Delhi Court March 1997 Judgments

Mohan Oil and Soap Mills Vs. Assistant Registrar of Trade Marks

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 1997(1)ARBLR665(Delhi); 67(1997)DLT143

R.C. Lahoti, J. (1) This is an appeal under Section 109(2) of Trade & Merchandise Marks Act, 1958 feeling aggrieved by order dated 22nd August, 1979 passed by the Assistant Registrar of Trade Marks, Delhi rejecting the petitioners' application for registration of a trade mark in terms of Section 18(4) of the Act. (2) On 5th December, 1974, the petitioners filed an application to register a trade mark consisting of words 'NEELAM SOAP' in Class 3 in respect of washing soaps. The mark was subsequently confined to the word NEELAM. The application was objected to by the Registry on the ground that the mark applied for was laudatory of the goods and thereforee it did not qualify for registration under Section 9 of the Act. The petitioner submitted and produced expert evidence in support of his submission that Neelam means a precious stone and it has no reference to blue colour The petitioner had sought for registration in Part-A of the Register but at the hearing before Registrar it was subm...

Geo. Miller and Co. Ltd. Vs. United Bank of India

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 1997IIIAD(Delhi)586; 1997(2)ARBLR50(Delhi); 69(1997)DLT616; 1997(41)DRJ404

M.K. Sharma, J.(1) This is a petition filed by the petitioner against the respondents under Section 41 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') read with Schedule Ii of the Act. In this petition, the petitioner has prayed for a permanent injunction restraining the respondent No.l, its employees, workers, servants or agents from encashing the bank guarantee No.46 of 1993 dated 10.8.1993 for Rs.3,47,800.00 . The petitioner has stated that a formal agreement relating to contract No.3 for supply and installation of duel fuel engine was signed by the petitioner and the respondent No.2 on 12.9.1990. In terms of the tender documents, the petitioner was to deposit performance security in accordance with clause 6.2 of the tender documents. In pursuance of the aforesaid terms of contract, the petitioner deposited with the respondent No.2 the bank guarantee No.3/89 dated 16.1.1989 for an amount of Rs.3,47,800.00 tendered by the respondent No.1 in favor of the respondent...

Delhi Development Authority Vs. Anand Singh Khati

Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi

A.P. Chowdhri, President: 1. Brief facts necessary for the disposal of this appeal are that the respondent, who was complainant before District Forum-II was issued allotment-cum-demand letter in respect of flat No. 73, Pocket D, Dilshad Garden for Rs. 1,75,800/- on 8.8.91. The admitted case is that the complainant deposited the entire amount and completed the prescribed formalities by 4.10.91. Possession letter was issued on 18.3.92 and possession actually delivered 13 months later on 20.4.93. The case of the complainant was that he visited the site and met Jr. Engineer concerned on the following dates: 19.3.92, 10.4.92, 10.6.92, 29.6.92, 1.10.92, 10.11.92, 15.1.93, 16.2.93, 20.3.93, 20.4.93. 2. Even after taking possession, the complainant wrote five letters from 31.8.92 to 27.12.93 claiming interest for the delay in delivery of possession but he failed to elicit any reply. 3. On a consideration of the material on record. District Forum-II allowed interest @ 15% p.a. on the amount pai...

Chaman Singh Vs. Delhi Development Authority

Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi

A.P. Chowdhri, President: 1. Brief facts giving rise to this appeal are that on the basis of draw of lots dated 10.10.1987, the appellant was allotted MIG Flat No. 512, Pocket 8, Sector 8, Rohini at a disposal cost of Rs. 1,27,500/-by letter dated 23.11.1987/27.11.1987. The flat was on third floor and the allotment was made on cash-down basis. The complainant made a representation to the L.G. that he was a patient of cancer. He requested for allotment of a flat on ground floor and on hire-purchase basis. The representation was forwarded to the DDA for sympathetic consideration. Nothing was heard in this connection. The complainant, having failed to accept the allotment of the flat on the third floor on cash-down basis and having failed to deposit the amount, the allotment was cancelled and the complainant was asked to deposit restoration charges amounting to Rs. 7,500/-, in case, he wanted to keep the registration alive. The complainant deposited the same and applied for a change of th...

indo Gem Laminations (P) Ltd. Vs. Collector of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1998)(102)ELT263TriDel

1. The brief facts of the case are that the appellants are engaged in the manufacture of Super Enamel Copper Wires and Super Enamel Aluminium Wires both falling under Sub-heading 8545.00 of the Schedule to the CETA, 1985 and are availing the facility under the Modvat scheme. While checking the RT 12 returns for January to March, 1994, it was observed that they had cleared transformer parts falling under Sub-heading 8504.00 involving duty of Rs. 1,60,275/- paid by way of debit entry in RG 23A Part II maintained; since the appellants did not declare transformer parts as one of their final products, the Department was of the view that credit had been wrongly availed and hence a show cause notice proposing recovery of the above mentioned amount was issued.Both the authorities below have rejected the claims of the assessees and the demand has been confirmed thus giving rise to the present appeal.2. Shri K.K. Anand, learned Counsel submits that the limited prayer in this case is that the ap...

