Delhi Court December 1996 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.
Win-medicare Limited Vs. Somacare Laboratories
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-04-1996
Reported in: 65(1997)DLT369
J.B. Goel, J. 1. This application (I.A. No. 1771/91) under Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure has been filed by the plaintiff for temporary injunction for restraining defendants and their agents etc. from selling or offering for sale pharmaceutical and medicinal preparation under the trade mark DICMOL or any other trade mark identical or deceptively similar to the plaintiff's trade mark DICLOMOL in a suit filed by it for permanent injunction restraining defendants from passing off their goods under the trade mark DICMOL and other ancillary reliefs. Ex parte ad interim injunction was granted on 7.2.1996. 2. The case of the plaintiff is that the plaintiff is a company incorporated under the Indian Companies Act, 1956, in the year 1981, and is engaged in the filed of manufacturing, development and marketing of pharmaceutical and medicinal preparations; and due to large scale advertisement and other innovative promotional schemes and their medicines b...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Oswal Enterprises (P.) Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-04-1996
Reported in: [1998]234ITR483(Delhi)
1. On consideration of material on record, the Tribunal has recorded a finding of fact that Oswal Tailors is an independent entity and is not the benami of the assessee-company and the business activity is being carried on by Oswal Tailors in its own name and that no evidence has been brought on record to show that the income from the export business carried on by Oswal Tailors is the income of the assessee-company. The finding of the Tribunal has not been challenged as perverse. No question of law arises. Dismissed....
Punjab National Bank and anr. Vs. S. Kartar Singh
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-04-1996
Reported in: 66(1997)DLT857
Mahinder Narain, J. (1) We find that the judgment and decree which has been passed by the Court below is not justifiable in the facts and circumstances of the case inasmuch as issues in the matter have been framed and the plaintiff had completed the evidence which was to be led. It is at this stage that an application was filed under Order Xh Rule 6, Cpc, for decreeing the suit on the basis of the alleged admissions in the written statement. (2) Where evidence has started after parties are at issue and issues framed by the Court, it is necessary to go through the entire trial before pronouncing the judgment. The judgment and decree of the Court below is set aside and the matter is remanded for purposes of trial to the Court below. The trial shall commence from the stage where the matter was at the time of passing of impugned judgment and decree on the basis of an application under Order Xii Rule 6, CPC. Parties are directed to appear before the Trial Court concerned on 20th January, 19...
K.L. Verma Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-04-1996
Reported in: 1997IAD(Delhi)289; 65(1997)DLT200; 1996(39)DRJ700
S.K. Mahajan, J.(1) By order dated 4th October, 1996, the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate taking cognizance of the offence under Sections 120B/195/469/471 Indian Penal Code issued non-bailable warrants against S/Shri P.V.Narasimha Rao, K.K.Tewari, K.L.Verma and Larry J.Kolb. Being aggrieved by this order, the petitioner has filed this petition for setting aside the same alleging it to be in violation of the procedure established by law under Section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (in short referred to as 'the Code'-). (2) The petitioner at the time of commission of the alleged offence was working as the Director in the Directorate of Enforcement and it is alleged against him that he and the other accused persons had entered into a criminal conspiracy with the object of fabricating certain false records/evidence intending to have S/Shri V.P.Singh and/or Ajeya Singh convicted under the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act and/or Prevention of Corruption Act and to harm their reputation. ...
Asha N. Madnani Vs. Delhi Development Authority and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-04-1996
Reported in: 1997IAD(Delhi)385; 65(1997)DLT538
R.C. Lahoti, J. (1) The petitioner seeks a writ of mandamus commanding respondent-DDA to allot a flat to the petitioner at the price which was fixed in the original allotment and to quash the letter dated 22.9.92 raising an escalated demand.(2) In the year 1979, the respondent-DDA floated a scheme for allotment of flats which was known as the Registration Scheme on New Pattern, 1979 (hereinafter 'the Scheme' for short). The leaflet containing the scheme is filed as Annexure-A. On 26.9.79, the petitioner deposited Rs. 4,500.00 seeking registration for allotment of a Mig flat. She was allotted Registration No. 23910 and Priority No. R-610. In block dates 23.4.90 - 27.4.90, the petitioner was allotted a flat described as 42, Ground Floor, Sector 15 Block E-2 Pocket 2, Rohini at a disposal cost of Rs. 2,09,100.00 subject to adjustment for the amount already deposited and the interest accrued thereon. The price of the flat was to be paid in 3 installments. One of the terms of the allotment ...
Shree Mahavir Ispat Ltd. Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Dec-03-1996
Reported in: (1998)(60)ECC621
1. In this case the appeal had been dismissed for failure to make the pre-deposit of the duty demanded. The ld. Consultant submits that they had since made the deposit in compliance with Tribunal's Stay Order No.773/1987-B2, dated 17th Aug., 1987 and submits a copy of challan indicating deposit of Rs. 18,537.20. The ld. DR is satisfied. We, therefore, take up the appeal itself on merits since it is contended before us that it is a covered matter.2. The short question that falls for determination in this appeal is whether copper scrap for the period prior to 1-3-1981 could be considered as crude copper in terms of Entry 26A of erstwhile Central Excise Tariff for the purpose of countervailing duty. Revenue have contended that such scrap is crude even prior to the period 1-3-1981.3. Ld. Consultant arguing for the appellants submits that the imports pertain to the period March, 1979 and the Tariff Item was amended only w.e.f. 1-3-1981 so as to bring copper scrap within the purview of erst...
Bonenzo Engg. and Chemical P. Ltd. Vs. Collector of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Dec-02-1996
Reported in: (1997)(92)ELT568TriDel
1. This is a stay application filed w.r.t. the Order-in-Appeal passed by Commissioner of Central Excise, New Delhi dated 26-6-1995.2. Ld. Counsel stated that the appellants are small scale unit manufacturing, inter alia, Non Refractory Preparations for facades and inside walls; and they had claimed benefit of Notification No. 1/93.The item was classified under Tariff Item 82 and the benefit of Notification No. 1/93 was allowed in the approved classification list.However in computing the exemption limit the Department had committed errors. As such they had filed another classification list in which they had claimed that the product was classifiable under 32.14 and for the purposes of computing the exemption limit the goods in the nature of machinery items classifiable under Heading 84.37 as well as the quantity of goods which had been exported was required to be excluded.3. They had also furnished their literature and the technical opinion of a retired Chemical Examiner of the Departme...
B.N. Mishra Vs. Lt. Governor of Delhi
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-02-1996
Reported in: 1996VAD(Delhi)619; 65(1997)DLT840; 1996(39)DRJ708
Jaspal Singh, J.(1) The dispute relates to the Delhi Institute of Technology, an autonomous Institution receiving full grant-in-aid from the Government of Delhi and Dr. B.N. Mishra,' who, till the time of his attaining the age of superannuation on May 31, 1996, was its Director. Dr. Mishra, infact, appears to be associated with the Institute right from its very inception in the year 1983. -Earlier he was its Principal. Much before his attaining the age of superannuation he applied for his re-employment. To be precise that application, addressed to the President of the Institute, was of February 12, 1996. His grievance is. that he was not even considered for re-employment and that consequently the order of the Board of Governors dated May 16, 1996 directing one Prof. Raj Senani to look after the duties of the Director with effect from June 1, 1996 in addition to his normal duties is 'absolutely illegal, arbitrary' and passed with 'malaise intention, ulterior motives and in violation of ...
Varun Thakore Vs. D.P. Thakore
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-02-1996
Reported in: 1997IAD(Delhi)57; 1996(39)DRJ752; (1997)117PLR62
M.K. Sharma, J. (1) The present suit has been instituted by the plaintiff against the defendants seeking for a decree for partition and permanent injunction in respect of the property bearing No-269, Daya Nand Vihar, Vikas Marg, Delhi. (2) The case pleaded in the plaint is that the defendant No. I inherited some ancestral property and the sale proceeds of the said ancestral property were invested by the defendant No.1 in acquiring a plot bearing No.269 in the name of defendant No.2, the wife of the defendant No.1 and the mother of the plaintiffs in or about the year 1980. It has been further pleaded that construction on the said plot was started in the year 1989 and out of the joint efforts and contribution of the parties construction was raised on the said plot and a two storeyed building was constructed. thereforee, the case pleaded in the plaint is that the suit property is a joint family property and that the plaintiffs have shares in the aforesaid suit property. (3) The defendant ...
Moolchand Khairati Ram Hospital Karamchari Union Vs. Labour Commission ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-02-1996
Reported in: (1998)IIILLJ1Del
M. Jagannadha Rao, C. J.1. Exemption granted.Two appeals have been preferred against the common judgment of the learned single Judge by which C.W.P. 1009/95 was allowed and C.W.P. 2454/95 filed by the workmen was dismissed. The writ petition C.W.P.2454/95 was dismissed consequent to the allowing of C.W.P. 1009/95 filed by the management.2. This is a case in which the Government referred the following question to the Industrial Tribunal :-'Whether the workmen shown in Annexure 'A' are entitled to wages for the lock-out period w.e.f. February II, 1995 and, if so, what directions are necessary in this subject?'The management of the hospital filed C.W.P. 1009/95 for quashing the reference on the ground that the real dispute between the management and the workmen, namely, was whether there was at all a lock-out and that question was unfortunately not referred is, thereforee, liable to be quashed. In other words, the management contended that from the manner in which the question for referen...
- ‹ Prev
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 13
- 14
- Next ›
- Last »