Delhi Court July 1998 Judgments

Ashok Sawhney Vs. M/S. Ansal Housing and Construction Ltd.

Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi

A.P. Chowdhri, President: 1. This is a complaint under Section 17 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. According to the allegations of the complainant, the opposite party (OP) M/s. Ansal Housing and Construction Ltd. had floated a scheme known as 'Golden Heights Scheme' for the allotment of farm units in Village Sohna, Tehsil and District Gurgaon. The complainant booked one unit in the said scheme and was allotted farm unit No. D-15. The complainant paid the entire consideration and thereafter the opposite party was to execute the necessary documents for transfers of the ownership of the said unit in the name of the complainant. Possession of the unit was also delivered to the complainant. A number of meetings took place between the parties for finalisation of the execution of the sale deed. Final draft was also approved but the opposite party failed to execute the documents. The grievance of the complainant that inspite of many requests and a written notice/ the other party failed to...

Magnum Steels Ltd. Vs. Collector of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1998)(104)ELT475TriDel

1. Arguing the stay petition for stay of the impugned order fixing the annual production capacity of the Hot-rolling Mill, Shri J.S. Agarwal, the ld. Advocate for the Applicant, submits that they had declared the value of 'd' (Diameter of the Mill) as 260 mm. He submitted that the Department had taken the opinion of the Experts viz. M/s. Madhav Institute of Technology and Science, Gwalior who had earlier in their letter dated 17-9-1997 indicated the value of 'd' as 262 mm. He submits that when the Applicants represented against this, the parameters were examined by the Experts of M/s. Madhav Institute of Technology and Science against who in their letter dated 29-4-1988 intimated the value of 'd' as 258 mm as against 262 mm intimated earlier.The ld. Counsel submitted that the Commissioner has ignored this letter altogether though this letter was dated 29-4-1998 and the impugned order was passed on 14-5-1998 and, therefore, the Commissioner should have taken the value of 'd' as 258 mm ...

Cosmos Ferrites Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1999)(105)ELT169TriDel

1. In these cases, benefit of Notification 217/86, dated 1-3-1986 has been denied to soft ferrite powder manufactured by the appellants herein and partly consumed by them in the manufacture of soft ferrite components, and partly cleared on payment of duty and exported under bond. The benefit has been denied for the reason that the appellants cleared soft ferrite components to the Santacruz Electronics Export Processing Zone, at nil rate of duty under Notification 186/75 dated 21-8-1975. Since the clearances to SEEPZ were effected at Nil rate of duty, demands were raised by several show cause notices covering the period 30-7-1990 to 20-3-1991. The demands were confirmed by the authorities below. Hence these appeals.2. We have heard Ms. Ginny Bedi who submits that the Tribunal has decided in the case of Indian Aluminium Co. v. CCE reported in 1995 (79) E.L.T. Ill that Notification No. 33/92 dated 1-3-1992 by which the expression contained in Notification 217/86 was expanded so as to rea...

Castrol India Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1999)(112)ELT636TriDel

1. Shri S. Madhavan, learned CA arguing on behalf of the appellants submitted that they manufacture speciality oils which were classified by them in their classification list No. 46/88-89 under Heading No.34.03 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act. However, on the basis of the test report of the Dy. Chief Chemist, the Assistant Collector classified the products under sub-heading 2710.99 without acceding to their request for retest of the samples by the Chief Chemist. The Collector (Appeals) remanded the matter to the Assistant Collector with the direction to permit retest of the samples and to decide the issue of classification thereafter. He further submitted that in the meantime because of the budgetary changes in the budget 1991-92, the appellants filed another classification list No. 20/91 effective from 25-7-1991 in which they classified the products under sub-heading 2710.99 under protest. Initially, the Assistant Collector ordered provisional assessment in the light...

Tikkam Chand and anr. Vs. Dy. Registrar of Trade Marks and anr.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 75(1998)DLT263

ORDERS.N. Kapoor, J.1. In this petition the petitioner seeks to challenge the issuance of the letter dated 21st October 1997 whereby show cause notice has been given under Section 18(4) and 19 of the Trade and Merchandise Marks Act, 1958 (hereinafter called 'the Act' for short).2. Briefly stated, the claim of the petitioner is that in the year 1977, son of petitioner No.1 introduced small pouches and given them the name of 'Gutka'. The said pouches were being sold under the mark 'Prince' which were registered under No. 414884B in Class 31. The said trade mark 'Prince' as well as the trade mark 'Gutka' were assigned in favor of the petitioner No.2. The assignments have been accepted. The pan masala under the trade mark 'Prince/Prince Gutka' had achieved a unique popularity. On 5th May 1984 under application No. 421497 in Class 34, application for registration of the trade mark 'Gutka' was filed. On 10th December 1987 the trade mark was published and objections were invited but no object...

Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. Vs. M/S Agritrico Paper Edge Pvt. Ltd. and ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 74(1998)DLT593

ORDERC.M. Nayar, J.1. The present petition is directed against the Order dated 19th June, 1996 passed by the Assistant Registrar of Trade Marks by which interlocutory/review petition dated 18th October, 1994 of the petitioner for permission to place on record evidence in support of opposition in accordance with the provisions of Rule 53 of the Trade and Merchandise Marks Rules was disallowed.2. The learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that it took some time for compilation of documents and the evidence has since been submitted to the Assistant Registrar of Trade Marks on 10th August, 1994.3. The learned counsel for respondent No.1 has vehemently argued that the option of the petitioner to file evidence in support of opposition has since lapsed and the petitioner can avail of the remedy as provided under Rule 56 of the Rules wherein it is contemplated that 'No further evidence shall be left on either side; but in any proceedings before the Registrar, he may at any time, if h...

Vam Organic Chemicals Ltd. Vs. Addl. Collr. of C. Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1999)LC146Tri(Delhi)

1. Appellant engaged in the manufacture of Vinyl Acetate Monomer (VAM) falling under erstwhile Tariff Item 68, was following the procedure under Notification No. 120/75 and paying duty on the prices shown in the invoices. The dispute in the case relates to the period January, 1983 to February, 1985. Show cause notice dated 8-1-1986 was issued stating that appellant had packed VAM in drums or carboys, the cost of which would be includible in the assessable value and appellant had not included the packing cost element in the assessable value and proposing demand of differential duty on that basis and imposition of penalty.Though appellant resisted the notice, the Additional Collector confirmed the demand and imposed penalty of Rs. 2,000/-. This order is now challenged.2. Shri N.K. Pathak, who represented the appellant contended that VAM is transported either in tankers or otherwise packed in drums or carboys, either belonging to appellant or supplied free of cost by the wholesale buyers...

Nikeda Art Vs. Collector of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1999)(112)ELT884TriDel

1. Shri Gopal Prasad, learned Advocate submitted that the appellants are manufacturing offset printing plates. A show cause notice dated 8-10-1990 was issued to them for demanding central excise duty amounting to Rs. 1,05,998.97 paise for the period from April, 1990 to August, 1990 as they had removed offset printing plates without observing any central excise formalities. The Additional Commissioner in the impugned order held that the process of manufacturing offset printing plates is a process of manufacture as defined under Section 2(f) of the Central Excise Act, and such plates are classifiable under Heading 84.42. Learned Advocate submitted that he is not challenging the classification of the product and he is only pressing the appeal for seeking the benefit of exemption under Notification No. 175/86, dated 1-3-1986 contending that they were in possession of small scale registration Certificate from the Directorate of Industries in Maharashtra which was also enclosed with their r...

Charak Pharmaceuticals Vs. Deepharma Limited

Court: Delhi

Reported in: AIR1999Delhi15

ORDERK.S. Gupta, J. 1. This order will govern the disposal of IAs. 6522/96 & 7562/96.2. Suit for permanent injunction and damages etc. was filed, inter alia, alleging that one of the pharmaceutical preparations, namely ALSAREX manufactured and sold by the plaintiff is meant to heal ulcers and check recurrence of ulcers which normally occur in stomach, duodenum, oesophagus and Meckel's diverticulum. Plaintiff got the trade mark ALSAREX registered under No.231783 as on 18th October, 1965 in clause 5 and the registration is valid up to 17th October, 2000. Plaintiff has spent considerable sum on promotional literature in respect of the said trade mark and the year-wise sales figure thereof for the period 1983-84 to 1993-94 are as under :- YEAR AMOUNT 1983-84 6,51,193.00 1984-85 9,65,262.00 1985-86 12,02,506.00 1986-87 13,35,296.00 1987-88 16,20,637.00 1988-89 14,08,289.00 1989-90 20,97,332.00 1990-91 23,65,045.00 1991-92 28,17,120.00 1992-93 37,22,573.00 1993-94 49,19,139.003. It is stated...

Devinder Singh Vs. State

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 1998VAD(Delhi)202; 74(1998)DLT501; 1998(46)DRJ762

ORDERJ.B.Goel, J.1.This is a petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (the Code) challenging the legality and validity of the order dated 4.4.1998 & 18.4.1998 passed by the trial court whereby the applications under Section 311 of the Code filed by the petitioner and his two co-accused for recalling some prosecution witnesses have been dismissed.2. Similar application dated 1.2.1997 filed by the accused persons was earlier dismissed on 17.4.97. That order was not challenged. 3. The petitioner Devinder and co-accused Vijendar have been charged under Section 506/34 IPC and co-accused Surinder Singh and Devinder Singh have been charged under Section 376 IPC also. The prosecutrix Kumari Meena aged 12 years has alleged in her first information complaint that on 3.1.87 at about 5.00 p.m. she had gone to fetch water from a tubewell. While she was filling the pitcher and was alone accused Surinder gagged her mouth and the three accused forcibly took her to nearby jungle whe...