exceptions, if any.' Leave to appeal was granted and the appeal was admitted. It was further directed that the appeal be heard alo...
Hindustan Times Ltd. Vs. Employees State Insurance Corporation and anr ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-20-1988
Reported in: 36(1988)DLT135; 1988RLR549
D.P. Wadhwa, J. (1) This appeal under S. 82 of the Employees State Insurance Act 1948 (sor short 'the Act') is directed against the order dated Feb. 21, 1986, of the Employees Insurance Court passed on a petition under S. 75 of the Act filed by the petitioner-appellant. Under sub-s.(2) of S. 28, an appeal lies only if it involves a substantial question of law. (2) The appellant publishes monthly magazine called 'Nandan', weekly magazine called 'Saptahik Hindustan' and another weekly magazine called 'Film Chitra Katha'. All these magazines are published at regular intervals. The appellant also publishes daily newspaper and other magazines as well on weekly and monthly basis. By order dated June 25. 1983 the respondent Employees State Insurance Corporation (for short 'ESIC) made under S. 45A of the Act determined a sum of Rs. 5879.00 as contribution payable by the appellant under the Act for the period from April 1981 to March 1982 plus interest amounting to Rs. 673.79 up to March 31, 19...
Aqueous Victuals Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Collector of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jul-19-1988
Reported in: (1988)(18)LC493Tri(Delhi)
1. Aqueous Victuals Pvt. Ltd. has filed an appeal being aggrieved from order in appeal No. 378 -CE /KNP/85, dated 12.7.85 passed by Collector of CE. (Appeals), New Delhi. The appeal before the Collector (Appeals) was against order in original No. V/130/SRP/156/80/Pt. II, dated 18.2.84 despatched on 21.2.84. Collector (Appeals) had partly rejected the appeal and on certain issues had been remanded to the Assistant Collector for de novo adjudication. Thereafter, the Assistant Collector made de novo adjudication vide order dated 16-10-1985 and being aggrieved from the de novo adjudication order dated 16-10-1985, the assessee had failed an appeal to the Collector (Appeals) and the Ld.Collector (Appeals) had allowed the appeal vide order in appeal No.12-CE/KNP/86, dated 24-2-1986. Being aggrieved from the aforesaid order the Collector of Central Excise, Kanpur has filed an appeal before the Tribunal. Since both the appeals pertain to the same period and the same appellant and order in orig...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- Next ›
- Last »