Delhi Court April 1997 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.
Fenner India Ltd. Vs. Salbros Enterprises Pvt. Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-09-1997
Reported in: 1997IVAD(Delhi)24; 1997(2)ARBLR500(Delhi); 67(1997)DLT673; 1997(42)DRJ91; 1997RLR365
Mahinder Narain, A.C.J. (1) The appellant M/s Fenner India Ltd. instituted a suit against the respondent M/s Salbros Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. claiming that the respondents were passing-off Fenner's copyright in their logo. (2) The relief sought by the Fenner's was for rendition of accounts and injunction. They valued the amount claimed in this suit for unsettled accounts on estimated basis. Suit for unsettled accounts has to be valued in accordance with Rule 4 of the Rules framed under Section 9 of the Suits Valuation Act. Rule 3 covers suits other than those which relate to unsettled accounts. Rule 4 relates to suits for unsettled accounts. (3) The nature of passing-off action is such that the relief sought can only be for rendition of accounts of profits made consequent upon the breach of copyright. The owner of copyright asserts his common law right to be compensated for loss of profits in a passing-off action. Only unsettled accounts can be sued for. As the suit has to be for unsettle...
High Court of Bombay Vs. Uday Singh
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-09-1997
Reported in: 1997RLR558
(1) Respondent was a Civil Judge at Nasik. It was alleged that on 21.10.89, he conveyed message to Kundanben, Deft. in eviction suit demanding P.s. 1,000.00 for deciding in her favour. She told her lawyer of this who told. Asstt. Govt. Advocate. Latter conveyed this to the Govt. Advocate who in turn complained to Distt. Judge. Latter recorded adverse remarks against respondent in confidential file. Civil Judge asked High Court to expunge remarks. High Court asked Distt. Judge to enquire and after receipt of same ordered Disciplinary enquiry. On receipt of report. High Court took the view that integrity of respondent was doubtful and called for penal action. After taking Explanationn of the Judge, High Court ordered his dismissal. Respondent challenged his dismissal by filing W.P. in High Court. It was allowed and the state appealed to to Supreme Court. After detailing above facts, judgment is :(2) Shri Harish Salve, learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant contends that the v...
Neelam Saluja Vs. Delhi Development Authority
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-09-1997
Reported in: 1997IVAD(Delhi)153; 67(1997)DLT553; 1997(42)DRJ118
Anil Dev Singh, J. (1) This is a suit for permanent injunction filed by the plaintiff and against the defendant for restraining the defendant from enforcing the latters demand as per its letters dated April 14, 1986 and May 8, 1986 for payment of 50% of the unearned increase in the market value of the plot No A-63, New Friends Cooperative House Building Society. The facts giving rise to the suit are as follows:- (2) Diyal Singh Narag was member of a house building cooperative society known as New Friends Cooperative House Building Society Ltd., Mathura Road, New Delhi. A perpetual sub-lease deed dated April 23, 1975 in respect of the said plot was executed by the President of India and the Society in favor of Shri Diyal Singh Narag. During his life time he nominated the plaintiff as his nominee in respect of his membership in the Society as also perpetual leasehold rights in the said plot. The name of the plaintiff as nominee of Diyal Singh Narag was entered into the records of the Soc...
Capt. Harminder Singh Vs. Income Tax Officer.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-09-1997
Reported in: (1997)58TTJ(Del)348
ORDERB. S. SALUJA, J.M. :The assessed has filed this appeal against the order of CIT(A)-XXII, New Delhi, dt. 31st October, 1994, on the following grounds :1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) XXII, New Delhi has erred :(a) in holding that out of total allowance of Rs. 90,169 drawn by the appellant, a sum of Rs. 60,169 was taxable and only a sum of Rs. 30,000 was exempt under s. 10(14)(ii).(b) in not treating the said allowance as exempt under Notification No. 143(E), dt. 21st February, 1989 issued under s. 10(14)(i).2. Without prejudice to the above grounds of appeal, the learned CIT(A)-XXII has on the facts and circumstances of the case, erred in not treating as exempt even the allowances as were similar to those declared as exempt by the CBDT in their communication No. 133/118-90 TPL, dt. 30th March, 1990 addressed to Air India, Bombay'.2. Brief facts in this case are that the assessed filed return of income at Rs. 1,24,280 and the same was process...
Cartons Systems Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Apr-08-1997
Reported in: (1997)LC142Tri(Delhi)
1. This appeal directed against the order passed by the Collector of Central Excise, Baroda confirming the demand of differential duty and imposing penalty of Rs. 50,000/-.2. Appellant, manufacturer of printed labels and wrappers commenced manufacture of printed cartons in the financial year 1983-84, availing benefit of the exemption under Notification No. 83/83. This notification provided full exemption upto the clearances of the value of Rs. 7.5 lakhs and exemption of duty in excess of 75% of the duty payable for the next clearances of the value of Rs. 17.5 lakhs. The notification also prescribed that the benefit of exemption will not be available if the previous year's clearances had exceeded Rs. 25 lakhs in value or if current year's clearances exceed Rs. 25 lakhs in value.The requirement under the notification was that the manufacturer should file a declaration with the Assistant Collector that the aggregate value of clearances of all excisable goods by him or on his behalf from ...
