Delhi Court May 2000 Judgments

M/S. Online India Capital Co. Pvt. Ltd. and anr. Vs. M/S. Dimention Co ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: [2000]102CompCas362(Delhi)

ORDERK.S. Gupta, J.1. Suit was filed seeking to restrain the defendant permanently from using the website under the name of WWW. MUTUAL FUND INDIA. COM or in any other identical name, inter alia, alleging that plaintiff No.2 acquired the proprietory rights of WWW. MUTUAL FUNDS INDIA. COM and assigned it in favor of plaintiff No.1 company. Website WWW. MUTUAL FUNDS INDIA. COM was created on 5th May, 1999. It is alleged that this website provides most comprehensive data on mutual funds. Finding it to be highly informative, knowledgeable and useful the Templeton Mutual Fund, DSP Merill Lynch Mutual Fund, Kotak Mahindra Mutual Fund, Alliance Capital Mutual Fund and Taurus Mutual Fund are advertising on the said website. Prudential ICICI Mutual Fund has also agreed to advertise for one year beginning May 1, 2000. SIDBI Venture Capital Co. Ltd., has offered to participate in the share capital of Plaintiff No.1 to the tune of Rs. 1.5 crores. Other leading companies of North India dealing in s...

Rajeev Chaudhary Vs. State

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2001CriLJ2023; 86(2000)DLT203; 2000(54)DRJ722

Cyriac Joseph, J.1. An important question regarding interpretation of Clause (i) of proviso (a) to Sub-section (2) of Section 167 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 arises in this case.2. The petitioner was arrested in connection with a case registered at Police Station, Malviya Nagar in pursuance of an FIR No. 1069 dated 30th October, 1998 under Sections 386, 506 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. He was produced before the Court of Metropolitan Magistrate, New Delhi on 31st October, 1998 and was remanded to police custody up to 1st November, 1998. He was remanded to judicial custody on 1st November, 1998. Later, he was released on bail pursuant to an order dated 2nd January, 1999 passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, New Delhi. The said order dated 2nd January, 1999 was passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate on an application filed by the petitioner under Section 167(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure for grant of bail on the ground that the police had no...

Fritco-lay India and anr. Vs. Uncle Chipps Private Limited

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2000VAD(Delhi)874; 2000(2)ARBLR519(Delhi); 86(2000)DLT31; (2000)126PLR57

ORDERS.K. Agarwal, J.1. ADMIT. We heard Mr. P. Chidambaram, learned Senior Advocate for the appellant and Dr.A.M. Singhvi, learned senior advocate for the respondent and were taken through the record. 2. This appeal by appellants (plaintiffs) is directed against the order dated 17th September, 1999 passed by learned Single Judge of this Court on an application filed under Order 39, Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short CPC) holding that the respondent (defendant) was neither guilty of piracy nor copying of the disc of appellants being dis- tributed as a free collectible with their product 'Lays and Cheeto Chips', nor there was any unfair or dishonest competition on the part of the respondent in distributing such discs with their product 'Uncle Chipps'; and only restraining the respondent from distributing free collectibles, in the shape of round disc having groove/notch or grooves/notches. 3. The focus of the present case is 'advertising/promotional campaign' on...

Sanatan Dharam Sabha (Regd.) and ors. Vs. Naresh Chand Aggarwal and or ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 86(2000)DLT228

J.B. Goel, J.1. Shree Sanatam Dharam Sabha (Regd.) plaintiff is a society registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860 (for short 'the Act') which inter alias runs schools and manages religious places at Shahdara. Its affairs are managed by a Managing Committee of 17 persons elected on the basis of election by its members. The Managing Committee has a President, Vice-President, Secretary, Joint Secretary and Treasurer. It appears that the disputes about elections to its Managing Committee has become a perpetual feature. Earlier elections were notified for 19,1.1992, Only 17 persons submitted their nomination which were found valid and they were declared elected. The election was challenged by two persons, namely, SOm Prakash Seerawala and Ram Kishore Gupta in Suit No. 3048/92 titled as Shri Samtam Dharam Sabha (Regd.) and Ors. v. Shri Parmanand Gupta and Ors.. A settlement was arrived at between the parties, and a joint application (I.A. No. 2375/94) under Order 23, Rule 2, CP...

Shri B.B. Patel Vs. Nexim Exports Pvt. Ltd. and anr.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: AIR2001Delhi313

R.C. Chopra, J.1. This suit under Order 37 of the Code of Civil Procedure was instituted by the plaintiff against the defendants for recovery of Rs. 24,20,000/- with costs and interest. Vide orders dated 3.5.1993, the defendant's application for leave to defend was granted subject to certain conditions.2. The plaintiff's case as set out in the plaint, briefly stated, is that the plaintiff is the sole proprietor of M/s. Nikoleon Brothers. The defendant No. 1 is a private limited company and defendant No. 2 is its Managing Director and a party to the contract. The plaintiff alleged that the plaintiff and defendants were having good business relations and had joined hands in many business deals helping one another. In the month of September, 1988, the defendant No. 2 approached the plaintiff for financial assistance. He asked for a short term temporary loan of Rs. 20 lacs which was to carry interest at the rate of 21% per annum. The defendant No. 2 assured the plaintiff that the loan woul...

Ms. Archana Shukla Vs. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax and anr.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: (2000)161CTR(Del)159

ORDERArijit Pasayat, CJ :Prayer in the writ petition is for a direction to the respondents to grant refund flowing from the order of assessment under section 143(1)(a) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short, the Act), dated 18-8-1999 for the assessment year 1998-99. It is her grievance that instead of granting refund, a subterfuge was adopted to make adjustment of the refund due to her against a demand purported to have been raised against M/s Techno Exports in respect of the assessment year 1994-95. Petitioner moved the in CIT (Respondent No. 1) for grant of refund. It was communicated to her by said authority that a notice under section 226(3) had been issued, on 8-12-1999, and the refund has been adjusted against the demand raised in the case of M/s Textile Exports and the communication was indicated to be an intimation under section 245 of the Act.2. It is to be noted that by communication dated 3rd Dec., 1999, it was communicated to the petitioner that in her balance sheet as on 3...

Dabur India Ltd. Vs. Bsi Ltd.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2000(56)DRJ497

S.N. Kapoor, J.1. The petitioner has filed an application under Section 8 read with Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter called 'the Act' for short). The applicant company clams its registered office at 8/3, Asaf Ali Road, New Delhi. The applicant company placed an order for supply of 4,500 MT of India Toasted Yellow Soyabean Extraction with the respondent vide confirmation Note No. SS/1402/96 dated 16.9.96 through M/s. S.S. Mercantile Export Intermediates & Produce Brokers and the confirmation note dated 16th September, 1996 was signed and executed by both the parties. The respondent was to dispatch the material to the destination to be notified by the applicant by Railway rake. The applicant was to make payment equivalent to 90% of the invoice value of the first consignment. This agreement clause provided that in case of any dispute, arbitration would be last resort to both the parties, if both the parties are unable to resolve mutually. The said conf...

Commr. of C. Ex. Vs. Economic Pharmaceuticals (P)

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2000)(72)ECC488

1. The Revenue is aggrieved by the order of the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals) who has accepted the respondents claim for classification of the product 'Stamifort Supreme Capsules' as Ayurvedic medicament under CET sub-heading 3003.30 chargeable to nil rate of duty. According to the Revenue, the product falls for classification under CET sub-heading 3003.10 as Patent or Proprietary Medicament chargeable to duty at the rate of 15% ad valorm.2. Notice issued to the respondents has been returned undelivered. We find that the case has been coming up for hearing since March, 2000 and every time notice of hearing has been returned undelivered. Hence we see no reason to keep the matter pending any further. Therefore, we heard the learned DR and perused the records.3. There is no definition of Ayurvedic medicines in the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944. Section 3 of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1944 defines Ayurvedic Medicines as one which "includes...and manufactured exclusively in ...

Refco and Wessamat Appliances Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2000)(120)ELT493TriDel

1. The appellant is a manufacturer of Air Conditioners and Ice Cubic machines in the small scale sector. The impugned order has denied the benefit of exemption under Notification No. 73/87 of 1987 to the goods manufactured by the appellants on the ground that the goods manufactured by them were under the brand name of another person who is not eligible for the grant or exemption in terms or para 5 or that Notification. The brand name is WESSAMAT of a German manufacturer.2. Both the sides agree that in view of the decision of the Larger Bench of this Tribunal in the case of Namtech Systems Ltd. v. CCE; New Delhi [2000 (115) E.L.T 238], an Indian manufacturer who uses the brand name of foreign manufacturers would also be ineligible for exemption on account of use of the brand name of another person. The demand on the appellants on account of such use of the brand name of another person works out to Rs. 8,58,900/-. This demand, thus, has to be confirmed on merits. However, the ld. Counse...

Uma Kant Tiwari Vs. Commissioner of Police and ors.

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

1. In the aforesaid two O.As, the applicants have impugned the action and orders passed by the respondents in not promoting them from Sub-Inspectors to Inspectors by placing them in List 'F' (Ministerial/Executive) in terms of Rule 17 (iii) of the Delhi Police (Promotion and Confirmation) Rules, 1980 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules'). Both these cases were tagged together as the learned Counsel for the parties have submitted that the issues raised are identical and hence they are also being disposed of by a common order.2. For the sake of convenience, the facts in O.A. 1415/96 are referred to in order to focus on the issues raised in the cases. The applicant, Shri Uma Kant Tiwari, has impugned the order dated 6.5.1996 passed by the respondents and has prayed that the same may be set aside with the direction to bring his name between Serial Nos. 16 and 17 of the list and promote him to the rank of Inspector (Min.) with all consequential benefits. The applicant joined Delhi Polic...