Delhi Court May 2000 Judgments

Rajinder Prasad Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

1. The applicant is aggrieved by the order dated 8.1.1997 (Ann. A. 1) passed by Respondent 2 promoting three persons, including Respondent 3 Shri Jai Ram from Turner Grade-III to Turner Grade-II with immediate effect.2. The brief relevant facts of the case are that the applicant was originally appointed in Moradabad Division of the Northern Railway.That Division had issued the Office Order dated 16.6.84 provisionally confirming him as Turner Grade-III. The applicant had requested the official respondents to transfer him to Delhi Division because of certain personal problems, which was accepted by them. He was relieved from Moradabad Division on 30.11.89 (Ann. A. 4) to report to Delhi Division. He has, however, fairly submitted that since he was transferred to Delhi Division at his own request, he was posted in Tughalakabad Diesel Shed and he has to be appointed at bottom seniority in accordance with the relevant rules. He has relied upon Rule 312 of the Indian Railway Establishment Ma...

Anand Deep Singh Vs. Ranjit Kaur and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2000VIAD(Delhi)11; 2000(54)DRJ284

ORDERJ.B. Goel, J.1. Two applications, I.A. 7928/95 and I.A. 180/98 by defendants No. 9 and 10 and third application is No. 5125/96 by defendant No. 8 have been filed under Order 23, Rule 3 CPC for setting aside the compromise decree passed on 25.8.1993. 2. Briefly the facts are that plaintiff Anand Deep Singh had filed a suit for partition of immovable and movable properties, declaration of rights in the property and for rendition of accounts thereof. The properties are alleged to be owned by late Sir Datar Singh. Sir Datar Singh died on 17.5.1973 leaving behind his widow, lady Satwant Datar Singh, two sons, Kanwar Mahinder Pal Singh and S. Maninder Singh and two daughters, Smt. Amteshwar Anand (defendant No.8) and Smt. Kirpal Kaur (defendant No. 9). His widow died on 6.6.1979, Kanwar Mahinder Pal Singh, died on 4.4.1981 defendants No. 1 to 5 are his widow and four daughters, S. Maninder Singh also died on 24.9.1987, leaving behind plaintiff, and defendant No. 7, two sons, defendant N...

Bank of India Vs. Luk Auto Ancillary (India) Ltd. and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: [2003]115CompCas436(Delhi); 2000(54)DRJ393

ORDERJ.B. Goel, J.1. Plaintiff, Bank of India had filed a suit for recovery of Rs. 2475045.02 against four defendants namely, (1) M/s Luk Auto Ancillary (India) Ltd., (2) L.N. Raina, (3) Vijay Kumar Mundhra and (4) M/s Globe Motors Ltd. Defendant No. 1 being the principal debtor and defendants No. 2, 3 and 4 as its sureties. Defendants No. 1 and 2 and defendants No. 3 and 4 filed two separate written statements contesting the suit. Issues were settled. Defendants No. 1 and 4 had gone in liquidation and were represented by official Liquidator on various dates. However, during trial defendants did not appear. Plaintiff led ex parte evidence and vide judgment dated December 3, 1984 the suit was decreed in the sum of Rs. 2475042.02 with costs and future interest at the rate of 19.25% per annum. After the aforesaid decree was passed defendant No. 3 has filed an application (IA No. 3542/85 under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC) and later on defendant No. 2 also filed similar application (IA No. 4076/85)...

Om Prakash Gupta Vs. Parveen Kumar and anr.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 86(2000)DLT181

J.B. Goel, J.1. By this order, plaintiff's application (I.A. No. 7665/99) under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2, CPC seeking temporary injunction and defendants application (I.A. No. 8739/99) under Order 39 Rule 4, CPC for vacating the ex parte interim injunction granted on 12.8.1999 are being disposed of.2. Plaintiffs has filed a suit for injunction against infringement of trademark, infringement of copyright, and passing off, besides other ancillary reliefs. The case of the plaintiff is that plaintiff is the registered proprietor of the label 'SURAJ CHHAP' registered vide registration No. 287631 dated 24.4.1973 in Class 34 in respect of Scented Chewing Tobacco which has been renewed and a valid mark on the Trademark Register having been last renewed on 24.4.1994. Formerly plaintiff's was a partnership firm doing business in the name of M/s. Prakash Sugandh Bhandar comprising of Om Prakash, Sumer Chand and Promod Kumar as its partners since the year 1973. Subsequently, one of the partner retir...

Hari Narayan Kumar and anr. Vs. Radhey Sham Maria and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2000(54)DRJ566

J.B. Goel, J. 1. All these four applications under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC for various interim injunctions have been filed by the plaintiffs in a suit for specific performance and injunction based on an agreement to sell dated 13.4.1989 in their favor entered into between them and defendants No. 3 to 5 on behalf of defendants No. 1 and 2. 2. The case of the plaintiffs, who are husband and wife, is that defendants No. 1 and 2 are the perpetual lessees of plot of land No. C-6/37, Safdarjung Residential Scheme New Delhi. Defendants No. 3 to 5 had represented to them that defendants No. 1 and 2 had entered into a collaboration agreement with defendants No. 3 to 5 on 16.6.1987, the latter agreeing to develop and construct apartments over this plot of land at their own cost after obtaining necessary sanctions/permissions on the terms agreed therein with a right and authority to defendants No. 3 to 5 to sell the flats to be constructed to others. On construction being made, defendants No. ...

