Delhi Court July 1994 Judgments

Weber Systems Incorporated Vs. S.K.W. Enterprises and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 1994(30)DRJ360; 1994RLR436

J.K. Mehra, J.(1) These are applications filed by defendants No. 2 and 4 for leave to defend the suit of the plaintiff filed under Order 37, The main ground taken by defendant No. 4 is that he had already ceased to be a partner of defendant No. 1 in the month of May, 1986 and the present suit refers to the transactions subsequent to May, 1986 except the transaction referring to site draft for the amount of U.S. $2398.43 (including freight) and, thereforee he is not liable for the transaction in question. A perusal of the plaint, however, discloses a different version of fads alleged. With regard to the payment of the site draft of the aforesaid amount, it is submitted by defendant No. 4 that this amount was included in the amount of Us $7,500.00 receipt whereof has been admitted by the plaintiff company and, thereforee, he is no longer liable for the alleged claim in the suit. Another point which defendant No. 4 has taken in the application for leave to defend is that the price for the...

Tarlok Chand and ors. Vs. National Industrial Development Corporation ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 1994IIIAD(Delhi)604; 55(1994)DLT157; 1994(30)DRJ206; (1994)IILLJ1130Del

J.K. Mehra, J. (1) This is writ petition filed by petitioners under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India alleging that they have been working as daily-rated workers under the respondent Corporation on the post of 'Safai Karamchari' for more than 240 days and are entitled to be regularised to the said posts, but the respondent is in a malafide manner continuing them as daily-rated workers as a result whereof their salaries are considerably lower than the salaries paid to permanent employees appointed to similar posts and performing similar work and have prayed for- '(A)issue of a writ of mandamus directing, the respondents for continuation of the services of the petitioners on the post of 'Safai Karmachari'. (b) a direction to the respondents for regularising the services of the petitioners and to appoint them in the permanent post of their services whenever, vacancy in the permanent post of their service will occur. (c) that the respondents may kindly he prohibited or rest...

Government of National Capital Territory Vs. Kamlesh and anr.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 1995(35)DRJ133; [1995(71)FLR888]; (1996)ILLJ469Del

R.C. Lahoti, J.(1) Pleadings are complete. (2) Rule D.B. (3) Heard the Counsel. (4) This petitioner is directed against the award dated 21.7.94 made by Labour Court-III, Delhi, whereby the termination of services of respondent No.1 having been held to be illegal and unjustified, she has been directed to be reinstated with continuity of service. The Labour Court has further direct full back wages as per the regular pay scale Along with the Da and Addl. Da to be paid to the respondent No.1. (5) The award is an ex-parte one against the employer. It appears that the employer had moved an application for setting aside the ex-parte proceedings which application has also been dismissed. The employer was filed this writ petition feeling aggrieved by both the orders i.e. the order forming basis of the award and the order refusing to set aside the ex-parte proceedings. (6) It is not disputed that the respondent No.1 is a workman. She was working as a Safai Karamchari w.e.f. 21.12.87 as a daily w...

Weston Electronics Limited Vs. Rajesh and Company

Court: Delhi

Reported in: AIR1995Delhi13; 1994(2)ARBLR249(Delhi); 55(1994)DLT208; 1994(30)DRJ167

J.K. Mehra, J. (1) In this suit, the plaintiff has complained that its trade mark 'WESTON' for electronic and electric goods is being infringed by the defendant and the defendant is passing off its goods as that those of the plaintiff. Such activity of the defendant are resulting in and/or are likely to result in confusion in the mind of the unwary purchasers.The plaintiff has also filed with its suit an application for interim injunction restraining the defendant from manufacturing, selling or offering for sale or advertising or dealing in electronic or electric goods under the impugned mark 'WESTON' or any other mark which may be deceptively similar to the trade mark 'WESTON'. (2) The plaintiff has averred that it is engaged in the business of manufacturing, selling and trading in a variety of electric and electronic goods including some reproducing equipment, radios, television sets, calculators, cassette players, stereo system, video cassette recorders, general electric fittings, s...

Davinder Mohan Verma Vs. General Manager, Northern Railway and Others

Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi

Dr. A.N. Saxena, Member: 1. The brief facts of the case are that on 28.6.92 the complainant Mr. Davinder Mohan Verma, resident of BG-7/58, Paschim Vihar, New Delhi, who is working as a Manager in the International Banking Division of Oriental Bank of Commerce, Connaught Place, New Delhi, had to go to New Delhi Railway Station in his Maruti Car No. DCC-4414 (Model-1987) to drop his family who were leaving for Yamuna Nagar by train. 2. It is stated that the complainant at about 1300 hrs. on 28-6-92 parked his Maruti car at the Railway Authorised Parking Centre, New Delhi. Towards this he was issued a parking slip No. 066905 by the parking attendant on duty. The parking slip given to him (Annexure A) shows a consideration of Rs. 3/- (Three only) which was to be paid at the time of taking the delivery of the car. It is further stated that the complainant after departure of his family came out of the Railway Station at about 1700 hrs. (as the train left the station late) and went straight t...

