Delhi Court February 2000 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.
Uco Bank Vs. Shri Ashok Kumar Mongia
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-11-2000
Reported in: 2000IIIAD(Delhi)107; 84(2000)DLT579; 2000(53)DRJ252; [2000(86)FLR85]; (2000)IILLJ404Del; 2000(4)SLR74
ORDERA.K. Sikri, J.1. Respondent No. 1 (petitioner in CW. 1982/87) states that his counsel is not well. At his request, Mr. M.R. Bhardwaj his counsel is discharged from the case and he is allowed to argue the case himself. 2. Respondent (petitioner in the writ petition) had filed Civil Writ Petition No. 1892/97 and after hearing, it was disposed of by me vide judgment dated August 31, 1999. The enquiry conducted against the petitioner and impugned order dated 30th May, 1985 imposing the penalty of dismissal upon the petitioner as well as order dated 21.7.1985 of the appellate authority was set aside mainly on two grounds namely, (i) Area Manager who acted as disciplinary authority was not competent to act as disciplinary authority; and (ii) Shri R.K. Somaiya who was appointed as enquiry officer should not have acted as enquiry officer as he had contacted the prelimi-nary investigation and there was 'real likelihood of bias' or 'reasonable suspicion of bias'. 3. While setting aside the ...
Lalli Enterprises Vs. M/S. Dharma Chand and Sons
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-11-2000
Reported in: 2000VAD(Delhi)218; 2000(2)ARBLR173(Delhi); 85(2000)DLT476
ORDERJ.B. Goel, J.1. Plaintiff has filed this suit for infringement of trademark 'A.B.C. (label)' and passing off action in respect of copyright in the label of the trade mark besides rendition of accounts etc. against the defendant. Defendant is doing business at Rewari (Haryana). 2. It is alleged that the plaintiff is doing the business of manufacturing 'MATCH BOXES' for the last five years under the trademark 'A.B.C. (label)' and selling the same in the match boxes with the label/carton/wrapper in distinctive and artistic design and has acquired copyright. The trade mark is also registered in its name with the Registrar, Trade Marks. 3. It is alleged that the defendant has recently started manufacturing and marketing the 'MATCH BOXES' adopting identical and deceptively similar trademark 'A.D.C. (label)' and similar label thereby infringing the plaintiff's trademark and copyright and passing off inferior goods thereby causing confusion and deception among the public and loss to the p...
Lal Chand Vs. Secretary (Labour) and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-11-2000
Reported in: 2000IIIAD(Delhi)715; 85(2000)DLT303
ORDERA.K. Sikri, J.1. Ex-parte Award in this case was passed on 14.7.1998 which was published on 3.9.1998 and became enforceable on 3.10.1998. Application for setting aside ex-parte Award was filed by respondent No. 2 on 1.9.1998 admittedly even before it was to be published and the award became enforceable. There is no dispute that such an application was maintainable and Labour Court could entertain that application. However this application was dismissed in default on 20.11.1998. Another application dated 1.12.1998 was moved by Respondent No.2 on 2.12.1998 for setting aside order dated 20.11.1998 and restoration of application dated 1.9.1998 which was dismissed in default on 20.11.1998. This application was entertained by the Labour Court and finding sufficient justification for non-appearance on 20.11.1998 order dated 20.11.1998 was set aside by impugned order dated 3.12.1998. Effect of passing this order is that earlier application dated 1.9.1998 for setting aside ex parte Award s...
Mardan Singh Vs. D.T.C. and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-11-2000
Reported in: 2000IIIAD(Delhi)767; [2000(87)FLR122]
ORDERA.K. Sikri, J.1. Rule. Short question which arises in this petition relates to the power of the Depot Manger in refusing/modifying the order of punishment passed earlier. The petitioner was served with charge sheet dated 29.9.1997 containing certain allegations. Inquiry was held against the petitioner. After the receipt of the inquiry report, Depot Manager of GTK Deport issued show cause notice dated 6.3.1998 proposing to inflict the punishment of reprimand. Petitioner submitted his reply to the said show cause notice. Ultimately, the punishment of reprimand was imposed upon the petitioner vide order dated 10.3.1998. However after passing this order, communication dated 2.6.1998 was issued to the petitioner informing that the order dated 10.3.1998 imposing punishment of reprimand was set aside and the case was being reopened for further action. Thereafter show cause notice dated 11.6.1998 was issued proposing the following punishment 'reprimand + deduction of Rs. 6064.50 in five e...
Lalli Enterprises Vs. Dharam Chand and Sons
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-11-2000
Reported in: 100(2002)DLT20; 2003(26)PTC239(Del)
ORDER1. The respondent has been served. There is no appearance on behalf of the respondent. We have heard the learned Counsel for the appellant. After hearing the Counsel, we are of the view that the impugned judgment dated 11th February, 2000 cannot be sustained. Briefly the facts are that the plaintiff/appellant filed a suit for passing off trade mark and infringement of copyright besides rendition of accounts against the defendant. Plaintiff is said to be manufacturing match boxes for the last about five years under the trade mark 'A.B.C (label)' and selling the same with label/carton/wrapper in distinct and artistic design and have acquired a copy right. It was alleged that the defendant/respondent recently started manufacturing and marketing match boxes adopting identical and deceptively similar trade mark 'A.D.C. (label)' thereby infringing the plaintiff's trade mark and passing off his goods as those of plaintiff. The learned Single Judge has rejected the plaint at the threshold...
Hariss Machine Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Feb-10-2000
Reported in: (2000)(119)ELT678TriDel
2. The appellants cleared one auto copying lathe machine under invoice No. 26 dated 18-12-1996 on payment of Central Excise duty of Rs. 38,000.00 to M/s. Shiv Machine Tools and the latter displayed the machine in a trade fair in Coimbatore in the first half of January, 1997. While so, the buyers noted some defect in the machine and hence returned the same to the appellants under cover of letter dated 14-1-1997 along with all the original documents under which the machine had been received by them. Soon after receipt of the returned goods, the appellants gave D-3 intimation to the Department under Rule 173L of the Central Excise Rules, declaring that one auto copying lathe machine, on which duty had been paid as per invoice No. 26 dated 18-12-1996, was received from M/s. Shiv Machine Tools on 27-1-1997 for being remade/repaired/reconditioned under Rule 173L (under refund of duty). This declaration was duly received by the Department on 28-l:1997. Later on, the appellants cleared the ma...
Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Magnum Paper Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Feb-10-2000
Reported in: (2000)(118)ELT281TriDel
1. These appeals are by the Commissioner. They relate to allowing of appeals of the respondent against findings of excess stock in the godown, non-maintenance of production accounts correctly and undervaluation of goods seized from the Depot of one of their buyers namely M/s. DPC.2. Excess stock involved was 942 Kgs. and accounted stock was 2,31,083 Kgs. With regard to the excess, the Commissioner (Appeals) who allowed the appeal, found that the excess was in the range 0.004%. With regard to valuation, the evidence addused by the Revenue was that a dealer at Coimbatore and Ahmedabad had given statements during investigations that they had made certain cash payments for paper purchased by them over and above the invoiced prices. The Commissioner (Appeals) found with regard to these goods that there were no particulars in the statements or in the show cause notice as to which varities of paper were subject of such cash payment. The goods which had been seized from the godown of DPC had ...
Raj Kumar Gupta Vs. Commissioner of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Feb-10-2000
Reported in: (2000)(69)ECC298
1. The appellant was imposed a penalty of Rs. 5 lakhs by the Commissioner of Customs, Lucknow by Order-in-Original dated 12.9.97.The matter relates to the seizure and confiscation of dried ginger recovered from two trucks by the Customs (Prev.) officers on 233.95 on the National Highway between Lucknow and Sitapur. By the impugned order the said ginger valued at Rs. 8,01,040 was confiscated under Section 111(d) of the Customs Act, 1962 and personal penalties were imposed on six noticees under Section 112(b). The Commissioner found that the said ginger was liable to confiscation since it was smuggled from Nepal and it was not of Indian or Nepalese origin. The penalty on the present appellant was imposed on the finding that the Export certificate issued at Bhairaw Nepal and the transport builty of Bajrang Transport Corpn.showed that the smuggled goods in question were to be transported to Shri Raj Kumar Gupta (appellant), Khari Baoli, Delhi and statements of Shri Ranjit Singh, cleaner o...
Tata Mc Graw-hill Publishing Co. Vs. Commr. of Cus.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Feb-10-2000
Reported in: (2000)(119)ELT546TriDel
1. In this appeal the correctness of Order-in-Original No.VIII/AU/7/Misc./70/CH. 85/99, dated 31-5-1999 is in issue. It is related to an import of Computer Software. The value of Software was shown by the importer as US$ 90,000. That amount included application training of US$ 5,000, conversion amounting to another US$ 5000, application modification costing US$ 15,000 and post implementation expenditure of US$ 20,000 and travel and other expenses amounting to US$ 45,000. The actual value of the software has been found to be US$ 25,000. Since invoice mentioned US$ 90,000 as against the actual value US$ 25,000, adjudicating Authority namely the Commissioner of Customs directed the goods to be confiscated under Section 111(m) of the Customs Act with an option to the importer to redeem it on payment of redemption fine of Rs. 5 lakhs. Personal penalty of Rs. 1 lakh was also imposed on the importer under Section 112(a) of the Act. Aggrieved by this order appeal is preferred.2. In the case, ...
G.D.R. Fabrics Vs. Commissioner of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Feb-10-2000
Reported in: (2000)(118)ELT367TriDel
1. Appellant questions the correctness of order-in-original No.11/99 dated 8-7-1999 passed by Commissioner of Customs. As per that order Universal Interlock Knitting Machine Model SUI/DA 32" x 24G x 72F imported from Korea under Bill of Entry No. 1076 dated 28-5-1999 was confiscated with the option to redeem the same on payment of fine of Rs. 3 Lakhs and a penalty of Rs. 1 Lakh was also imposed under Section 112A of the Customs Act. 480 Cams which were also imported along with the machine was assessed on a value of Rs. 96,000/-.2. Short facts necessary for the disposal of this appeal are as follows :- "Appellant imported from Korea one Universal Interlock Knitting Machine. It was stated to be second hand Reconditioned Machine. It was invoiced at a price of Rs. 10,000 US $. When the machine reached Customs Barrier it was got inspected through a Chartered Engineer. On such inspection the machine was found to be a brand new one, manufactured in March, 1999. Its value was fixed by the Cha...
- ‹ Prev
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 16
- 17
- 19
- 20
- 21
- 22
- 23
- Next ›
- Last »