Delhi Court February 1992 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.
Bank of Maharashtra Vs. Swastic Sales Corporation
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-11-1992
Reported in: 48(1992)DLT551
Arun Knmar, J.(1) This order will dispose of the application of the defendant under Order 37 Rule 3 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure for leave to defend the suit. (2) The plaintiff filed the present suit for recovery of Rs. 3,26,036.00 against the defendant under the procedure prescribed in Order xxxvii of the Code of Civil Procedure. The suit is based on two hundies both dated 29th April, 1987 and for the amount of Rs. 87,615.00 and Rs. l,26,428.00 Apart from the total amount of the two hundies, the rest of the claim of the plaintiff in the suit is on account of interest that has accrued on the said hundies. While arguing the present application, the counsel for the defendant has urged various grounds to make out a case that an unconditional leave to defend the suit ought to be granted to the defendant. (3) Firstly, it is urged that the hundies in the suit were given in blank after the same had been signed by Shri Vijendra Kumar, partner of the defen dant. It is su...
Collector of Customs Vs. Paper Products Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Feb-10-1992
Reported in: (2004)(164)ELT268TriDel
1. This is a departmental appeal against the order of Collector (Appeals), Madras, dated 30-7-90.2. The DR drew attention to the grounds of appeal mentioned in the Memo, of Appeal and the impugned order and stated that this matter relates to classification of printed plastic films.3. The Asstt. Collector had classified them under 3920.29 and 3920.39 and the Collector (Appeals) had set aside the said order and allowed the appeal.4. It was his submission that the main issue involved is whether printing would make any difference. It was their contention that the printing would amount to manufacture and duty is to be ...... such transformation irrespective of whether goods even then would fall under the same heading or different.5. The learned Counsel drew attention to the Tariff Entry 39.20 and stated that they are printing plastic films falling under Heading 39.20 on job work basis. This heading reads : "39.20 : Other plates, sheets, film, foil and strip of plastics, non-cellular, wheth...
M/S. Jay Industries Vs. M/S. Nakson Industries
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-10-1992
Reported in: ILR1992Delhi898
ORDERB. N. Kirpal, J.1. The question which has been referred to this Bench, by a single Judge of this Court, for decision is whether a single suit can be filed when it is alleged that there has been an infringement of the plaintiff's trade mark and copy right. In other words can one suit be filed in relation to two distinct statutory causes of action.2. The plaintiff in the suit had alleged that the defendant had infringed the plaintiff's registered trade mark and also its copy right. The allegation was that the plaintiff's copyright existed on the labels and cartons in which goods had been packed which carried the trademark of the plaintiff. With regard to the trademark the allegation was that the plaintiff was the registered proprietor of the mark 'Jay'. It was also alleged, with relation to the copy right, that the plaintiff had been using distinctive cartons in which the goods manufactured by the plaintiff namely, locks, meters, cut outs etc. were packed. It was further alleged in ...
Puran Mal Girraj Kishore Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-10-1992
Reported in: [1992]197ITR170(Delhi)
B.N. Kirpal, J.1. This order will dispose of Income-tax References Nos. 211 to 215 of 1978. 2. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal has referred under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, the following two questions to this court for our decision : '1. Whether an order for cancellation of registration passed under section 186(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, is a valid order in the absence of an order passed under section 185(1) or 184(7) of the Act 2. Whether the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in refusing to grant continuation of registration by going into the question of genuineness of the firm in view of the fact that the registration for the assessment years 1962-63 and 1966-67 had already been granted and conditions as laid down in section 184(7) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, had also been complied with ?' 3. Briefly stated, the facts are, as is evident from the statement of the case, that the assessed was stated to be a partnership firm consisting of three partners...
S.K. Sarawagi and Co. Vs. Minerals and Metals Trading Corporation of I ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-10-1992
Reported in: 1992(2)ARBLR41(Delhi); 46(1992)DLT514; 1992(22)DRJ616
Gokal Chand Mital, C.J.(1) There was a contract, which came to an end between the parties in 1966. Under that contract some claims were sought to be made on behalf of M/s. S.K-Sarawagi & Co.(P) Ltd. The appellant company claimed Rs.3,51,378.50 and filed an application under section 20 of the Arbitration Act on 24th July, 1985 i.e. nearly after 20 years of the supplies having been made. A learned Single judge of this Court by ex parte order dated 27th July, 1988 appointed Sh.Ashok Bhasin, Advocate to arbitrate the disputes. Minerals and Metals Trading Corporation of India Ltd., the respondent before the learned Single Judge filed an application under Order 9 rule 13, Civil Procedure Code for recalling order of appointment of arbitrator ex parte for the reasons given in the application. A learned Single Judge was satisfied with the absence of the respondent and also took notice of the fact that the appellant had raised the dispute nearly after 20 years and it was a good case for giving a...