Shri Mihir Chakraborty Vs. Muti Tech Computers Pvt. Ltd. and Others

Court: Delhi

Reported in: [2001]106CompCas150(Delhi); 91(2001)DLT628

ORDERAnil Dev Singh, J1. The first respondent-Multi Tech Computers Private Limited (for short 'the Indian Company') is a company dealing with modems and other related data communication products. The petitioner-Shri Mihir Chakraborty is a shareholder of the Indian Company and functioned as the Managing Director thereof. Second respondent- Dr. Raghu Sharma, a shareholder of the Indian Company, operates Multi Tech Systems Inc: in U.S.A. (for short 'the foreign company') which manufactures and markets modems. The third respondent-Shri S.P.Sharma, a shareholder of the Indian Company, is also its Joint Managing Director. The first respondent was incorporated in September 1980 with the objects of manufacturing, making, buying, selling, importing, exporting, distributing, introducing or otherwise dealing in computers, data communication equipments and business machines. Originally it was registered at Bombay. Subsequently, the provisions of memorandum of association with respect to the place ...

Collector of Customs Vs. Ramnlal Kamdar

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1997)(93)ELT116TriDel

1. In these batch of appeals, common question of law and facts are involved, hence they are all taken up together for disposal as per law.2. The Revenue is the aggrieved party and they have filed appeal against the respective orders of the Collector (Appeals). The respondents had imported "Heat Resisting Steel Sheets in Coils" which has been so described in the case of Gemini Metals, Mithuna Industries, while in the case of New India Industries, the goods had been described as "Stainless Steel in Coils". The dispute is regarding the assessment of these items in the erstwhile Tariff and as to whether they fall under Item 63(14) as Iron or Steel hoops and strips, not otherwise specified of Indian Customs Tariff or under Item 63(20A) of the said Tariff as Stainless Steel Sheets and as to whether they are entitled for the concessional rate of benefit in terms of Notification No.118/65, dated 20-8-1965 as amended, which grants concessional rate of benefit to 'Cold Rolled hoops and strips o...

Zenith Technologies Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Collr. of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1997)(92)ELT535TriDel

1. This appeal arises from order-inoriginal dated 30-6-1990 passed by Collector of Customs, Air Cargo Complex, Bombay. The importer imported 18 (eighteen) numbers Laser Jet Printer Model 2106 and filed a Bill of Entry for its clearance. The same was valued at Rs. 4,44,176/- for assessment and in support of the said value produced invoice No.DE/324/12/89, dated 20-12-1989 from Diplomat Electronics, Singapore, which showed the value of S$2767 (FOB) per piece. The assessment was claimed under Heading 8471.92 read with Notification 58/88 attracting duty at 35% - 45% -15% CVD.2. The department was of the view that the value declared by the party was found to be 50% of the price in respect of S. No. 1 and 60% of the price in the case of S. No. 2 of the chart below :--------------------------------------------------------------------------------Case B/E No. Inv. No.Impor- Supplier Descrip- Value Qty TotalNo. ters tion C/O Rs.1.5456 DE/312/ Zenith Diplomat LaserJet US$5514 5 241181 dated 11/8...

Stewarts and Lloyds of India Ltd. Vs. Collector of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1999)(110)ELT623TriDel

1. In this appeal filed by M/s. Stewarts and Lloyds of India Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as 'SLI'), being aggrieved with the order-in-appeal dated 22-5-1987 passed by the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), Calcutta, the matter relates to the classification of the Tubular Steel Coils for machineries, such as, superheaters, economisers etc. The SLI had sought classification of the coils in question under Heading No. 73.03 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as the Tariff), while the of Collector of Central Excise (Appeals) had confirmed the classification of these coils under Heading No. 84.04 of the Tariff.2. The matter was heard on 12-12-1996, when Shri B.M. Chattopadhyay, advocate, appeared for SLI. Shri M. Jayaraman, JDR, represented the respondent/Revenue.3. Shri B.M. Chattopadhyay, advocate, stated that the matter related to the classification of pipe coils for superheaters and economisers under the new-Central Excise Tariff effect...

Collector of C. Ex. Vs. Mohan Fibres Products Co.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1999)(107)ELT396TriDel

1. Respondent is a manufacturer of excisable products falling under Chapter 42 of the Central Excise Tariff. Modvat credit had been availed by the respondents in respect of inputs used by them in the manufacture of their final product. During the relevant period they had taken Modvat credit equal to the duty paid on some of the inputs received by them from small scale manufacturers. The credit taken was equal to the duty shown in the gate passes. Subsequently they took the differential credit in terms of Rule 57B. This was objected to by the department and after show cause notice the Assistant Collector dropped the demand. The department filed an application to the Collector (Appeals) for setting aside this order. The application was rejected by the Collector (Appeals) and hence the present appeal before the Tribunal.2. Heard Shri V.R. Sethi, learned DR and Shri R.L. Bhaskar, Company Secretary who represented the respondents.3. I have taken note of the submissions made by both the sid...