Delhi Court October 2001 Judgments
Home Cases Delhi 2001 Page 3 of about 132 results (0.021 seconds)Rajdhani Dal Mill Vs. Mmtc Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 2002(61)DRJ758
O.P. Dwivedi, J.1. This petition is filed under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act. Briefly stated the case of the petitioner is that the parties entered into a contract for the sale and purchase of 5700 MT of wheat @ of Rs. 6700/- per MT on the terms and conditions contained in the contract No. MMTC/Wheat/WFP/MP/98/2 dated 12.2.98. As per the terms of the contract, the wheat was to be delivered at DDU WEFP Project godowns at Hoshangabad, Mandla Bilaspour. According to the petitioner the date on which the goods were offered for inspection was to be considered as the date of the delivery but the defendants have taken the date of actual inspection to be date of delivery as a result of which the respondents have calculated the late delivery charges/penalty charges. According to the petitioner, it completed the contract in all respects, but the respondents have withheld the payment of Rs. 17,20,236.28 on the ground that the goods have been late delivered and, thereforee,...
Tag this Judgment!Three-n-products Pvt. Ltd., 3030, Street No. 4, Ranjit Nagar, New Delh ...
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 95(2002)DLT271
O.P. Dwivedi, J. 1.This order shall govern the disposal of IA.No. 6321/2000, which is under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC, filed by the plaintiff in suit No. 1376/2000 seeking ad interim injunction against the defendants restraining them from manufacturing and selling footwear under the trade mark v;wjor any other mark which may be deceptively similar thereto and from doing any other this as may lead to confusion and exception amounting to passing off the goods and business of defendants as and for those of the plaintiff. Plaintiff further seeks interim injunction restraining defendants from infringing the copyright in the artistic work titled v;wjhaving the particular lettering style, get-up, design, layout and plan. 2. The plaintiff M/s Three-N-Products has filed this suit under Section 105 and 106 of the Trade & Merchandise Marks Act, 1958 (for short the Act) and under Section 55 of the Copy Right Act 1957 pleading therein that the plaintiff which was earlier a partnership firm and lat...
Tag this Judgment!BipIn Babu Gupta Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 94(2001)DLT910; 2002(61)DRJ39
K.S. Gupta, J. 1. In this petition filed under Section 439 read with Sections 482 and 167(2) Cr.P.C., petitioner seeks setting aside of the order dated 10th September, 2001 passed by an Addl. Sessions Judge in Crl. R.No. 58/2001 whereby the order dated 5th July, 2001 passed by a Metropolitan Magistrate declining bail was affirmed.2. Facts giving rise to this petition lie in a narrow compass. FIR being No. 272/2001 under Sections 418/420/120-B IPC was registered against the petitioner and others at PS Darya Ganj. Petitioner who was already in judicial custody in another case, was summoned by issuing a production warrant by the Metropolitan Magistrate concerned for 4th May, 2001. On production, at the request of investigation officer, he was sent to police remand up to 10th May, 2001. Thereafter petitioner continued to be in judicial remand and an application under Section 167 read with Section 437 Cr. P.C. was filed by him on 3rd July, 2001 seeking bail on the ground that charge sheet h...
Tag this Judgment!Delhi Transport Corporation Vs. Om Kumar and ors.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 95(2002)DLT425
Vikramajit Sen, J. 1. For justifying its action in putting an end to the services of its sundry workmen, the Delhi Transport Corporation (hereinafter referred to as 'the DTC')has relied on Regulation 14(10)(c) of the Delhi Road Transport Authority (Conditions of Appointment & Service) Regulations, 1952 (hereinafter referred to 'as the said Regulations'), which empowers the Management to deem/assume that its workman has resigned from service in the event that he overstays his sanctioned leave. On an industrial dispute having been raised and referred for adjudication, the Labour Court has not found the action of the Management treating the Workman as having resigned from his service to be in consonance with law. The workman concerned has thereforee been ordered to be reinstated along with a portion of backwages. The Awards have been assailed by the DTC in a batch of writ petitions. The gravamen of the arguments advanced on behalf of the DTC is that the Regulations have statutory force an...
Tag this Judgment!Bright Food Industries Vs. New Delhi Municipal Corporation
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 94(2001)DLT385
Sharda Aggarwal, J.1. This judgment shall dispose of objections filed by the respondents to the award dated 8th March, 1996 given by Shri Muni Lal Jain, Sole Arbitrator appointed by the Court on an application moved by the petitioner under Section 20 of Indian Arbitration Act, 1940 (in short the Act).2. Briefly the facts are that the petitioner was in the business of manufacturing and sale of eatables and had been supplying the same since 1990 on tender basis to the respondents for their 'Mid-day Meal Scheme for School Children'. The petitioner submitted a tender dated 5th June, 1992 in response to respondent's notice inviting tenders (in short NIT) issued on 26th May, 1992 for supply of Soya nuts (Sweetish) without skin (in short Soya nuts) of the estimated value of Rs. 15 lakhs. The tender was accepted by the respondent. In pursuance thereof, an agreement dated 2nd September, 1992 was executed between the parties. The petitioner made delivery of its first supply of 32000 packets, of ...
Tag this Judgment!S.S. Puri Vs. S.P. Malhotra
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 95(2002)DLT399; 2002(61)DRJ728
Vikramajit Sen, J. 1. This Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution has been filed assailing the Order of the Additional Rent Controller (hereinafter referred to as ARC) Delhi dated 3.11.2000, whereby leave to contest the eviction petition under Section 14(1)(e) read with Section 25-B of the Delhi Rent Control Act (hereinafter referred to as DRC Act) was granted to the Tenant. The ARC has applied the ratio of Precision Steel Engineering vs . Premdev Niranjandev, : [1983]1SCR498 , which judgment was delivered by a Bench of three Learned Judges, to the effect that leave to contest should be granted if the tenants' affidavit disclosed facts which, if proved, would disentitle the landlord from recovering possession of the demised premises. In the partly dissenting judgment of his Lordship A.P. Sen J. it was opined that the whole object of sub-section (5) of Section 25-B is to prevent the taking of frivolous pleas by tenants to protract the trial and that only if the ARC finds that th...
Tag this Judgment!Ashok Kumar Aggarwal Vs. State Bank of India and ors.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 95(2002)DLT824; 2002(61)DRJ427; [2002(93)FLR676]; (2002)IILLJ344Del
Dalveer Bhandari, J.1. The petitioner, an official of the State Bank of India, was chargesheeted on 17.10.1989 in which 14 charges were leveled against him. The petitioner was given opportunity to file his written statement in defense in terms of Rule 50(2)(iii) of the Service Rules. In the written statement he refuted all the charges leveled against him. The petitioner's version was not accepted and a departmental inquiry was instituted. The petitioner examined himself and filed a cash book to show that he has been working as an Accountant at IIP Branch during September, 1981 to April, 1985. The Inquiry Officer gave his findings on various charges and found the petitioner guilty. The inquiry report was sent to the disciplinary authority. The aforesaid report was sent by the disciplinary authority to the appointing authority with his brief note for taking appropriate action, with his recommendations thereon.2. The disciplinary authority disagreed with the findings of the inquiry author...
Tag this Judgment!Anil Kohli Vs. State (Nct of Delhi)
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 95(2002)DLT173; 2002(61)DRJ227
Usha Mehra, J. 1. Quashing of the charge sheet dated 20th January, 2000 in FIR No.103/99 under Section 406/420/120B Indian Penal Code (in short IPC) has been sought by Anil Kohili, the petitioner herein, inter alia, on the ground that the complainant lodged by the complainant does not show any cognizable offence. Reading of the complaint makes it a case of purely civil nature based on business transaction carried out for number of years. 2. On the other hand Mr. Inderjit Sharma, counsel for the complainant and Ms.Mukta Gupta, Standing counsel of the State contended that since the charge sheet has already been filed, thereforee, this Court in its discretionary power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, should not entertain this writ petition. All these objections raised in this petition can be looked into by the Trial Court where charge sheet is filed. Ms.Mukta Gupta, Standing Counsel for the State further contended that even if the complaint has a flavouring of civil nature,...
Tag this Judgment!Pankaj Kapoor Vs. State and ors.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: II(2003)BC703; 104(2003)DLT737b
ORDERR.S. Sodhi, J.Crl. M.(M) 3719/2001:1. This petition is directed against the order of the learned Metropolitan Magistrate dated 27.9.2001, whereby the learned Magistrate has rejected the application of the petitioner to take on record the affidavit of the complainant and the documents in support of the complaint filed under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. 2. Learned Counsel for the State submits that in spite of judgment of the Delhi High Court in BIPS Systems Limited v. State and Anr. : 93(2001)DLT10 , which clearly gives the Magistrate the power to accept affidavit of the complainant and witnesses, if any and to proceed further without recording statements under Section 200, Cr.P.C, the same is not being followed. 3. I am pained to notice such utter disregard by the Magistrate of the High Court directions. The idea behind the order is to speed up justice, which again was in keeping with the directions of the Supreme Court. The Magistrate in not following the judgme...
Tag this Judgment!Dewan Tyres Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex., Delhi
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 2002(142)ELT333(Del)
D.K. Jain, J.1. Since in response to the advance notice, Mr. U. Hazarika, Central Government Standing Counsel, has put in appearance and a very short point is involved, we take up this petition for final disposal at this stage itself.2. Challenge in this petition is to the order, dated 4th September, 2001, passed by the Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal (for short 'the Tribunal'), in Application No. E/S/196/2001-C (Appeal No. E/231/2001-C) under Section 35F of the Central Excise Act, 1944 (for short 'the Act')- The Tribunal while disposing of petition's application seeking exemption from pre-deposit of the entire amount of Excise duty, has directed the petitioner to make a deposit of Rs. 1 Crore within six weeks of receipt of the order.3. Briefly stated, the relevant facts are :The petitioner is engaged in the manufacture of Tyres of various sizes, for use in tractor trolleys (for short 'IT'), in the Light Commercial Vehicles (for short 'LCV') and Jeeps etc. Under N...
Tag this Judgment!