Delhi Court October 1998 Judgments

Kitec Industries (India) Ltd. Vs. Unicor Gmbh Rahn Plastmaschinen and ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 1999IIAD(Delhi)537; 1999(48)DRJ316

J.B. Goel, J.1.By this order, the application (I.A. No. 646/98) under Order 7, Rule 11 and Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short 'the Code') filed by the defendants is being disposed of. 2. Plaintiff has filed a suit for mandatory injunction seeking the fol-lowing reliefs : 1. Mandatory and prohibitory injunction restraining the defendants No. 1 and 2 from : (a) exhibiting, advertising, marketing, selling and promoting the products; (b) propagating false and detrimental statements against the plaintiff; (c) encroaching upon the exclusive territory of the plaintiff without first settling the dispute regarding the commercial production by an Arbitrator in breach of agreement dated 11.11.1994. 3. Briefly, the facts are that Kitechnology B.V. of Netherlands (KBV), Kitechnology International Corp. of Liberia (KIC), Kitechnology Holdings N.V. of Netherlands (KNV), Kitechnology (UK) Limited of London (KUK), SP Verbundrohr GmbH (SPVG) and their subsidiaries and associates (here...

Rajinder Singh Vs. State and Another

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 1998VIAD(Delhi)680; 1999(1)Crimes271; 76(1998)DLT264; I(1999)DMC28; 1998(47)DRJ590; ILR1999Delhi35

ORDERD.K. Jain, J.1. The petitioner-husband has filed this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure(hereinafter referred to as the Code) for quashing of FIR No.34/93, dated 23 January 1993, got registered at P.S. Paschim Vihar, New Delhi by respondent No.2 herein-the wife, under Sections 406/498-A IPC, primarily on the grounds that:(i) Delhi Police has no jurisdiction to register the case and (ii) even taking the allegations in the complaint on their face value, no case can be made out under the said Sections.2. Rajinder Singh petitioner and Smt. Satvinder Kaur-complainant, were married at Patiala(Punjab) on 9 October 1990. They lived together in Patiala and a daughter was born on 19 December 1991 out of the wedlock. The marital life had apparently been unhappy, either because of demand for gifts from the petitioner's side, as alleged by the complainant or because of incompatibility and some other reasons, as alleged by the petitioner. Be that as it may, on 19 Janua...

Biotechnology Nv and anr. Vs. Unicorn Gmbh Rahn Plastmaschinen and anr ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 1998(47)DRJ397

J.B. Goel, J.1. By this order, petitioners application under Section 9 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act 1996 (for short 'the Act') and two applications is No. 8138/97 and 8138-A/97 of the respondents are being disposed of.2. Briefly, the facts are that Biotechnology B.V. of Netherlands (KBV), Biotechnology International Corp. of Liberia (KIC), Biotechnology Holdings N.V. of Netherlands (KNV), Biotechnology (UK) Limited of London (KUK), SP Verbunder GmbH (SPVG) and their subsidiaries and associates (hereinafter called the 'Kitec Group') had developed and owned patent rights in a system relating to the production of the product, namely, Multi-layered Composite Pipes (MLCP), fittings for use with MLCP and related equipments for the manufacture of MLCP (called the 'Kite process'). Kite group had granted licences to third parties to use the Kite process for the manufacture and distribute/sale of MLCP in various territories the world over.3. Another group of companies, namely, Unicorn R...

Milkfood Limited Vs. G.M.C. Ice Cream Private Limited and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 83(2000)DLT130

Dalveer Bhandari, J.1. The petitioner Milk Food Ltd., has approached this Court by filling a petition under Section 33 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 in which a prayer has been made that order be passed clarifying that the provisions of Indian Arbitration Act, 1940 would apply to the arbitration proceedings pending before the Arbitrators and the order of the two Arbitrators passed on 6-4-1998 be declared as incompetent and illegal. 2. The brief facts necessary to dispose of this petition are recapitulated in the succeeding paragraphs. (1) The petitioner is engaged in a business of manufacturing, marketing and sale of Ghee, Milk Powder, Dairy Whitener, Liquid Milk and Yogurt, etc. Earlier the petitioner was engaged in the business of marketing and sale of Ice Cream under the brand name 'MILKFOOD 100%' (2) It is further stated in the petition that respondent No. 1 approached the petitioner with an offer for the manufacturing the Ice Cream for the petitioner. The said respondent further rep...

Prestige Foods Ltd. Vs. Collector of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1999)(107)ELT193TriDel

1. The brief facts giving rise to the above appeal are that the appellants are engaged in producing vegetable oils with the aid of power. Since they had not paid the vegetable oil cess chargeable under Section 3(1) of the Vegetable Oil Cess Act, 1983 @ Rs. 5/- per quintal, 3 show cause notices for recovery of a total amount of Rs. 4,08,347.55 during the period from 1-2-1986 to 31-3-1987 were issued to them. They deposited Rs. 5,74,765/- towards cess under protest. The matter was adjudicated by the Deputy Collector who confirmed the demand, holding that the validity of the levy of cess had already been upheld by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Before the Collector (Appeals), the appellants raised the plea that the oil produced by them is not subjected to cess, since the charging Section viz. Section 3 excludes any vegetable oil which has been subjected to any processing subsequent to the recovery of oil and since soyabean oil produced by them from oil seeds was processed subsequently by ref...

G.S. Processors Vs. Collector of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1999)(63)ECC215

1. Briefly stated the facts of this case are as follows : M/s. G.S.Processors, the appellants cleared the textile fabrics processed by them which was detected in the transit. On the basis of this violation the duty liability has been imposed on the appellants despite their protestation that the value taken at the behest of the Panchas is highly inflated and do not represent the correct market value of the goods seized by the department. The penalty has also been imposed on the appellants in respect of Additional duty being the only duty leviable on the goods under Additional Duties of Excise (Goods of Special Importance), 1957.2. Ld. Advocate appearing for the appellants, submits that the value taken by the department are highly arbitrary on the basis of evidence of two Panchas mentioned in the Panchanama. From a reading of the Panchanama, he submits the said panchas namely Shri Joginder Singh Shivram and (2) Narsing Sambhaji Katke being their occupation only of servants; they are not...

Collector of Central Excise Vs. U.P. State Electricity Board

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1999)(63)ECC225

1. Briefly stated the facts of this case are as follows: The respondents herein generate electricity which was liable to excise duty under the tariff item HE as it existed under the Erstwhile Centra Excise Tariff. A show cause notice was issued to the respondents alleging that the units of the electricity generated and used by the respondents for the purpose of running the auxiliary plants was not in accordance with the provisions of notification No. 51/98. inasmuch as the respondents had not categorically stated in the relevant monthly returns (RT 12 returns) that such electricity consumed for running the auxiliary plant had been received from their own generation plant or from the common grid. It was therefore, for lack of identification of electricity consumed for running the auxiliary plants in a power generating station that show cause notice was issued to the respondents. The Assistant Collector on the said show cause notice adjudicating the case ex parte though it was alleged t...

Union of India Vs. Oriental Building and Furnishing Co. Ltd. and anr.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 1999IIAD(Delhi)846; 77(1999)DLT314

S.N. Kapoor, J.1. By this judgment I propose to dispose of S.No.1756/94 & I.A. 4635/85, objections under Section 30 of the Arbitration Act filed by objector/ respondents. 2.1. Facts in brief are as under : 2.2. An area of 2,743 sq. yards approximately of Northern Railway, New Delhi was leased out by the petitioner to respondent No.1 vide agreement dated 9th May, 1969. Subsequently the disputes arose between the parties. The respondent filed a petition under Section 20 of the Arbitration Act. The dispute was referred accordingly vide order dated 24.4.1981 in Suit No. 363-A/1977 to Shri K.C. Tandon gave a speaking award on 24.9.1984. The petition was moved under Section 14 of the Arbitration Act. Award has been filed. 2.3. The respondent filed objections under Section 30 vide I.A. 4635/85 inter alias on the ground that the Arbitrator misconducted the proceedings. The Arbitrator ought to have given a reasoned award in view of the fact that the matter involved was heavy and voluminous evid...

C.P. Saluja and Associates Vs. M/S. Voltas Ltd.

Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi

A.P. Chowdhri, President: 1. The complainant is a Private Limited Company engaged in Project Management, Architecture and Consultancy services. Under an agreement entered into between the complainant and M/s. Voltas Ltd., opposite party, the opposite party agreed to undertake air-conditioning work at the office of M/s. Centre for Research and Environment, Economic and Development, hereinafter referred to as CREED, at their office 118, Shahpur Jat, New Delhi for a consideration of Rs. 3,98,300/-. Payment of the amount was made by the complainant and the opposite party installed the air-conditioning system consisting of four 3 ton split ACs etc. The system, however, failed to work satisfactorily. The office of M/s. CREED brought the shortcomings to the notice of the complainant who, in turn, took up the matter with the opposite party but they failed to take any action. It was only at the end of the summer season that in September, 1997 Mr. Sunil Anand from the office of the opposite part...

G.S.F. Corpn. Vs. Collector of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1999)(105)ELT365TriDel

1. Ld. Counsel stated that the appellants have two plants for production of Anhydrous Ammonia (which is a chemical fertilizer), the first is A-I Plant and the second is A-II Plant [The A-III Plant has been set up and established by the Heavy Water Plant].1.2 Anhydrous Ammonia is meant for manufacture of other Chemical fertilizers viz. Urea, Ammonium Sulphate, Ammonium Sulphate Phosphate, Diammonium Phosphate and Caprolactam and the balance of Anhydrous Ammonia is meant for commercial sale.1.3 The A-I Plant is so designed as to take as feed stock only gas or only Naphtha, or mixture of gas and Naphtha in any proportion. They primarily consume gas in this plant for production of Anhydrous Ammonia. However, when gas is not available in required quantities as feed stock, the Appellant supplement it by raw Naphtha. Anhydrous Ammonia produced from gas and that produced from raw Naphtha are identical and indistinguishable. But quantities of Anhydrous Ammonia produced from gas and from raw Na...