Delhi Court September 1999 Judgments
Home Cases Delhi 1999 Page 13 of about 308 results (0.022 seconds)Premwati Bansal Vs. M/S. Shri Ganpati International
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1999VIAD(Delhi)687; 82(1999)DLT398
ORDERVikramajit Sen, J.1. The plaintiff has brought this suit under Sections 105 and 106 of the Trade and Merchandise Marks Act, 1958 as well as under Section 51 of the Indian Copyright Act, 1957 seeking the relief of permanent injunction and rendition of accounts. The case disclosed in the plaint is that the Plaintiff is the proprietor of the trade mark 'HARIYALI LABEL' in relation to rice which was adopted on 1.4. 1993 and has been continuously in use thereafter. It is averred that in order to acquire statutory rights for the trade mark HARIYALI LABEL, an application in clause 30 of the Trade & Merchandise Marks Act, 1958 was filed on 9.8.1996 and this application is still pending. It is further averred that the Plaintiff is the proprietor in the artistic feature of HARIYALI LABEL and that she holds its copyright. An Application for registration under Section 45(1) of the Copyright Act was filed by her on 22.2.1999 and No objection Certificate was granted by Registrar Trade Marks on ...
Tag this Judgment!Brij Lal Vs. Sh. R.S. Sharma
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1999VIAD(Delhi)89; 82(1999)DLT207
ORDERVijender Jain, J. (Oral)1. An application No. 3139/95 was filed by the petitioner under Order 22 Rule 4 read with Section 151 of CPC, inter-alia, praying that the respond-ent-tenant died on 13th July, 1995 leaving behind the following legal representatives :- Sh. Rajeev Sharma son Sh. Anil Sharma do Sanjeev Sharma do Deepak Sharma do Rishi Sharma do Ms. Neelam Daughter Sheetal do Dolly do Gitanjali do Prakash Rani widow.2. Notice of this application was issued to the legal representatives. Mr. B.S. Malik appeared for all the legal representatives except L.R. No. 3 and made a statement before the Court on 12th February, 1997 that reply has been filed by LRs 1, 4 to 9 which was not on record. It was directed that counsel of LRs of deceased respondent-tenant may place the reply on record. 3. From the perusal of the record, I find that no reply has been placed on record in terms of the order passed by this Court on 12th February, 1997. As no reply has been filed, the averments of th...
Tag this Judgment!Anilma Association and ors. Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1999VIAD(Delhi)93; 82(1999)DLT254; 1999(51)DRJ350
ORDERArun Kumar, J.1. Since a short point is involved we have heard the learned counsel for the parties on the main writ petition for purposes of its final disposal with their consent. 2. By this petition under article 226 of the Constitution of India the petitioner has challenged the banning order dated 5th May, 1999 passed against the petitioner firm by the respondent railways. 3. Briefly the facts are that the petitioner is engaged in manufacturing of PVC cables which it used to supply to the Railways. The petitioner firm was on the approved list of suppliers of the said material to the Railways. The item manufactured by the petitioner is subjected to payment of excise duty under the Central Excise Act. On 13th February, 1998 the Department of Central Excise, Govt. of India issued a show cause notice to the petitioner alleging evasion of excise duty by the petitioner. On 28th May, 1998, the Commissioner of Central Excise confirmed a demand of duty in the sum of Rs. 63,50,509/- and a...
Tag this Judgment!Urvashi Enterprises Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (2000)(115)ELT793TriDel
1. These are 5 stay applications involving the common issue. Therefore they are being taken up together.2. Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the applicants submits that applicants applied for abatement of duty under Rule 96ZO(2) of the Central Excise Rules. He submits that on their request for abatement of Central Excise duty the impugned order was passed without granting and opportunity of personal hearing to the applicants. He submits that the impugned order is passed in violation of principles of natural justice, therefore, the applications be allowed. He further relied upon the order passed by the Tribunal dated 11-8-1999 in the case of Arvind Refractories Pvt. Ltd. in Appeal No. E/1492/99-NB and submits that in this case the Tribunal remanded the matter to the adjudicating authority for deciding afresh after affording an opportunity of personal hearing.3. Heard Shri S. Ramanathan, learned JDR appearing on behalf of the Revenue who reiterated the finding of the lower authorit...
Tag this Judgment!U.P. State Sugar Corpn. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (2000)(115)ELT207TriDel
1. This appeal has been filed by the appellants against the order dated 17-11-1998 passed by Commissioner (Appeals), Ghaziabad who upheld the order of the Assistant Commissioner dated 31-7-1997 regarding confiscation of the goods and imposition of redemption fee and penalty.2. The facts giving rise to this appeal may briefly be stated as under : The appellants are engaged in the manufacture of V.P. Sugar falling under sub-heading 1701.39 of schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act.On inspection of their unit, 1132 bags/qtls. of moist V.P. Sugar were found lying in the factory and Shri V.K. Gupta, Chief Chemist of the unit and authorised representative could not give any reasonable explanation. He only stated that V.P. Sugar was stored in their godown and from there, non duty paid 4061 bags were brought inside the factory, on payment of duty for re-processing and intimation to this effect was given to the concerned officer and that out of those, 1132 bags were yet to be re-processed. ...