Collector of Customs Vs. Praveen Juneja
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Apr-08-1997
Reported in: (1999)(113)ELT927TriDel
1. In the impugned order it was held by the Collector (Appeals) that "in view of the fact that Shri Praveen Juneja has not been given opportunity to clear himself, I hold that part of the order illegal which imposes penalty of Rs. 50,000/- on him without establishing fully his incontrovertible involvement." Being aggrieved by this order, the Collector of Customs has filed the present appeal.2. The facts of the case are that the appellant Shri Praveen Juneja is a dealer in car accessories and operating in the name of and style of M/s. New Tony Musiano. On 2-6-1992 Customs officers visited godown, Village Mangolpur Khurd and on search of the same compressors, floppy disks, parcels, buttons and zip fasteners all of foreign origin collectively valued at Rs. 12,54,812/- were recovered. The Goods were seized in the reasonable belief that they were liable to confiscation.Enquiries were made from Shri Prem Singh, the owner of the house No.32, Village Mangolpur Khurd. In his statement he state...
Collector of Central Excise Vs. Mahesh Metal Industries
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Apr-08-1997
Reported in: (1997)(96)ELT604TriDel
1. By the captioned reference application, the applicant has submitted that the following points of law arise out of the Tribunal's Final Order No. A/2261/96-NB, dated 18-9-1996 : "1. Whether the Hon'ble Tribunal is correct in concluding that option is available to the assessee either to avail exemption or to pay duty on final product and avail Modvat credit under Rule 57A. 2. Whether the Hon'ble Tribunal is correct in altering the expression in Rule 57C and whether the embargo laid down by this rule is absolute and categorical. 3. Whether the impugned Order No. A/2261/96-NB and Stay Order No. S/439/96-NB, dated 18-9-1996 is legally correct and proper in terms of AP High Court's order in case of Ganesh Metal Processing Ind. v. G.O.I." 2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that respondents herein submitted an appeal before the Tribunal] on the ground that the option to avail the exemption granted was with the respondents herein and as the respondents herein had chosen to pay duty...
Graphite Vicarb India Limited Vs. Collector of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Apr-08-1997
Reported in: (1997)(94)ELT154TriDel
1. The facts of the case leading to the present appeal are that the appellants submitted a classification list in respect of a product describing it as 'other articles of plastic' in the form of tanks 'for storing the petroleum products and claimed exemption thereon under Chapter sub-heading 3926.90. The Department alleged that the product is specific inasmuch as it has been described as tank' where as tank is used for storage of petroleum or other material remains a tank and, therefore, held that the items shall be classifiable under Chapter sub-heading 3925.10.2. Shri S.V. Jagesha, ld. Consultant appearing for the appellants submits that the very same issue is covered by the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Heliplastics Limited v. Collector of Central Excise,Collector of Central Excise, Bombay v. Chemical Process Equipments Pvt. Limited, 1996 (88) E.L.T. 157 (Tribunal). The ld. Consultant therefore, submits that the decision of the Tribunal in the above two cases sequarly cov...
Kesoram Industries Limited Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Apr-08-1997
Reported in: (1997)(93)ELT164TriDel
1. In the impugned order the Collector (Appeals) had held that as the main machine, i.e. D.G. sets could not be assessed under "Project Import" the benefit of the "Project Import" cannot be extended to the parts of the D.G. sets in terms of provisions of heading 84.66(2) of the CTA, 1975. Being aggrieved by the order of the Collector (Appeals) the appellants have filed the present appeal before us.2. The facts of the case are that the appellants are engaged in the manufacture and processing of cement in India. The appellants applied for and received, the requisite import licence for import and clearance of all necessary equipment and machinery required for the purpose of construction and operation of the cement plant. The appellants were registered under No. S/5-379/83 by the Assistant Collector for availing the benefit of concessional rate of duty on the imported goods under 'Project Imports' covered by Chapter heading 84.66. As consequence of power shortage and power cuts installmen...
Suneheri Lal Vs. Chiranji Lal
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-08-1997
Reported in: 1997IIAD(Delhi)224; 67(1997)DLT344
Manmohan Sarin, J.(1) Petitioner has filed this revision petition against the order dated 7.5.1996, by which the Civil Judge allowed the application moved by the defendant under Order Ix Rule 7 of the Code of Civil Procedure and set aside the order dated 7.5.1996 by which the defendant was proceeded ex-parte. (2) Plaintiff had instituted the suit for perpetual injunction, seeking to restrain the defendant from forcibly dispossessing the plaintiff. Summons were issued for 1.5.1996, on which date the respondent appeared in person and sought time for filing the written statement. The case was adjourned to 7.5.1996. On 7.5.1996 it transpired that the Presiding Officer did not wish to continue with the case and referred the same to the District Judge for transfer. Parties were directed to appear before the District Judge on 8.5.1996. (3) The case was then withdrawn from the Court of the then Presiding Officer and Shri S.K. Aggarwal, Civil Judge, was assigned the hearing of the case. The fil...
- ‹ Prev
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 16
- 17
- Next ›
- Last »