Sat Nam Singh Vs. Sardar Sant Singh and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2000(54)DRJ358

J.B. Goel, J.1. I.A. No. 4734/98 has been filed by plaintiff for restraining defendant No. 1 from Realizing the deeretal amount payable under decree passed in Suit No. 110/85 Sant Singh v. Janta Hydrolic & Others by the Court of an Addl. District Judge, Delhi from defendant No. 4 a tenant. I.A. No. 901/99 and I.A. No. 3615/99 have been filed by defendant No. 1 seeking release of the balance amount of Rs. 1,90,099/- deposited in this Court by defendants 5 and 6/tenants and also for vacating the stay against withdrawal of Rs. 1,26,000/- realised in decree passed in Suit No. 110/85 referred to above, which has been stayed by this Court.2. These applications have been filed in the circumstances as mentioned hereafter.3. Plaintiff and defendants No. 1 to 3 had started a business in partnership under the firm name of M/s. Sardar Plastic Industries at 1429, Fiaz Ganj Road, Bahadur Garh Road, Delhi for manufacturing plastic and stationary items. Defendant No. 1 is father whereas plaintiff and ...

Bulk Drug Manufacturers Association and Another Vs. Uoi and anr.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2000(55)DRJ776

ORDERDr.. M.K. Sharma, J.1. This matter is placed before me in view of difference of opinion expressed by the Judges of the Division Bench on the application filed by the respondents registered & numbered as C.M. No.1583/1999 seeking for vacation of the interim order dated 7.1.1999. The point of reference is in the following terms: 'Whether or not the interim order dated 7.1.1999 needs to be vacated before the final disposal of the writ petition?'In order to answer the aforesaid reference it would be necessary to refer to some of the background facts leading to filing of the aforesaid application on which there was divergence of opinion. 2. The petitioner No.1 is an association of the Bulk Drug Manufacturers of India having 300 members from all over India. In exercise of the powers conferred under the Essential Commodities Act the Central Government Promulgated a control order called the Drug (Prices Control) Order, 1995 (hereinafter referred to as DPCO) which was promulgated under the...

Rama Carslus (P) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2000)(120)ELT569TriDel

1. The appellants were engaged in the manufacture of M.S. Ingots falling under Chapter sub-heading 7206.90 of the Central Excise Tariff, They were working under the Compounded Levy Scheme under Section 3A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 and the Rules thereunder. The relevant rule was Rule 96ZO. This rule provided that, when the manufacturing unit remained closed for a continuous period of not less than 7 days, the manufacturer was entitled to abatement of duty on fulfilment of certain conditions as laid down under Sub-rule 2. The appellant's unit, according to them, remained closed from 16-12-1997 to 23-12-1997. With an obvious intention of claiming abatement of duty in respect of this period the appellants gave intimation of closure of the unit to the jurisdictional Assistant Commissioner on 17-12-1997 under Sub-rule 2 of Rule 96ZO. It appears that the appellants did not pursue their claim for abatement of duty for the period. In their letter of intimation given to the Assistant Comm...

Bright Cables Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2000)(120)ELT496TriDel

1. The issue involved in this appeal filed by M/s. Bright Cables is whether the power cables manufactured by them are parts of wind mills so as to be eligible for exemption under notification No. 205/88-C.E., dated 25-5-1988.2. Shri J.S. Agrawal, learned Advocate submitted that the appellants M/s. Bright Cables manufacture PVC insulated sheathed electric wires and cables which are used in the wind mills; that notification No.205/88, exempts from payment of duty wind mills, parts of wind mills and any specially designed device which run on wind mills; that wind mills becomes functional only through power cables manufactured and supplied by them and as such these are parts and parcel of the wind mills; that the electricity which is produced due to the torque provided by wind is fed through these cables and without them the wind mills cannot function. He relied upon the decision in the case of Elecon Engg. Co. Ltd. v. Collector of Customs, Bombay, 1998 (27) RLT 913, wherein it was held t...

Shivaji Works Ltd. Vs. Collector of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2000)(120)ELT365TriDel

1. In this appeal filed by the appellant against the order-in-appeal dated 17-2-1995 passed by the Collector (Appeals), the issue involved is regarding the availability of benefit of exemption Notification No.223/88 to them in respect of investment castings.2. The appellants are engaged in the manufacture of two types of Castings, viz, moulded casting and investment castings and claimed the benefit of Notification No. 223/88 dated 23-6-1986 in respect of investment castings which they prepared by special wax lost process, and did not require any further major operations. They were, however, served with a show-cause-cum-demand notice dated 14-1-94 demanding payment of duty of Rs. 71,888.46 on the ground that they were not entitled to the benefit of Notification No. 233/88. They filed reply to that show cause notice wherein they reiterated their plea that they were entitled to the benefit of this notification especially when their classification list was approved by the Assistant Collec...