Delhi Court October 2001 Judgments

Riggio Tobbacco Corporation Limited Vs. Ntc Tobacco India Limited and ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2002(24)PTC402(Del)

O.P. Dwivedi, J.1. Plaintiffs M/s Riggio Tabacco Corporation Limited have filed this suit for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from using plaintiffs trade mark 'LEX-INGTON' on cigarettes and from passing off their goods as those of the plaintiff. Briefly stated the plaintiffs case is that the plaintiffs are wholly owned subsidiaries of Rothmans International N.V., a company incorporated in the Netherlands and belonging to the Rothmans Group of companies. Plaintiffs have been manufacturing and marketing cigarettes belonging to Rothmans Group of Companies under the trade mark LEXINGTON and have acquired international reputation, recognition and goodwill. Defendant No. 1 carries on the business, inter alia, of manufacturing and marketing cigarettes and the defendant No. 2 carries on the business of printing including the printing of cigarettes packaging material. The plaintiffs trade mark LEXINGTON stand duly registered in respect of cigarettes and artistic work also stand ...

Smt. Surita Khanna and ors. Vs. State Bank of India and anr.

Court: DRAT Delhi

1. This is an appeal against order dated 18.8.2000 passed by learned Presiding Officer of the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Jaipur on an application under Order 9 Rule 13, CPC for setting aside ex parts final order in the O.A. No. 466/98. By the impugned order the learned Presiding Officer had dismissed the aforesaid application.2. The appellants, Smt. Surita Khanna and Mr. Dharam Dass Khanna, were defendants 4 and 5 respectively in the aforesaid O.A. These appellants are stated to be the guarantors for the loan taken by the defendants 1, 2 and 3 being the principal debtors. The O.A. proceeded ex parte against all the defendants and was decreed.3. The appellants here only moved the aforesaid application under Order 9 Rule 13, CPC. Rest of the defendants, namely, defendants 1 to 3 are stated not to have filed any such application.4. The main contention of the appellants is that they were not served in the O.A. and they came to know about the decree in the O.A. only on 6.1.2000 when they rec...

Daisy Trading Corporation Vs. Union of India

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 95(2002)DLT12; 2001(60)DRJ846

J.D. Kapoor, J.1. This is an ex parte award. It appears that the principles of natural justice have been given a go by. The arbitration proceedings commenced in the year 1990. Till 1995 the respondent-UOI did not file any counter claim. The Arbitrator was adjudicating only the claim of the petitioner/objector. On 21st April, 1995 the petitioner submitted before the Arbitrator that he has not received the copy of the claim statement filed on behalf of the respondent-UOI. However, the proceedings were adjourned to 26th June, 1995 for argument. On 26th June, 1995 the counsel for the petitioner was not present. Though it is stated by the counsel that he went to attend the proceedings but the learned Arbitrator was on leave and the proceedings were adjourned without intimation to him about the next date.2. Though the Arbitrator sent the registered notice to the petitioner for appearing on 20th July, 1995 but the same was not returned by the Postal Authorities. The learned Arbitrator proceed...

Good Value Engineers Vs. M.M.S. Nanda

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2002(61)DRJ573

V.S. Aggarwal, J.1. The short question that seeks an answer is as to whether in the facts of the case in hand the provisions of the Arbitration Act, 1940 or the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 would apply.2. This question arises on basis of the facts that on 22.11.1995, M/s. Good Value Engineers (for short 'the applicant') submitted, by notice to the Engineer-in-Chief, Kashmir House, Rajaji Marg, New Delhi, seeking that in face of the disputes, arbitrator should be appointed. The arbitrator was appointed and Notice had been issued by the arbitrator in December 1996. The award has been pronounced on 4.11.1997. Needless to point that the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 came into force on 16.8.1996. Earlier to that, the President had promulgated the Arbitration and Conciliation Ordinance on 16.1.1996. With effect from 16.1.1996, the Arbitration Act, 1940 had been repealed.3. It is on the strength of these facts that it had been urged in terms that since notice to appoint the...

Union of India Vs. Rajinder Singh

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 95(2002)DLT857

Sharda Aggarwal, J.1. The petitioner has directed this petition against the order dated 5th December, 1998 of Central Administrative Tribunal (in short the Tribunal), Principal Bench, New Delhi, by which OA.No. 1831/97 was allowed directing reinstatement in service of the respondent with all consequential benefits. The respondent No. 1 was a casual labour on daily wages working under IOW/BLM. He claimed to have worked as such from 15th April, 1978 up to 15th February, 1981 rendering in all 383 days service. In 1987, a Notification was issued inviting applications for the post of substitute loco cleaner, the pre-condition of which was that the applicant should have been working prior to 4th October, 1978 as casual labour. Respondent No. 1 applied for the same and after the interview and getting the previous working of the applicant verified, he was appointed as substitute loco cleaner w.e.f. 29th November, 1988. While he was working as substitute loco cleaner, he was served with a major...

R.S. Bhatia Vs. Union of India (Uoi)

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 100(2002)DLT746

Devinder Gupta, J. 1. An area of 713 bighas 2 bids was situate in village Malikpur Kohi @ Rangpuri was acquired by the Government at public expense for public purpose namely, 'Rehabilitation of the Persons Displaced or Airport'.Notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short the Act) was issued on 23.12.1986. It was followed by declaration of the next date i.e., 24.12.1986 by invoking emergency provisions contained in Section 17(4) of the Act. Collector, Land Acquisition made his award No. 28/87-88 on 23.12.1987. He proceeded to classify the entire land in two blocks and offered compensation @ Rs. 26,000/- and Rs. 22,000/- per bigha for block 'A' and block 'B' respectively. Entire land was included in Block 'A'. Only 9 bigha land comprising Khasra No. 1946/2(l-00), 1947/ 1(0-16), 1947/2(4-00) and 1948/1(3-04) was included in block 'B', The difference in the market value of the two categories of land was because of existence of pits to the extent of 3ft to 4ft ...

Mr. Sarabjit Singh Sahi Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and anr.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2002(62)DRJ800

Vikramajit Sen, J.1. In these Petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution it has been prayed that a writ of Mandamus be issued directing the Respondents to release the Petitioner immediately, with full terminal benefits including pension, gratuity, provident fund etc. The Petitioner has been working at the post of CHEAA as a 'Sailor' in the Indian Navy in the cadre of 'Artificers' with effect from 13.1.1984. The Engagement was effective for a period of fifteen years. Initially, their training period of four years as an 'Artificer Apprentice' was not included within this period of fifteen years. However, in the Anuj Kumar Dey v. Union of India, : (1997)1SCC366 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court had held that the training period of four years which had necessarily to be undergone by the sailor should be included within this period of fifteen years. Before the passing of this judgment the position would have been that since the Petitioner had joined the Indian Navy on 13.1.1984, he would hav...

The Installment Supply Limited Vs. Malkiat Singh and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2002IVAD(Delhi)238

A.K. Sikri, J. 1. This petition is filed by the petitioner under Section 20 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 for appointment of an arbitrator and referring the disputes to him for adjudication. It is stated in this petition that on 15th June, 1990 the respondents 1 and 2 as hirers and respondent No. 3 as guarantor made a proposal to the petitioner company for hiring a Tata Diesel Truck Model LPT 1210 B/42 bearing chasis No. 364 052 5 10980 Engine No. 692 D02 9 59493 and now bearing registration No. UP-80A-9967. The petitioner company accepted the said proposal, and the petitioner and respondents entered into a Hire Purchase Agreement dated 15th June, 1990 whereby the respondents 1 and 2 agreed to take the said vehicle on hire from the petitioner company and the respondent No. 3 agreed to stand guarantee for the respondents 1 and 2 on the terms and conditions contained in the said agreement. The liability of the guarantor in terms of the said agreement is co-extensive with that of the respo...

Patricia Jean Mahajan and ors. Vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. and ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: II(2001)ACC699; I(2002)ACC1; 2002ACJ1

Madan B. Lokur, J. 1. There are three Letters Patent Appeals which we propose to decide by this common judgment.2. The first is LPA No.179/2001 by Patricia Jean Mahajan, her two daughters and a son and her father-in-law and mother-in-law (hereinafter called the Appellants). This LPA is directed against the judgment and order dated 13th March, 2001 passed by a learned Single of this Court in FAO No.273/1998. In brief, the grievance of the Appellants is that the compensation granted by the learned Single Judge deserves to be enhanced.3. The second is LPA No.225/2001 filed by United India Insurance Co. Ltd. (for short the Insurance company). The challenge in this appeal is to findings recorded in the judgment and order dated 13th March, 2001 passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court in FAO No.366/1998. The question raised, though not pressed by the learned Attorney General, concerns the finding of negligence of the driver of the truck involved in the accident which led to the death o...

Pt. Munshi Ram and Associates Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Delhi Development Authorit ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 94(2001)DLT816

J.D. Kapoor, J.1. This is a suit for making award dated 17.2.1993 rule of the court. The awarded amount is Rs. 20,000/- with interest.2. The respondent has filed objections to the award under Sections 30 & 33 of the Arbitration Act, 1940. The main objection is that the finding of the learned Arbitrator is erroneous. The stand taken by the respondent is that the offer was with regard to rebates to be offered monthly as well as in the final bill and the acceptance was also in terms of the offer and that there was no material change in the offer and the acceptance.3. Thus, according to the respondent the learned Arbitrator has committed error by holding that no agreement had come into force between the parties within the meaning of Section 7 of the Indian Contract Act. Which is as follows:-7. Arbitration agreement:- (1) in this Part, 'arbitration agreement' means an agreement by the parties to submit to arbitration all or certain dispute which have arisen or which may arisen between them ...