Tag this Judgment!Commr. of C. Ex. Vs. Chemtec Water Conditioners P.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (2000)(115)ELT135TriDel
1. The Revenue has filed this appeal against Order-in-Appeal dated 28-8-1992 passed by the Collector (Appeals). In the impugned order the Collector (Appeals) held that Water Treatment Plant is firmly and permanently attached to the civil construction, therefore, erection of Water Treatment Plant being Immovable property are not liable to central excise duty.2. Learned DR appearing on behalf of the Revenue submits that the entire water treatment plant is assembled first, and thereafter the plant was fixed on the ground. He submits that in the event of shifting of the plant only civil construction is to be broken and the entire system can be taken out and therefore it is not immovable property. He submits that the respondents manufacture some of the items and some are purchased from the market and thereafter this water treatment plant is assembled at the site. Hence, water treatment plant is liable to pay duty under Chapter Heading 84 of the Central Excise Tariff. He relied upon the dec...
Tag this Judgment!K.L. Malik Vs. Shri Virender Kumar Verma and ors.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1999VIAD(Delhi)104
ORDERVijender Jain, J.1. The matter has been on the Regular Board for the last one week. Nobody is present on behalf of the petitioner. I may dismiss the matter on account of non-prosecution. However, in view of the fact that eviction order was passed way back on 23.1.1991 on the ground of bona fide need under Section 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, I would like to dispose of this petition on merit.2. The purpose of letting has been admitted to be residential by the petitioner. However, the petitioner has disputed the ownership of the respondents. In view of the fact that sale-deed (Ex. AW 1/2) was brought on record, which was duly registered and executed in favor of Basant Lal Verma, the finding of the Addl. Rent Controller cannot be faulted. The property was bequeathed by the deceased Basant lal Verma to his wife Smt. Sushila Devi through Will dated 11.8.1988. Smt. Sushila Devi also died and left the property to her five sons by virtue of Will dated 5.5.1989. All the responde...
Tag this Judgment!Santosh Devi Soni Vs. Smt. Chand Kiran
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1999VIAD(Delhi)100; 82(1999)DLT417; 1999(51)DRJ605
ORDERVijender Jain, J.1. Aggrieved by the order passed by the Addl. Rent Controller allowing the eviction petition of the respondent under Section 14D of the Delhi Rent Control Act, the petitioner has filed the present petition. Eviction order was passed against the petitioner on 22.8.1997. In view of the pendency of this petition in this Court, a classified landlady has been denied the accommodation which was required by the her.2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that in addition to the lease-deed which was executed by the petitioner on 3.9.1990, inter alia, giving two rooms on the second floor under the tenancy of the petitioner subsequently by an oral agreement another two rooms were given to the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that a sum of Rs. 85,000/- was given to the respondent for providing additional accommodation on the second floor. Another contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the size of the family of the...
Tag this Judgment!Pehlad @ Bhagat Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1999VIAD(Delhi)460; 1999CriLJ4696; 82(1999)DLT191
ORDERK.S. Gupta, J.1. This appeal by Pehlad @ Bhagat accused/appellant is directed against the judgment dated 30th August, 1995 convicting him under Section 20 of Narcotic Drugs & Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short the 'Act') and the order of even date sentencing him to undergo R. I. for 10 years and pay fine of Rs. 1,00.000/-, passed by an Additional Sessions Judge. In default of payment of fine, he was to further undergo R.I. for 1 year. 2. Case of the prosecution as born out from the charge sheet filed under Section 173 Cr.P.C. in brief, is that on 11th September, 1991 ASI Raj Pal, PW-8 Along with HC Nafe Singh, PW-5 Constables Rajeshwar Prasad and Ranjit Singh was present in connection with patrolling and prevention of crime near police booth main road, Pratap Nagar and at about 5.10 P.M., he met Bharat Bhushan Ghai, PW-4. Around 5.15 .PM., an informer met PW-8 and told him that a person of Sansi Community having charas would after sometime reach Sansi Basti, Andha Mughal...
Tag this Judgment!Nav Sansad Vihar Coop. Group Housing Society Ltd. (Regd.) Vs. Ram Shar ...
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 2000IVAD(Delhi)614
ORDERJ.B. Goel. J.1. In the petition (A.A. 1/98) under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short 'the Act '), the petitioner seeks quashing of the appointments of Mr. K.L. Sehgal and of Shri K.S. Kharb as Arbitrator and for appointment of an Arbitrator. 2. Briefly, the facts are that the petitioner for construction of Multistoreyed apartments on their plot No. 4, Sector 22, Dawarka Phase-I, New Delhi entered into an agreement dated 23.5.1995 appointing respondent No.1 as Architects for providing architectural and engineering services specifying the nature of the work to be per formed. It is alleged that the respondent No.1 was found incompetent and due to delay, inaction and other lapses and for various deficiencies, their drawings were not approved by the authorities concerned and the work could not be undertaken. They failed to perform the job in spite of several letters sent to them. The agreement was terminated on 22.8.1997 and they had to engage anothe...
Tag this Judgment!