Delhi Court October 2001 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.
Indian Herbs Research and Supply Co. Ltd. and anr. Vs. Lalji Mal and a ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-05-2001
Reported in: 95(2002)DLT723
Sharda Aggarwal, J.1. The application under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 CPC for temporary injunction has been moved by the plaintiff in the suit for perpetual injunction to restrain the defendants from infringing their registered trade mark 'HIMALAYAN BATISA' and from using the artistic work/label registered under the Copy Right Act, 1957 in respect of 'ayurvedic veterinary medical preparations' and from passing off their goods under the offending trade mark 'HIMALAYA BATISA' or under any other trade mark/label which may be identical with and/or deceptively similar to the plaintiffs registered trade mark.2. Plaintiffs have been carrying on their business of manufacturing and marketing of 'ayurvedic veterinary medical preparations' since 1956 under the trade mark/label 'HIMALAYAN BATISA' which is duly registered in the name of the plaintiffs under the Trade & Merchandise Marks Act, 1958 (in short the Act). The plaintiff No. 1 is also the owner of copy right of the artistic work of the label con...
Indian Shaving Products Ltd. Vs. Delhi Development Authority and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-05-2001
Reported in: [2004]120CompCas818(Delhi); 95(2002)DLT87; 2002(61)DRJ304
Anil Dev Singh, J. 1. The petitioner calls in question the impugned notice dated August 29, 1995 whereby the petitioner company has been asked to pay an amount of Rs. 5,39,14,966/- to the first respondent -Delhi Development Authority (for short 'the D.D.A.') The facts giving rise to the petition are as follows:- 2. The petitioner is a public limited company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956. It is stated to be new entrant in the razor blade market. In the year 1987 the petitioner along with its subsidiary companies bought the entire share holding of a company called Sharpedge Limited. The latter company was incorporated in the year 1957 and was engaged in the business of manufacture and sale of safety razor blades and other related shaving products. In the year 1989, a reference was made to the Board of Industrial and Financial Reconstruction (for short' the BIFR') on the ground of Sharpedge Limited being a sick industrial company. On August, 9, 1989, the BIFR declared Sharped...
Gaajra International Vs. Food Corporation of India
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-05-2001
Reported in: 2002IIAD(Delhi)209; 96(2002)DLT581; 2002(62)DRJ217
A.K. Sikri, J. 1. The petitioner has filed this petition under section 20 of the Arbitration Act, 1940. The prayermade is that the respondent be directed to appoint anarbitrator in terms of the arbitration clause containedin the agreement to resolve the disputes anddifferences arisen between the parties. 2. It is stated in the petition that videagreement dated 1st October, 1985 the respondent hadtaken on rent the premises belonging to the petitionersituated in Udyog Vihar, Palam Road, Gurgaon comprisingof covered sheds of about 33,000/- sq.ft. in area as alsoanother area measuring about 4,000/- sq.ft. situated inthe administrative block, together with otherfacilities at a monthly rent of Rs. 35,000/- exclusiveof water and electricity charges. A detailed agreementwas executed between the parties, wherein the contentsof letter dated 12th June, 1985 issued by Zonal Managerof the respondent to its Regional Manager, were madepart of the agreement and were duly embodied in Clause(xi) of the ...
Panacea Biotec Ltd. Vs. Elprags Pharma
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-05-2001
Reported in: 95(2002)DLT179
Sharda Aggarwal, J. 1. The plaintiff company is carrying on the business of manufacturing and selling 'drugs and pharmaceuticals'. They had obtained a Drug license regarding the use of the trade mark NIMULID in January, 1995. This medicine is used for ailment of inflammatory control, analgesic and antipyretic etc. In a short span of three years this medicine became popular with the patients, doctors, hospitals and other medical institutions all over India. The medicine under the trade mark NIMULID in tablet form is packed and offered for sale in distinctive packing cartons/packing wrappers/packing strips having a unique colour combination. The plaintiffs claim to be the owner of exclusive proprietary rights with respect to the artistic work on the cartons/blister strips under the provisions of Indian Copyright Act, 1957 (in short the Act). The plaintiffs on account of the quality of the product acquired unique goodwill and reputation with respect to its NIMESULIDE tablets under the tra...
Director of Income Tax Vs. Sikar Charitable Trust
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-05-2001
Reported in: [2002]120TAXMAN886(Delhi)
Heard. Neither the Assessing Officer nor the Commissioner (Appeals) had recorded any finding as regards the unauthorised manner of utilisation of the funds realised. It has not been indicated as to how there was infraction of any statutory requirement. On the contrary, the Tribunal has recorded a clear finding that there was due compliance with the statutory requirements. In view of such findings of fact recorded by the Tribunal holding that the case of the assessed fell beyond the ken of section 13 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, no question of law, much less a substantial question of law, arises from the order of the Tribunal. We find no merit in this appeal, which is, accordingly, dismissed....