Special Machines Multirod House Vs. Collector of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1994)(73)ELT731TriDel

1. M/s. Special Machines Multirod House, Karnal, Haryana had filed this appeal on being aggrieved by the order passed by the Collector of Central Excise, New Delhi. He has submitted the appeal on 14th February, 1994. A Stay Application duly supported by an affidavit has also been filed. Notice of hearing of Stay application was issued. Shri V. Sridharan and Shri Kamaljeet Singh, Ld. Advocates appeared on behalf of the appellants. Shri V. Sridharan stated that there is denial of principle of natural justice. The adjudicating authority has passed the order without granting a personal hearing. He pleaded that they were issued a Show Cause Notice and the appellant had given an interim reply to the same, and further detailed reply was to be given as he wanted some information. He argued that at no point of time, the appellant had waived the right of personal hearing, and the Collector in no way could finally pass the order without giving them an opportunity of being heard personally. He ci...

Life Line Injects Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1994)(73)ELT734TriDel

1. This appeal has been filed by the appellant on being aggrieved by the order passed by the Collector of Central Excise, New Delhi. A stay application has also been filed which was supported by an affidavit.Shri R. Santhanam Advocate with Shri R. Singhani, Advocate appeared on behalf of the appellant. Shri Santhanam stated that they were issued two Show Cause Notices dated 16-7-1992 and 8-1-1993. He argued that reply for both the Show Cause Notices was filed. While reply to the Show Cause Notice dated 8-1-1993 has been produced which appeared on pages 31-32 of the paper book. He argued that reply to the Show Cause Notice has been considered but no personal hearing to this effect has been provided at all as the personal hearing was conducted earlier and then two Show Cause Notices have been issued and the adjudicating authority has passed a common order for both. He pleaded that principle of natural justice has been denied to them and if the appellants are desired to deposit the full ...

Supersum Laminations Plastic Vs. Collr. of C. Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1994)(73)ELT373TriDel

1. Shri B.B. Gujral, learned Counsel for the petitioners submits that in this case modvat credit had been taken on the strength of certified copy of the triplicate copy of bill of entry, since the triplicate copy itself had been misplaced. According to the provisions of the Evidence Act, the certified copy given by the Customs House is an acceptable evidence. In addition, they had obtained endorsement from the importer of the goods who had sold the entire quantity covered by the bill of entry in question to the appellants that they had not taken any modvat credit. A further endorsement has been given on the copy of the bill of entry that the appellants had also not taken any credit otherwise. In the circumstances, Shri Gujral pleaded that they have a strong prima facie case. He also relied upon the decision of the SRB reported in 1993 (48) ECR 484. He also pleaded that the petitioners have been declared a sick unit and BIFR proceedings are in progress. In view of the financial hardshi...

Collector of Central Excise Vs. Mohan Crystal Glass Works

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1994)(73)ELT214TriDel

1. The issue for determination in the above appeal filed by the Revenue against the order of Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), Ghaziabad is whether modvat credit is available on gate passes endorsed by an authorised agent of the consignor of inputs. The respondents herein who are manufacturers of glass bottles availed modvat credit amounting to Rs. 3,08,421 during the period August and September 1991 and January 1992 on the basis of GP 1s which were issued by M/s. Gujarat Heavy Chemicals, Veraval in respect of soda ash, in favour of M/s. Haryana Sheet Glass Ltd. Sonepat. The gate passes were endorsed in favour of the respondents by an authorised agent of the supplier of inputs i.e.M/s. Gujarat Heavy Chemicals and it certified that the entire consignment covered under 27 gate passes in question had been diverted in entirety in original packing to the respondents. According to the Revenue, the endorsement on the gate passes is not in conformity with the requirement of Rule 57G unde...

Sangita Printers and Exporters Vs. Collector of C. Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1994)(73)ELT182TriDel

1. This is an appeal against the order of the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), Bombay.2. The learned Counsel has stated that the main question involved in this case relates to interpretation of Notification No. 83/83 and more particularly as to the meaning of the words "clearances for home consumption".3. The appellant is engaged in twin business of (a) manufacturing and clearing goods for home consumption (b) processing of cotton fabrics on job work basis and clearing the same under bond to the original supplier under Rule 96D of the Rules. The appellant claimed benefit of exemption Notification Nos. 80/80 and 83/83. While calculating the value of clearances, the appellant excluded there-from the value of clearances of fabrics returned under bond to the original supplier.3.1. The classification lists are officially approved. The appellant discharged the duty liability to the extent payable as the Department, in response to their written request for clarification had accepted th...