Pukan Mal Girraj Kishore Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-10-1992
Reported in: 46(1992)DLT695
B.N. Kirpal, J.(1) This order will dispose of Income-tax Reference Nos. 211 to 215 of 1978. (2) The Income-tax Tribunal has referred under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 the following two questions to this Court for our decision : 1. Whether, an order for cancellation of registration passed u/S 186 (1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 is a valid order in the absence of the order passed u/S. 185(1) or 184(7) of the Act? 2. Whether the Income-tax Tribunal was justified in refusing to grant continuation of registration by going into the question of genuineness of the firm in view of the fact that the registration for the assessment years 1262-63 and 1966-67 had already been granted and conditions as laid down u/S 184(7) of the I.T. Act, 1961 bad also been complied with 7 (3) Briefly stated the facts are, as is evident from the statement of the case, that the assessed was stated to be a partnership firm consisting of three partners, namely, Puran Mal, Laxmi Narain and Bimla Devi and...
Jay Industries Vs. Nakson Industries
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-10-1992
Reported in: AIR1992Delhi338; 1992(1)ARBLR264(Delhi); 48(1992)DLT651; 1992RLR176
B.N. Kirpal, J.(1) The question which has been referred to this Bench, by a Single Judge of this Court, turn decision is whether a single suit can be filed when it is alleged that there has been an infringement of the plaintiff's trade mark and copy right. In other words can one suit be filed in relation to two distinct statutory causes of action.(2) The plaintiff in the suit had alleged that the defendant had infringed the plaintiff's registered trade mark and also its copy right. The allegation was that the plaintiff's copy right existed on the labels and carton? in which goods had been packed which carried the trade mark of the plaintiff. With regard to the trade mark the allegation was that-the plaintiff was the registered proprietor of the mark 'JAY'. It was also: alleged, with relation to the copy right, that the plaintiff had been using distinctive cartons in which the goods manufactured by the plaintiff namely, locks, meters, cut outs etc. were packed. It was further alleged in...
New India Dyeing and Finishing Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Feb-07-1992
Reported in: (1992)(59)ELT418TriDel
1. These appeals have been filed against common Order dated 10-4-1990 passed by Shri Gowri Shankar, Collector of Central Excise, Chandigarh demanding Central Excise duty of Rs. 61,69,933.80 from M/s. New India Dyeing & Finishing Mills and Rs. 5,55,259.95 from M/s. New India Printing Works under Rule 9(2) of the Central Excise Rules. By the same Order, he has imposed a penalty of Rs. 30 lakhs on M/s. New India Dyeing and Finishing Mills and of Rs. 6 lakhs on New India Printing Works under the Rule 173Q read with Rule 209A ibid. He has also imposed penalties under Rule 209A on the following parties as mentioned against each:- 2. He has also imposed penalties of Rs. 25 lakhs on Shri Chain Singh and Shri Davinder Singh under Rule 173Q and 209A ibid.3. The stay applications of all these parties which were heard together have been allowed by a common order. The short point on which the stay applications have been allowed is that the order passed by Shri Gowri Shankar, Collector of Centr...
Collector of Central Excise Vs. Kesar Sugar Works Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Feb-07-1992
Reported in: (1993)(66)ELT238TriDel
1. This appeal is directed against the impugned Order-in-Appeal passed by the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), New Delhi.2. Shortly put the facts of the case are that, the respondents M/s Kesar Sugar Works Ltd. filed their rebate claim for Rs. 1,22,434/- in respect of excess production of sugar during the period May 1978 to September, 1978 under Notification No. 108/78 dated 28-4-1978. On receipt of the rebate claim, the Superintendent of Central Excise concerned worked out the rebate and a credit of Rs. 83,570.78 was allowed to the respondents. The respondents protested and represented to the Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Bareilly. From the Order-in-Original passed by the Assistant Collector it appears that the appellants raised the following three contentions :- 1. Contention in their letter dated 4-3-1980 that excess sugar in respect of which the rebate had been earned was cleared in the month of July, 1978 when the incidence or duty was higher than that of rebate no...
A.V.N. Tubes Ltd. Vs. Bharatia Cutler Hammer Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-07-1992
Reported in: 46(1992)DLT453; 1992RLR89
Gokal Chand Mital, J.(1) The arbitration clause is as follows : 'WITHOUTprejudice to the above Clause 17, of the Contract the Company, M/s. Avn Tubes Limited, reserves its right to go in for arbitration, if any dispute so arisen is not mutually settled within 3 months of such notice given by the Company to the Contractor. And, the award of the Arbitrator, to be appointed by the Company, M/s. Avn Tubes Limited, shall be final and binding on both the Company and the Contractor.'(2) A reading of the aforesaid arbitration clause clearly shows that M/s. Avn Tubes Limited alone has been given the right to go in for arbitration. Not only this, the aforesaid course has to be followed only at the instance of the company by giving three months notice if the dispute is not mutually settled between the parties; and thirdly, the right to appoint an arbitrator has been given only to M/s. Avn Tubes Limited and the decision of the Arbitrator of M/s. Avn Tubes Ltd. is to be considered final and binding...
- ‹ Prev
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 15
- Next ›
- Last »