Union of India (Uoi) Vs. Rajiv Gupta and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-05-2001
Reported in: 2002VAD(Delhi)607; 96(2002)DLT225
Devinder Gupta, J.1. Four appeals have been preferred under Section 54 of Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) by Union of India seeking reduction in the amount of compensation as awarded by the impugned award passed on 28.7.1986 by the Additional District Judge, Delhi by which the said Reference Court answered the reference of the claimant-respondents under-Section 18 of the Act and determined the amount of compensation payable to them. Claimants/respondents in the cross-objections are seeking further enhancement in the amount of compensation.2. Considerable land situate in village Masoodpur was notified under Section 4 of the Act on 24.10.1961 for being acquired at public expense for public purpose, namely, Planned Development of Delhi. Before declaration under Section 6 of the Act could be issued additional land situate within the same revenue estate was notified under Section 4 of the Act on 23.1.1965 for being acquired for the same public purpose. On 5.5...
CorIn Medical Ltd. Vs. United Medical Technologies and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-05-2001
Reported in: 2002IIIAD(Delhi)352; 97(2002)DLT366
A.K. Sikri, J. 1. The plaintiff which is an English company incorporated in England has filed the suit for recovery of pounds 76,800/- against the defendants. The claim is based on the supply of goods by the plaintiff to the defendants. It is stated in the plaint that the defendants placed various orders with the plaintiff for implants on April 1, 1996, April 24, 1996, May 23, 1996, May 28, 1996, June 19, 1996 and on June 21, 1996 and the plaintiff supplied the goods in respect thereofto the defendants vide the following invoices:-------------------------------------------------------Invoice No. Date Amount-------------------------------------------------------54969 June 1996 8,503.0055392 June 1996 620.0055393 June 1996 6,549.0056393 6th July 1996 610.0056394 -do- 28,477.0056818 -do- 90.0056819 -do- 14,630.00289/96 3rd August, 1996 600.00304/96 -do- 80.0056904 6th July, 1996 607.0051530 1st April, 1996 1,069.0051849 3rd July, 1996 1,167.8058160 -do- 1,807.0058346 -do- 4,091.00 -------...
Cit Vs. Hari Brothers (P) Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-05-2001
Reported in: [2002]120TAXMAN658(Delhi)
ORDERHeard.2. Following question has been referred for opinion of this court under section 18 of the Companies (Profits) Surtax Act, 1964 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), read with section 256(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 by the Tribunal, Delhi Bench A :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the gross amount of dividends amounting to Rs. 15,272 should be deducted from the total income of the assessed, in arriving at the chargeable profits under rule 1(viii) of the First Schedule of the Companies (Profits) Surtax Act, 1964?'3. We need not go into the factual aspects in detail, in view of the decision of the Apex Court in CIT v. Sundaram Industries (P.) Ltd. (2001) 248 ITR 179 . In view of the said position, the answer to the question referred is in the negative, in favor of the revenue and against the assessed.4. Surtax reference is accordingly disposed of....
Cit Vs. Bir Bros
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-05-2001
Reported in: [2001]120TAXMAN885(Delhi)
Heard.2. Following question has been referred for opinion of this court under section 18 of the Companies (Profits) Surtax Act, 1964 (hereinafter referred to as the Act'), read with section 256(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 by the Tribunal, Delhi Bench A :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the gross amount of dividends amounting to Rs. 15,272 should be deducted from the total income of the assessed, in arriving at the chargeable profits under rule 1 (viii) of the First Schedule of the Companies (Profits) Surtax Act, 1964 ?'3. We need not go into the factual aspects in detail, in view of the decision of the Apex court in CIT v. Sundaram Industries (P) Ltd. (2001) 248 ITR 179 . In view of the said decision, the answer to the question referred is in the negative, in favor of the revenue and against the assessed.4. Surtax reference is, accordingly, disposed of....
Ruchi Associates (P) Ltd. and anr. Vs. Asstt. Cit
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-05-2001
Reported in: (2002)172CTR(Del)90
R.S. Sodhi, J.Crl. M(M) 3200 of 2001 has been filed with a prayer for setting aside the order of the learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, dated 30-5-2001, in criminal complaint titled as S.P. Singh, Assistant Commissioner, Company Circle (1)1, New Delhi v. Ruchi Associates (P) Ltd. & Ors. The case of the petitioner is that an appeal was filed by the assessed, emanating from the order passed by the Commissioner, Delhi, on 5-12-1990, which related to the assessment year 1984-85. The assessing officer levied a penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, on account of certain discrepancies found in the closing stock, etc. The order of the assessing officer was confirmed by the first appellate authority which was taken up in appeal before the Tribunal. The Tribunal vide order dated 8-2-2001, set aside the penalty order under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act. The penalty, having been set aside, no prosecution could be launched. Counsel relied upon judgment of t...
- ‹ Prev
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 12
- 13
- 14
- Next ›
- Last »