Delhi Court September 2001 Judgments

Jolen International Limited Vs. Diwan Industrial Chemicals

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2002IAD(Delhi)594; 2002(25)PTC24(Del)

A.K. Sikri, J. 1. Jolen International Limited, who is theplaintiff in the instant case, claims itself to be theproprietor of trade mark COSMO which is registeredunder No. 317797 in class 3 of 17th August, 1976 in respect of toothpaste. The plaintiff is the assigneeof this trade mark which was originally registered inthe name of Ms/ Hindustan Rimmer and assigned to M/sGavs Laboratories Pvt. Ltd. who assigned the same infavor of the plaintiff. It is in fact claimed thatall these companies are owned by the same family.2. The present suit has been filed against thedefendant for permanent injunction and infringement oftrade mark and copy right, passing off, rendition ofaccount and delivery up etc. as the case of theplaintiff is that the defendant started using of thetrade mark COSCO in respect of toothpaste which amountsto infringement of the plaintiff's trade mark andcopyright etc. The averments relating to the aforesaidinfringement, as made out in the plaint, are as under:3. The plaintiff...

Cit Vs. Mohan MeakIn Breweries Ltd.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: [2002]120TAXMAN655(Delhi)

Arijit Pasayat, C.J.These thirteen reference applications relate to the same assessed and, thereforee, are disposed of by this common order. The assessment years involved are 1973-74 to 1979-80. At the instance of the revenue following questions for the different years (some of them are common somewhere) have been referred for opinion of this court under section 18 of the Companies (Profits) Surtax Act, 1964 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Surtax Act') read with section 256(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. By common order dated 9-1-1985 various appeals were disposed of by the Tribunal, Delhi Bench 'A'. Accepting the prayer for reference, the questions as set out hereunder, have been referred for opinion of this court :'1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and on a true and correct interpretation of rule 1(viii) of the First Schedule to the Companies (Profits) Surtax Act, 1964, the Appellate Tribunal was justified in law in holding that for the assessment years ...

Neelkanth Industries and anr. Vs. Oriental Bank of Commerce and ors.

Court: DRAT Delhi

1. This appeal is against an interim order dated 17.9.2001 passed by learned Presiding Officer of the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Jaipur in O.A. No. 572/99.2. The impugned order has been passed on the application of the appellant, a copy of which is at page 23 of the Paper Book of this appeal. Though the heading of that application is "Application for directing the applicant Bank to settle the matter as per the rehabilitation package", yet in the prayer clause the following has been stated : "It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Tribunal may graciously be pleased to allow this application and direct the applicant Bank to furnish the record and correctness of the annexures/reply/queries." 3. Along with the application in addition to an affidavit as many as 19 annexures were filed. These annexures, on perusal, appear to relate to certain rehabilitation package, which the appellant was seeking from the respondent Bank. From one of the annexures it appears that the Ge...

M/S Nepa Ltd. Vs. M/S Media Asia Pvt. Ltd.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: AIR2002Delhi128; 95(2002)DLT764; 2001(60)DRJ473

ORDERJ.D. Kapoor, J. 1. The short question calling for determination is whether filing of attorney by the counsel amounts to entering appearance as contemplated under sub-rule(1) of Rule 3 of Order 37 of Code of Civil Procedure.2. Admittedly, the power of attorney was filed on 30th August, 2000. As per report of the Registrar the summons of the suit were served upon the defendant on 23rd October, 2000 though in the past several process were issued but were received unserved.3. Sub-rule (1) of Rule 3 of Order 37 reads as under:3. (1) In a suit to which this Order applies, the plaintiff shall, together with the summons under rule 2, serve on the defendant a copy of the plaint and annexures thereto and the defendant may, at any time within ten days of such service, enter an appearance either i person or by pleader and, in either case, he shall file in court an address for service of notices on him.4. Another relevant provision is Sub-rule (3) of Rule 3 which reads as follows:-(3) On the d...

M/S J.T. (India) Exports and Another Vs. Union of India and Another

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 94(2001)DLT301; 2001(60)DRJ651; 2001(78)ECC677; 2002(144)ELT288(Del); [2003]262ITR269(Delhi)

Arijit Pasayat, C.J. 1. In view of a divergence of views between two Division Benches on the question, whether the third proviso to Section 4-M of the Imports and Exports (Control) act, 1947 (in short the 'Act') requires grant of an opportunity, that is, in the nature of a personal hearing before exercising discretion to waive part or full of the penalty, reference has been made to a larger Bench. While in Amritlal Ganpatrai v. Union of India (CWP 2890/87) decided on 25th September 1987, it was observed that in the absence of any statutory requirement to that effect opportunity was not to be granted. In the present writ petition, the prima facie view of the learned Judges hearing the matter was that principles of natural justice require grant of such an opportunity. We may note that in M/s. Jesus Sales Corporation v. Union of India and Others : 1995(75)ELT242(Del) , the same issue was considered and it was held by a Full Bench that an opportunity has to be given before deciding applica...

Jay Presstressed Products Ltd. and anr Vs. Union of India and ors

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 96(2002)DLT141; 2001(60)DRJ661; [2002(92)FLR864]

Arijit Pasayat, C.J. 1. Disagreeing with the views expressed by a Division Bench of this Court in M/s. Wire Netting Stores and Anr. vs. The Regional Provident Fund Commissioner and Ors. (1981) L.I.C. 1015, reference has been made to a larger Bench to consider whether Section 7-A of the Employees Provident Fund Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (in short the 'Act') is vocative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India, 1950 (in short 'Constitution'). In the said case, it was held that in the absence of provision for appeal from the order of Regional Provident Fund Commissioner (in short the 'Commissioner') Section 7-A of the Act was hit by Article 14 of the Constitution.2. Though the question has become of academic interest, in view of insertion of Section 7D to 7P of the Act inter alias dealing with Constitution and functioning of Tribunal to deal with appeal from an order under Section 7-A even otherwise the view expressed in that case is not correct. Mere absence of an appellate fo...

Prabhu Shankar Aggarwal and anr Vs. Anand Kumar Deepak Kumar and anr

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 94(2001)DLT754

Devinder Gupta, J.1. In these three separate appeals appellants have challenged the legality and validity of the order passed on 8.5.2000. By the said order while issuing notice, returnable on 12.7.2000, learned Single Judge restrained the appellants from carrying on any business of salted preparation like Bhujia, Paper and Sweets under the trade name of 'HALDIRAM BHUJIAWALA' in any territory of India except in the territory of West Bengal.2. Facts in brief leading to the passing of the impugned order and of filing of appeals are being narrated to the extent to which they are relevant for the purpose of deciding these appeals.3. On 10.12.1999 a suit was filed by M/s.Anand Kumar Deepak Kumar and another (respondents 1 and 2 in these appeals) against two defendants, who were described as under:-'1. Haldiram Bhujia Wala 2284, Arya Samaj Road, Karol Bagh, New Delhi.2. Ashok Kumar C/o Haldiram Bhujia Wala2284, Arya Samaj Road, Karol Bagh, New Delhi.'4. In the said suit filed in the Court of...

Saketh India Limited Vs. Union of India and ors

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 96(2002)DLT184; 2001(60)DRJ700; 2002(82)ECC61; 2002(139)ELT267(Del)

Mukul Mudgal, J. 1. This writ petition challenges the order dated 3rd August, 1999 of the Appellants Committee, Ministry of Commerce passed in an appeal against an order dated 6th April, 1998 passed by the Additional Director General of Foreign Trade. The order of the Additional Director General impugned in the appeal arose on account of a show cause notice issued to the petitioner which averred that the petitioner had failed to fulfill the export obligation within the stipulated time and for stipulated value addition. The case set out against the petitioner that the committed value of the exports was Rs. 3042 lakhs and out of the committed value of export, the petitioner has made exports of only Rs. 73.02 lakhs. On account of this view and on account of the findings of the Additional Director General of Foreign Trade, respondent No. 3, that the noticee firm had not appeared before him, the order imposing the fine of Rs. 50,00,000/- was passed against the petitioner. In coming to this ...

Prem Chand Sharma and Co. Vs. Delhi Development Authority

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2003(1)ARBLR417(Delhi); 2002(63)DRJ229

Vijender Jain, J. 1. Aggrieved by the award dated 25.3.1995 passed by Mr. K.K. Reddy, the retired Chief Engineer of CPWD, who was appointed as an arbitrator, the respondent/DDA has filed the objection under Sections 30 & 33 of the Arbitration Act. Ms. Salwan, learned counsel for the respondent has vehemently contended that the finding of the arbitrator with respect to claim nos. 1 and 2 are erroneous on the face of it and errors of judgment are apparent. It was contended that the arbitrator has disallowed the rebate availed by the respondent on monthly bills and the final bill without considering that the petitioner was to submit his bills under clause 7 & 8 of the agreement. Similarly the objector have challenged the finding of the arbitrator in respect of claim no. 3. According to Ms. Salwan the arbitrator has not given any reason or basis for making an award of Rs. 23,920/- under the said claim and, thereforee, committed misconduct. The objector has found fault with the award of cla...

K.E. Burgmann a/S. Vs. H.N. Shah and anr.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 96(2002)DLT156

J.D. Kapoor, J.1. This is an application filed on behalf of the applicants under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 read with Section 151 CPC for injuncting respondent in terms of prayer (a), (b) & (c).2. The admitted facts are:3. Logo KE was got registered by the plaintiff on 11th March, 1971 at Denmark. The plaintiff no. 1 company was founded in the year 1963. Since then it has extended its business to several countries including U.K., Scandinavian countries, North & South America and South Korea. A Joint Venture Agreement dated 15 January, 1987 and later dated 6th May, 1987 was entered into between the plaintiff no. 1 and the Directors of F. Harley & Company (P) Ltd. as Indian partners. By virtue of this Joint Venture Agreement, defendant No. 2 came into existence on 14th May, 1987 of which defendant no. 1 became the Managing Director.4. A Technical Collaboration Agreement was entered into between plaintiff no. 1, and defendant no. 2. It was a License Agreement. This agreement was for a period of ...