Delhi Court August 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.
Old World Hospitality Pvt. Ltd. Vs. India Habitat Centre
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-23-1996
Reported in: 73(1997)DLT374
ORDEREDaccordingly I.A. disposed of. merely because he is minded to do so-he must in the exercise of his discretion do not what he likes but what he ought. In other words, he must, by the use of his reason, ascertain and follow the course which reason directs. He must act reasonably.' 20.I am of the view that the imposition of penalty by the Arbitrator is an arbitrary exercise of power. I have no hesitation in setting aside this part of the award. The Arbitrator should have awarded interest on Rs. 91,000.00 only @ 10% per annum only from the date of award. Consequently, the award is modified arid is made a rule of the Court as per the above terms. Suit and is are disposed of. 21.There shall be a decree : 1. directing the objector, M/s. Bry Air (India) Pvt. Ltd. to pay the claimant, M/s. Ram Bahadur Thakur (P) Ltd. the sum of Rs. 3,30,00-; 2. directing the seller to pay interest @ 10% per annum on Rs l,32,000.00 from 1.1.85 up to the date of payment; 3. directing the objector to pay in...
Kewal Krishan Kumar Vs. Kaushal Roller Flour Mills Pvt. Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-23-1996
Reported in: 1996(39)DRJ168
M.K. Sharma, J. (1) The plaintiff has instituted a suit for perpetual injunction restraining infringement of trade mark, passing off and rendition of accounts in respect of the trade mark of the plaintiff 'SHAKTI BHOG'. The main relief sought for in the suit is for a perpetual injunction restraining the defendant, its servants, agents and others working on its behalf from manufacturing, marketing, selling or offering for sale or otherwise dealing in Atta, Maida, Sooji, Bran etc. under the trademark 'MAHA Shakti BRAND' or any other trade mark which may be deceptively similar to the plaintiff's trade mark 'SHAKTI BHOG'. (2) In the suit the plaintiff has also filed an application under Order 39 Rules I & 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure seeking for an ad interim injunction restraining the defendants in the aforesaid terms from manufacturing the aforesaid articles under the trade mark 'MAHA Shakti BRAND' which may be identical and/or deceptively similar to the plaintiff's trade mark 'SHAKT...
O.K. Puri Vs. Municipal Corporation of Delhi
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-23-1996
Reported in: 1996(39)DRJ668
Devinder Gupta, J. (1) In this petition preferred on 14.8.1995 under Article 226 of the Constitution, petitioner has prayed for quashing of the order of suspension annexure R-l dated 18.7.1995 and the charge sheet annexure P-2 dated 3.8.1995. On 4.1.1996 Rule D.B. was issued and the petition was directed to be posted for hearing. (2) At the very outset.it may be noticed that though the petitioner had also prayed for quashing of the order of suspension but during course of arguments learned counsel for the petitioner confined his submissions only to the legality and validity of the charge sheet annexure P-2 and that also on the ground that the same has not been framed and issued by the Competent Authority. Thus, the challenge now is only to the charge sheet annexure P-2. It was urged that the General Manager or the Additional General Manager (Administration) of Delhi Electric Supply Undertaking (for short 'DESU') have no disciplinary powers to issue charge sheet annexure P-2 to the peti...
Virender Singh Sethi Vs. Vice Chairman, Dda
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-23-1996
Reported in: 63(1996)DLT966; 1996(39)DRJ25; 1997RLR69
R.C. Lahoti, J. (1) In the year 1982, the Delhi Development Authority, respondents No. 1, floated a scheme for construction and allotment of houses known as Fifth (1982) Self-Financing Housing Registration Scheme. The scheme was floated under the Delhi Development Authority ( Management and Disposal of Housing Estates) Regulations, 1968. The object of the scheme was to obtain financial participation during the period of construction by such persons who wish to own flat according to the different types/designs offered by D.D.A. The petitioner Varendar Singh Sethi was born on 13-2-1966. On 9-8-1982, when he was 16 years 6 months of age, he applied for registration under the scheme under the guardianship of his mother. The application was accompanied by a challan depositing an amount of Rs. 10,000.00 in favor of the D.D.A. The registration was allowed and the petitioner was issued a certificate of registration No.5658. After waiting for a period of about 5 years, a draw of lots was held ....
T.R.S. Varadan Vs. Delhi Development Authority
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-23-1996
Reported in: 1996IVAD(Delhi)292; 63(1996)DLT830; 1996(38)DRJ506; 1997RLR112
R.C. Lahoti, J. (1) This application seeks determination of the amount which the petitioner is liable to pay by way of cost price for the flat allotted to the petitioner in compliance with the order dated 6.11.95 disposing of Cw 203/95 filed by the petitioner. (2) The petitioner had registered himself for allotment of a flat under the New Pattern Registration Scheme, 1979. The petitioner was to get a Mig flat, on hire purchase baas. In its judgment dated 6.11.95, the Court has found the petitioner entitled to allotment of a flat on 25.3.89 - the date on which the petitioner was allotted a flat. But that allotment was lost by him for no fault of his. There was a change in the address of the petitioner, due intimation whereof was given to the Dda but the concerning clerk did not bring the change on record of the file which lapse resulted into communications to the petitioner being sent to a wrong address and those being misdelivered. The court has directed the Dda to issue allotment-cum-...
Bipico Industries (Tools) Pvt. Vs. Collr. of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Aug-22-1996
Reported in: (1996)(88)ELT456TriDel
1. These are four appeals filed by M/s. Bipico Industries (Tools) Pvt.Ltd. being aggrieved with the common order-in-appeal dated 27-3-1987, passed by Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), Bombay. The matter relates to the admissibility of the turnover discount. The turnover discount announced by the appellants was related to the minimum purchases per quarter of the products Hacksaw Blades and Tool Bits etc.The discount was not reflected in the price lists and the appellants paid Central Excise duty without taking this discount into account. At the end of the quarter they filed refund claims which were rejected by the jurisdictional Assistant Collector. On appeal, the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals) observed that the appellants had not claimed the turnover discount in their price list and they did not get it approved from the proper officer. He further observed that the allowance of this discount was not known to the Central Excise Department before or after the time of removal ...
Banaras Beeds Ltd. Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Aug-22-1996
Reported in: (1996)(88)ELT559TriDel
1. Appellants imported a consignment of Arsenic Trioxide from China showing invoice price of US $ 305 PMT. The declared price was not accepted by the customs authorities who took note of the fact that there was another import of Arsenic Trioxide at a price of US $ 550 PMT. The goods were accordingly reassessed on the basis of higher price referred to above. Deputy Collector while ordering such reassessment also confiscated the goods giving the appellant the option of redeeming them on payment of fine of Rs. 25,000/-. He then observed in his order that since there was no proof to show that any underhand payment of differential amount had been made he was inclined to take a lenient view and accordingly, imposed a penalty of Rs. 5,000/- under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act, 1962. The order was confirmed by the Collector (Appeals) leading to the present appeal.2. Shri Pradeep Jain, Learned Counsel for the appellant states that they had not been able to clear the goods on the loaded val...
Commissioner of C. Ex. Vs. Ludhiana Bottling Co.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Aug-22-1996
Reported in: (1997)(93)ELT177TriDel
1. The Commissioner of Central Excise Chandigarh has filed these appeals against the common order dated 26-8-1992 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals) Chandigarh. The brief facts are that in two appeals No. 5470 and 5472/92, the department has demanded duty on the quantity of 3281 crates of aerated water on the ground that there was an excess wastage of the input crown cork. The department says that the normal wastage permissible is 1% where as the actual wastage was found to be 1.97 per cent and on the excess wastage the department has worked out the possible final product which could have been cleared and drawn that quantity as clandestinely cleared, the duty has been demanded in this case. In the other two appeals the department has demanded the duty on the ground that the crown cork which have become waste are not eligible for Modvat credit taking the view that such corks are wasted are inputs which have been rendered useless as such and therefore will not be cov...
Raj Unicols Lub. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Aug-22-1996
Reported in: (1996)(87)ELT507TriDel
1. This application seeking stay of the operation of the impugned order of the Commissioner as also waiver of payment of an amount as deposits towards duty/penalty demanded in the order and further pending disposal of the appeal the recovery of the amount be stayed. In the impugned order an amount of Rs. 2,82,25,481/- has been demanded from the applicant under Rule 571 of the Central Excise Rules and penalty of Rs. 3 lakhs has ben imposed on them under Rule 173Q of Central Excise Rules. Shri Raghvan Iyer, ld. Counsel for the applicants submitted that the applicants are doing the job work for the Indian Oil Corporation for manufacture and supply of lubricants. Indian Oil Corpn. supplied the base oil and additives for the purpose. The department's stand is that the applicants have received the inputs under cover of invoices which were not prescribed documents under Rule 57G(2) of the Central Excise Rules and also under cover of certain other challans which did not contain all the partic...
Procter and Gamble Company Vs. Satish Patel and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-22-1996
Reported in: 1997(1)ARBLR158(Delhi); 64(1996)DLT646
K. Ramamoorthy, J. (1) The first plaintiff, the Procter & Gamble Company and the second plaintiff Procter & Gamble Godrej Limited have filed the suit for injunction on the ground that the defendants are passing off the trade mark of the plaintiffs' ' SAFEGUARD'. According to the first plaintiff the second plaintiff is licensed by the plaintiff to use the trade mark under the License Agreement dated 24th February, 1993,to market, sell and distribute the first plaintiff's products in India. About the reputation and goodwill of the first plaintiff in para 5 of the plaint the case is put forth like this : 'THE plaintiffs portfolio of trademarks includes well-known marks such as Safeguard, Camay, Crest, Head & Shoulders, Pampers, Whisper, Ivory, Zest, Ariel, Tide, Always, and several others. The plaintiff has spent millions of rupees on advertisement, sales promotional exercises and publicity campaigns in respect of its various goods bearing the different trademarks as aforesaid. This inves...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »