Delhi Court September 2001 Judgments

M/S Mrf Limited Vs. Mr. Mukesh Chawla

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 94(2001)DLT481; 2001(60)DRJ397

ORDERJ.D. Kapoor, J. 1. The plaintiff claims to be one of the largest and most reputed automotive tyre/tube companies in India with a network of five factories. In 1971, the plaintiff adopted and independently used trade mark 'MRF' in a unique connected style of writing with two sets of parallel lines on both sides of the lettering The 'MRF LETTER DEVICE was conceived and designed by artists/employees of the plaintiff. Since then, it has been using the said mark.2. The trade mark has been registered in respect of various classes of goods, details of which have been provided in para 7 of the plaint. The sale figures of the goods appearing under the trade mark 'MRF ZIGMA' have been provided in para 9 which run into crores. However, 'MRF ZIGMA' has not been registered till date though application for registration was moved on 2.8.1988.3. It was in May, 1993 the plaintiff learnt that defendant was manufacturing and selling electric horns under the plaintiff's trade mark 'MRF ZIGMA' and the...

Shri S.C. Chadha Vs. Union of India and Others

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2002(61)DRJ845

ORDERKhan, J. 1. Petitioner wants to wriggle out of the disciplinary action initiated against him on the plea that it was hit by inordinate delay. The question that arises is whether such delay would kill the action itself. 2. It all stated with an anonymous complaint dated 12.7.1993 addressed to the Minister concerned charging petitioner, a Supdt. Engineer (Civil) in Telecom Department of some irregularities allegedly committed by him in awarding a contract way back in 1991 for work of vertical extension of telephone exchange building at Solan to one M/s. Himachal Construction Company. This complaint was referred to his Chief Engineer twice but he found no substance in it. However, the same was pursued culminating in Memorandum dated 24.2.2000 ordering initiation of departmental proceedings against petitioner charging him of commission of irregularities in awarding the contract. He challenged this in OA No.882/2000 before the CAT contending that inordinate delay committed by responden...

Commissioner of Police and Others Vs. Naseeb Singh and Another

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2002(63)DRJ204

ORDERKhan, J.1. All these petitions involving common question of facts and law are being disposed of by this common judgment.2. Petitioners issued an advertisement inviting applications for the post of Constable (Driver). The candidates amongst other things were required to possess and hold a 'Current Driving license' for heavy vehicles. The respondents applied for the post along with their revalidated/renewed licenses and were selected for appointment after taking in trade and and physical test. Their selection was, however, made provisional subject to verification of their antecedents/character, fitness etc. and it appears that during this verification exercise it was noticed that they had secured the licenses when they were underage. Petitioners took up the matter with concerned transport authority who had different Explanationns to offer. They eventually put respondents on notice informing them that their licenses were illegal having been issued in contravention of Section 4(2) of ...

M/S Ruchi Pvt. Ltd. and Others Vs. M/S Indian Flame Enterprises and Ot ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 94(2001)DLT796

ORDERVijender Jain, J.1. Plaintiffs have filed this application under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 read with Section 151 CPC, inter alia, praying that plaintiff no.1 is the business of manufacturing and marketing of wide range of food preparations for human consumption including soya flour and other food articles made of soya since 1978 and has been selling and marking the said goods under the trade name RUCHI, which it has used along with trade mark NUTRELA in an artistic label. Plaintiff no.1 adopted the said trademark in the year 1978 and continuously, commercially and in the course of trade used the said trade mark since then till date as its proprietor and through its licensee being plaintiff no.2 under license agreement dated 8.8.1991.2. It was contended before me by Mr. Bansal, learned counsel for the plaintiff that the plaintiff/applicant has been using the said mark in a distinctive label having distinctive artistic features including artistic get up, make up, colour scheme and letteri...

Sports Plaza and Others Vs. M.C.D. and Anrs.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 94(2001)DLT311

ORDERManmohan Sarin, J.Rule.With the consent of the parties, the writ petition is taken up for disposal.1. The petitioners M/s. Sports Plaza is a firm with Mr. Yogesh Kalra and Mr. Dinesh Kalra as partners. The petitioner firm and its partners have file this writ petition seeking a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to issue a trading license to the petitioners as applied for vide application dated 29.11.1999. Petitioners also seek a writ for quashing the prosecution proceedings initiated by the respondents against the partners i.e. petitioners No.2 and 3 under Section 417, 430 and 461 of DMC Act.2. The petitioners are carrying on business of trading in shoes, apparels, bags, and accessories under the name and style of M/s. Sports Plaza at 39, Basant Lok, Vasant Vihar, New Delhi. Petitioners also have agreement with M/s. Reebok India Company and are selling their products as Consignee Agents.3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that as far back as 29.11.1999, the pet...

Commissioner of Police and ors. Vs. Mukesh Kumar and anr.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 1(2002)ACC82

B.A. Khan, J.1. All these petitions involving common question of facts and law are being disposed of by this common judgment.2. Petitioners issued an advertisement inviting applications for the post of Constable (Driver). The candidates amongst other things were required to possess and hold a 'Current Driving license' for heavy vehicles. The respondents applied for the post along with their revalidated/renewed licenses and were selected for appointment after taking in trade and physical test. Their selection was, however, made provisional subject to verification of their antecedents/character, fitness etc. and it appears that during this verification exercise it was noticed that they had secured the licenses when they were underage. Petitioners took up the matter with concerned Transport Authority who had different Explanationns to offer. They eventually put respondents on notice informing them that their licenses were illegal having been issued in contravention of Section 4(2) of M.V....

Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Prem Nath Motors (Pvt.) Ltd.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: (2001)170CTR(Del)424; [2002]253ITR705(Delhi)

Arijit Pasayat, C.J.1. All the five references involve a common question of law, which has been referred at the instance of the Revenue, pursuant to the directions given by this court under Section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short 'the Act'), by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench 'E' (for short 'the Tribunal'), for the opinion of this court. The question reads as under :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that no interest was chargeable under Section 201(1A) in respect of the assessment years 1967-68 to 1971-72 ?'The dispute relatesto the assessment years 1967-68 to 1971-72.2. During the assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer noted that the assessed had not properly deducted tax at source as required to be done under Section 192 of the Act and the same had not been deposited with the Government. He noticed that two of the employees of the company, namely, Surender Nath and Divendra Nath, had been ...

Suman Bala Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

1. The applicant was initially engaged as a casual typist on 10.5.1983 under respondent No. 4, through letter dated 27.4.1984 (Annexure A-4).She worked as such from 10.5.1983 to 3.3.1984. In the second spell she worked from 4.5.1984 to 11.7.1984. She was re-engaged on 2.2.1985 and was accorded temporary status on 1.8.1985. Her pay was fixed in the grade Rs. 225-308. It is claimed that the applicant has been working continuously as a casual typist since 2.2.1985 in the grade Rs. 225-308. As the applicant had not been placed in the scale of Rs. 950-1500 though she had been functioning as typist all along, she filed OA No. 676/1994 praying for directions to the respondents to fix the salary of the applicant in the grade Rs. 950-1500 with all consequential benefits of arrears and increments etc. The Tribunal allowed the aforesaid OA on 31.5.1999 with a direction to the respondents to pay her salary equivalent to the grade of typist with effect from 18 months prior to the filing of the OA,...

Pale Ram Om Prakash Vs. Oriental Bank of Commerce and ors.

Court: DRAT Delhi

1. This Misc. Appeal has been filed by defendant No. 6 in O.A. No.84/2000 pending before DRT, Chandigarh against order dated 4.7.2001 passed by DRT, Chandigarh. The impugned order has dealt with other matters as well but this appeal relates to only that part of the order which was passed on appellant's application for permission to cross-examine the witnesses of the applicant Bank, a copy of which is at page 95 of the Paper Book.2. The impugned order relating to the aforesaid application of the appellant may be reproduced as under : "After hearing Counsels for the parties at length and after going through the material on record, I am of the opinion, whether defendants may be permitted to cross examine the witnesses or not, it can only be decided at the time of final arguments. At this stage, there does not appear any ambiguity in the statement of witnesses vis-a-vis filed by applicant Bank which require clarification by putting the witnesses to cross-examination. However, after comple...

Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Dalmia Cement (B.) Ltd.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: (2002)174CTR(Del)188; [2002]254ITR377(Delhi)

Arijit Pasayat, C.J.1. Heard.2. At the instance of the Revenue, the following questions have been referred for the opinion of this court under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961(for short 'the Act'), by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench 'C' (for short 'the Tribunal') :'1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was correct in law in upholding the finding of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) that commission paid to Cement Distributors Ltd., at Rs. 1.75 per M. T. was incurred for commercial expediency ? 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was correct in law in deleting a sum of Rs. 4,73,000 out of the interest payment of Rs. 14,59,816 representing interest payment made to Cement Distributors Ltd. ?' 3. The dispute relates to the assessment year 1974-75.4. The factual position so far as the two questions referred are concerned, essentially is as fo...