Delhi Court August 1995 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.
C and J Clark International Ltd. Vs. Clarks Sports Shoe Factory and or ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-31-1995
Reported in: 1995IIIAD(Delhi)961; 1995(2)ARBLR468(Delhi); 60(1995)DLT17; 1995(34)DRJ723
K. Ramamoorthy, J. (1) This is an application for injunction restraining the defendants from using Trade Mark Clarks in respect of shoes. (2) Broadly the allegations in plaint are these. Plaintiff wants to use the famous trade mark Clarks represented in script form. The trade mark is registered in many countries of the world including India, The plaintiff relies upon the following registration for using Clarks in India:- Trade Mark Regn.No.& Class Goods Date Clarks 348217/8/42 25 Boots, Shoes, slippers leggings and gaiters CLARKS(in 34827618/4/79 25 Boots, shoes, script form) slippers, sandals over boots, over shoes, goulashes and inner socks for use in all the aforegoing. (3) The above Registrations having been renewed by the plaintiff from time to time and according to the plaintiff they are valid and subsisting on the file of the Registrar of Trade Mark. Annexure A along with the plaint is the document showing the registration and renewal of the trade mark. The plaintiffs operations...
Subhash Vs. Anju
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-31-1995
Reported in: 59(1995)DLT767
Manmohan Sarin, J.(1) The petitioner has filed this petition under Section 115 Civil Procedure Code . assailing the order dated 26.7.1995, by which the learned Guardian Judge granted the custody of the child (one and a half years of age) to the respondent-mother. Counsel for the petitioner appearing before me has strenuously urged that the conduct of the respondent had to be considered. The respondent according to him, had abandoned the child as an infant. Further she did not have the resources to look after the welfare of the child. Counsel for the petitioner states that respondent has harassing the petitioner and his family members by filing false reports with the anti-dowry cell. He submits that the respondent did not care for the child and had refused to come even when the infant was admitted to the hospital for treatment of Diarrhoea. (2) On 29.8.1995, when the revision petition came up for admission, I had directed issuance of notice of the revision petition to the respondent on ...
Bishamber Nath Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-31-1995
Reported in: ILR1996Delhi790
Mohd. Shamim, J. (1) The petitioner through the present writ petition wants that the services rendered by him as an Emergency Commissioned Officer, Territorial Army Officer be taken into consideration' for deciding his seniority and for his promotion and for the purposes of pay and allowances (2) The facts in brief which are necessary for deciding the points raised in the present writ petition are as under : that the petitioner was initially granted a commission in the Territorial Army on May 13,1960. During the period from May 13, 1960 to March 9, 1964 be served over there and rendered full embodied service. While the petitioner was working as a Commissioned Officer in the Territorial Army he was selected as an Emergency Commissioned Officer on March 10, 1964. He served the Army in the said capacity during the period from March 10, 1964 to July 16, 1969. Subsequently during his tenure of service as Emergency Commissioned Officer (ECO for short) he was promoted to the rank of Captain. ...
Gurdeep Kaur Vs. Kartar Singh Khurana and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-31-1995
Reported in: 60(1995)DLT131; 1995RLR563
Arun Kumar, J.(1) This petition is directed against an order dated 28th March, 1995 whereby the Additional Rent Controller granted leave to contest the eviction petition filed under Section 14D of the Delhi Rent Control Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) for eviction of the respondent from the ground floor of property No. 23 / 16, East Patel Nagar, New Delhi. The premises was let out to the respondent in the year 1958 by the erstwhile owner. The property was purchased by Smt. Sukhwant Kaur, mother of the petitioner along with her husband, i.e the father of the petitioner on 26th June, 1962. According to the petitioner, she Along with her daughter respondent No. 2 inherited the property from Smt. Sukhwant Kaur by virtue of a registered will dated 16th April, 1982. The property already stands mutated in the name of the petitioner and her daughter, respondent No. 2 herein. The petitioner is a widow. She is a handicapped person. Both her legs have been amputated above the knees. The ...
Veena Bajaj Vs. Anita Rani
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-31-1995
Reported in: 59(1995)DLT765
Manmohan Sarin, J.(1) This is a transfer petition filed under Section 24 C.P.C. by the petitioner/tenant for transfer of Suit No. 422 /93 Along with Contempt Petition No. M-32/94 pending in the Court of Ms. Renu Bhatnagar, Civil Judge, to the Court of Ms. Kamini Lao, where a suit beaming No. 131/95 titled as Smt. Anita Rani v. Veena Bajaj, filed by the respondent for possession is pending. (2) The fact in brief may be recapitulated :- (I)The petitioner had filed a suit for permanent injunction seeking to restrain the respondent from dispossessing her without the due process of Law. This was registered as Suit No. 422 //93. A status quo order was passed on 10.11.1993. (II)The petitioner states that thereafter the electric supply to the premises was also disconnected, constraining her to file a petition under Section 45 of Delhi Rent Control Act. (III)In the meanwhile, respondent had filed a Suit No. 30/94 now, be renumbered as 131/95 being a suit for possession. The said suit was assign...
Sravasti Kisan Sahkari Chini Vs. C.C.E.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Aug-30-1995
Reported in: (1996)(81)ELT148TriDel
1. These are four identically worded applications for dispensation of the mandatory requirement to pre-deposit the duty demanded that is to say Rs. 20,49/861/. Arguing on these applications, Shri Vinay Garg, the learned Counsel submitted that in the instant case, the demand was raised under Section 11D of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 on the ground that the appellants had availed of exemption from excise duties in terms of Exemption Notification Nos. 130/83 and 131/83-C.E., both dated 27-4-1983 but recovered the same from their customers based on a higher rate of duty. The learned Counsel submitted that earlier also, such demand was raised for the earlier period and therefore, the appellants had to file their appeals along with the stay applications which were heard together on 25th July, 1995 and the Bench after taking into consideration the financial position of the appellants coupled with the question of law involved as to whether Section 11D would apply to the present cas...
Agra Beverages Corpn. Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Collector of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Aug-30-1995
Reported in: (1997)(90)ELT398TriDel
1. This is an appeal filed by M/s Agra, who under his order dated 26-2-1983 rejected the deductions claimed by the assessee in the name of the post-manufacturing expenses. Before the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), the claim was restricted only to the rent on containers, shells repairing, breakages and burst of empty bottles. The Collector of Central Excise (Appeals) discussed the matter with reference to the Supreme Court's decision in the case of Union of India v. Bombay Tyre International Ltd. - 1983 (14) E.L.T. 1896 (S.C.), and observed that all these charges were being collected from their customers. The order passed by the Asstt. Collector of Central Excise, Agra, was confirmed and the appeal by M/s. Agra Beverages was rejected.3. The matter was posted for hearing on 7-4-1995 when Shri M.A.Rangaswamy, Advocate appeared for the appellant. Shri K.K. Jha, SDR represented the respondent. The appellant had filed a miscellaneous application praying for taking on record, documen...
Collector of Central Excise Vs. Mahajan Iron Foundry
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Aug-30-1995
Reported in: (1996)(81)ELT614TriDel
1. This revenue appeal is directed against the order-in-appeal No.120-CE/KNP/85, dated 19-2-1985 of Collector (Appeals) wherein Collector has set aside the order of the Assistant Collector confirming the duty demand of Rs. 7237.24 erroneously refunded to the Respondents.2. Arguing for the appellants, the Ld. D.R. submitted that the Assistant Collector had sanctioned Rs. 13,752.22 for the period from 8-3-1975 to 10-5-1975 and the amount was paid to the Respondent on 2-9-1978. He further submits that out of this Rs. 7,237.24 had been paid erroneously to them. This amount pertains to the period from 3/75 to 10-5-1975 and was barred by limitation.3. The Learned Advocate submitted that at the relevant time before the amendment to Rule 11 time limit for making claim was one year and in regard to merits in this case they had been writing letter after letter to the department that the iron castings manufactured by them are not subject to duty. In the letter dated 8-7-1975 they had submitted t...
C.C.E. Vs. New Gujarat Synthetics Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Aug-30-1995
Reported in: (1997)(89)ELT727TriDel
1. The Collector of Central Excise, Ahmedabad being aggrieved with the order-in-appeal dated 18-6-1986 passed by the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), Bombay had filed the present appeal. The respondents are M/s New Gujarat Synthetics Ltd., Ahmedabad 2. The matter relates to the classification of Cellulosic spun yarn falling under Item No. 18/III of the erstwhile First Schedule to the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 (hereinafter referred to as the 'old Central Excise Tariff')- The yarn was made out of polyester fibre waste, and contained cotton and viscose staple fibre of cellulosic origin and polynosic fibre of cellulosic origin. The respondents had classified the yarn in question under Item No 18-III (i) which covered the cellulosic spun yarn not containing any man made fibres of noncellulosic origin. In the show cause notice dated 29-10-1983, it was alleged that the said yarn was correctly classifiable under Item No 18-III (ii) which covered the cellulosic spun yarn contain...
Telemechanique and Control (i) Vs. Collector of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Aug-29-1995
Reported in: (2000)(117)ELT614TriDel
1. This is an appeal against the order dated 4-7-1991 passed by the Collector, Central Excise (Appeals) by which he held that the order passed by the Deputy Collector imposing a penalty of Rs. 2,000/- on the appellants was sustainable. Appearing on behalf of the appellants Shri S.S. Mehra, Learned Consultant submitted that the appellants factory was visited by the Central Excise Officers on 24-9-1986 when after checking the accounts certain excesses and shortages over the R.G.I balance was found. He added that the Collector (Appeals) had held the discrepancy has arisen because of improper accounting and except one item all other items were accounted for. He added on that ground that there was no deliberate attempt to evade duty. The Collector (Appeals) had held that the charge of clandestine removal was not sustainable. He submitted that in view of this finding by the Collector (Appeals) the imposition of penalty of Rs. 2,000/- held as sustainable by him has to be deemed as illegal. H...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »