Delhi Court September 1999 Judgments
Hindustan Machines Vs. Royal Electrical Appliances
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-23-1999
Reported in: 1999VIAD(Delhi)794; 82(1999)DLT591; 1999(51)DRJ602
ORDERVikramajit Sen, J.1. This is a suit praying for the issuance of a permanent injunction restraining the infringement of the trade mark 'MAHARAJA' of the Plaintiff and for rendition of accounts. Summons/notice were issued to the Defendant from time to time and after several attempts made for serving him by ordinary process, the Defendant was finally served by publication and affixation at the notice board and on the last known address. As there was no appearance on behalf of Defendant it was proceeded ex parte and the Plaintiff was permitted to lead evidence by way of affidavits. This has been done.2. The case set out in the plaint is that the Plaintiff is carrying out its business in manufacturing of house-hold articles, kitchenware, domestic appliances and electric and electrical goods bearing the trade mark 'MAHARAJA' since 1978. The Plaintiff is the registered proprietor of the trade mark `Maharaja' and has been using it in a particular characteristic style in a distinctive logo...
Tag this Judgment!C.C.E. Vs. Simplex Mills Co. Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Sep-22-1999
Reported in: (2000)(67)ECC111
1. This is an appeal filed by the department against the impugned order dated 16.10.1992 passed by the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), Bombay.2. When the matter was called none appeared on behalf of the respondents. However, it was submitted by them that issue involved herein has already been decided by the Tribunal in a series of cases.4. The issue involved in the present case is whether "Designed Printing Nickel Cylinder" falling under sub-heading No. 8442.00 is eligible for exemption under Notification No. 201 /87-CE dated 3.9.1987.5. The Collector (Appeals) following the decisions of the Tribunal has accepted the contention of the party.6. We find that the issue involved herein has been covered by the following decisions of the Tribunal:--Collector of Central Excise, Bombay-1 v. New Great Eastern Spfg. & Weaving Co., Ltd.,Victoria Mills Ltd. v. C.C.E. Bombay Since the issue has already been covered and considered by the Tribunal in the aforesaid cases, we accept the con...
Tag this Judgment!Nagpur Alloy Castings Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Sep-22-1999
Reported in: (2000)(115)ELT140TriDel
1. This is an appeal against denial of Modvat credit amounting to Rs. 1,60,20,676/- and imposition of penalty of Rs. 5 lakhs.2. Shri M.P. Devnath, ld. Counsel submits that Rs. 96,04,584.45 relates to Bills of Entry. He submits that they have already reversed this amount. He submits that out of the remaining amount of Rs. 64,16,086.51, they are not pressing Modvat credit amounting to Rs. 40,21,701/- and Rs. 22,91,119/- and that the appellants themselves have reversed the credit taken to this extent. He submits that the only amount that remains in dispute today is Rs. 24,869.95. Ld. Counsel submits that this is an amount of Modvat credit denied to the appellants on ACSR conductors, cables, insulators etc. Ld. Counsel submits that these items are squarely covered by the decision of the Larger Bench of this Tribunal in the case of Jawahar Mills Ltd. reported in 1999 (108) E.L.T. 47. Ld. Counsel submits that the imposition of penalty of Rs. 5 lakhs is harsh from any account. He submits tha...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of C. Ex. Vs. Rishabh Velveleen (P) Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Sep-22-1999
Reported in: (1999)(114)ELT839TriDel
"I drop the proceedings under the SCN issued by C. No. V (15)/Off/Adj/75/94/11804 dated 2-6-1995." 2. Being aggrieved by this order, the Revenue has filed the captioned appeal.3. The facts of the case in brief are that the respondents herein imported or procured tow and cut it into flocks. The Department alleged that duty was required to be paid on flocks removed for captive consumption during the period 7-6-1990 to 15-3-1995. The ld. Collector after considering the submissions of the respondents herein dropped the proceedings.4. Shri R.S. Sangia, ld. DR appearing for the Revenue submits that the ld. Commissioner did not take into consideration the respondent's plea that for the period 20-5-1994 to 15-3-1995 they had already paid duty amounting to Rs. 6,73,345/- under protest and that therefore, in the SCN this much duty should not have been demanded; that the ld.Collector should have either held that the duty paid for the period 20-5-1994 to 15-3-1995 should not have been demanded in...
Tag this Judgment!ParvIn Gogia Vs. Shri Dayal Chand and Others
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-22-1999
Reported in: 1999VIAD(Delhi)109; 82(1999)DLT95; 1999(51)DRJ639
ORDERVijender Jain, J. 1. Aggrieved by the order passed by the Addl. Rent Controller striking out the defense under Section 15(7) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, the petitioner preferred an appeal before Rent Control Tribunal. That appeal was also dismissed holding that the default committed by the petitioner was willful and contumacious.2. Mr. Bhargava, learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that as the petitioner has paid the rent from February 1992 to February, 1994, during the lifetime of the previous owner namely Shri R.C. Rajput, which was subsequently adjusted by his widow Smt. Madhu Rajput, the orders of the Rent Control Tribunal and that of Addl. Rent Controller were without jurisdiction. He has further contended that he is willing to pay if there was any default even today in Court and this Court has got ample power to condone the delay in making payment of the rent. In support of his contention, counsel for the petitioner has relied upon Ram Murty Vs . Bhola Nath & ...
Tag this Judgment!Sujoy Banerjee and Another Vs. State and Another
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-22-1999
Reported in: 1999VIAD(Delhi)141; 82(1999)DLT71; I(2000)DMC288; 1999(51)DRJ342
ORDERM.S.A. Siddiqui, J.1. By this petition under Section 482 Cr. P.C. petitioners seek quashing of the criminal proceedings emanating from FIR No. 652/93 registered under Sections 498-A/325/34 IPC at the Police Station, Trilok Puri and pending on the file of the Metropolitan Magistrate, Delhi.2. Briefly stated, the facts giving rise to this petition are that on 14.12.1991, respondent No. 2, Smt. Sumita entered into wedlock with the petitioner No. 1 on 9.9.1992, Sumita's parents, namely, Mr. Premen Maitara and Mrs. Dipali Maitara Lodged a report at the Crime against Women Cell, Nanak Pura, New Delhi alleging cruelty at the hands of her husband (petitioner No. 1). On the basis of the said report, FIR No. 652/93 was registered at the Police Station Trilok Puri, Delhi under Sections 498-A/325/34 IPC. Investigation pursuant to the said report culminated into the submission of a charge-sheet under Section 498-A/406/325/34 IPC against the petitioners. Quashment of the criminal proceedings em...
Tag this Judgment!Manju Khullar Vs. Vijay Kumar Khullar and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-22-1999
Reported in: 1999VIAD(Delhi)166; 82(1999)DLT68; I(2000)DMC283; 1999(51)DRJ322
ORDERM.S.A. Siddiqui , J.1. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, I propose to dispose of this revision petition at the stage of admission itself. 2. The facts giving rise to this revision are that on 13.11.1979, the petitioner entered into wedlock with the respondent. On 9.11.1987, the petitioner filed a divorce petition against the respondent on the ground of cruelty and harassment. In January, 1988, the respondent entered appearance and filed an application before the Matrimonial Court stating that the marriage had been dissolved by a decree dated 29.10.1984, granted by the District Judge, Hmairpur, Una (HP). Thereupon the petitioner filed an application before the District Judge, Hamirpur, Una (HP) for setting aside the said ex parte decree. During the said proceedings the respondent made a statement about his marriage with Ms. Suresh Kumari @ Suresh Khullar on 14.10.1988. By the order dated 4.11.1989, the District Judge, Hmairpur, Una (HP) set aside the ex parte decree da...
Tag this Judgment!Ram Karan JaIn and Others Vs. Renu Bala
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-22-1999
Reported in: 2000IAD(Delhi)126; 2000RLR24
ORDERDr. M.K. Sharma, J. 1. Being aggrieved by the order dated 5.11.1998 dismissing the applica- corporation of the petitioners under Section 151 CPC praying to recall the order dated 8.10.1998 refusing the defendants to lead their evidence, the petitioners/defendants have preferred this revision petition in this Court. 2. The aforesaid suit was instituted by the respondent/plaintiff seeking for a decree for declaration and injunction which was registered as Suit No.272/1980. Issues were framed in the aforesaid suit and the suit was listed for recording evidence of the respondent's/plaintiff's witnesses. The plaintiff examined her last witness on 4.11.1997 when the suit was adjourned for cross examination of the witness by the defendants. The aforesaid suit was thereafter adjourned from time to time for cross examination of the said witness of the plaintiff till 30.5.1998. It appears that the said witness could not be cross examined by the defendants mostly due to non availability of t...
Tag this Judgment!Skyline Engineering Contracts (India) Pvt. Ltd. Vs. M/S. Girnar Fibres ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-22-1999
Reported in: 2000IIAD(Delhi)165; 2000(1)ARBLR655(Delhi); 84(2000)DLT552
ORDERMukul Mudgal, J.1. This is an arbitration petition, on behalf of the petitioner, under Section 11 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') seeking a direction to the respondents to file the original of Arbitration Agreement in this Court and also an Order of reference of the disputes/claims enumerated in Para 17 of the petition for arbitration. 2. The Clause 37 of the contract Agreement provided for the arbitration reads as follows : SETTLEMENT OF DISPUTE ARBITRATION : All disputes and differences of any kind whatever arising out of or in connection with the contract or the carrying out of the works (whether during the progress of the works or after their completion, and whether before or after the determination, abandonment or breach of the Contract) shall be referred to and settled by the Architects who shall state their decision in writing. Such decision may be in the form of a final certificate or otherwise. The decision of the Archit...
Tag this Judgment!Moni Dhawan Vs. M/S. M.C. Auto Products (India) Regd.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-22-1999
Reported in: 1999VIAD(Delhi)288; 82(1999)DLT368
ORDERDr. M.K. Sharma, J.1. This revision petition is directed against the order dated 20.3.1998 passed by the Additional District Judge, Delhi, in suit No. 189/1996 dismissing the application of the petitioner/defendant No. 1 under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC seeking for amendment of the written statement and Counter claim. 2. The aforesaid suit was instituted by the respondent as plaintiff and the son of the petitioner herein as defendant No. 2 for permanent injunction and also for mandatory injunction of eviction and for payment of damages in the Court of Additional District Judge, Delhi. In the aforesaid suit it was pleaded by the respondent that the petitioner was a friend of the respondent and that he was having his corrugated card board box making factory in the nearby premises and because of the friendship the respondent plaintiff permitted petitioner/defendant No. 1 to stock and store at times his goods and material in a godown room of the suit premises of which the respondent was a li...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 15
- Next ›
- Last »