Delhi Court January 2002 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.
Nisha Rani Aggarwal Vs. Delhi Development Authority and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-11-2002
Reported in: 2002IIAD(Delhi)858; 2002(2)ARBLR471(Delhi); 96(2002)DLT557; 2002(62)DRJ147
J.D. Kapoor, J.1. This is an application under Section 11 ofthe Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 for appointmentof an Arbitrator.2. The petitioner is the widow of late Sh. Satish Kumar Aggarwal. Late Sh. Satish Kumar Aggarwal had entered into the contract for the work 'C/o 72 nos.Cat.III DUS. 48 Nos.Cat.II DUS and 72 Nos. S/g bldg.work/i/x/int.W/S&S;/I etc. complete' with respondent No. 1. Certain disputes arose out of the said contract which were to be settled in accordance with Clause 25 of the agreement i.e. Arbitration clause. On the letter of the petitioner, One Sh.S.C. Kaushal was appointed as Arbitrator.3. Notice was sent to the applicant at the old address where she had been residing when her husband was alive but could not be served as she temporarily shifted to Chandigarh after the death of her husband. When she approached the Arbitrator for being made legal heir of her deceased husband, the Arbitrator informed her that he had already returned the file to the DDA. On th...
Lokesh Garments Pvt. Ltd. Vs. M.T.N.L.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-11-2002
Reported in: 2002IIIAD(Delhi)968; 96(2002)DLT350; 2002(62)DRJ379
Manmohan Sarin, J.1. Petitioner has filed this writ petition, seeking quashing of an alleged agreement dated 9.12.2001 between the respondent and its employees union to be declared ultra vires, void, illegal and without jurisdiction. Petitioner also seeks a direction to the respondent to honour its commitments arising our of the contract placed on it. 2. Before coming to the submissions made by senior counsel for the petitioner, it may be pertinent to not that respondent/MTNL had issued a notice, inviting tenders (NIT), which appears at page 16 of the paper book, on 7.6.2001. Tenders were invited from Indian Companies owning readymade garment factory, having an annual turn over of Rs. 10 crores or above forstitching of various items of uniform for the employees of MTNL. These included winter suiting, coats, pants, ladies blazers, trousers, shirts and ladies suit etc. The quantities varied from 62,000 to 1,65,408. 3. Petitioner claims to have bid for the contract successfully. Learned s...
Amit Goyal Vs. the Chairman, Steel Authority of India and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-11-2002
Reported in: 2002IIIAD(Delhi)655; 2002(6)SLR83
Dalveer Bhandari, J. 1. The petitioner in pursuance of the advertisement of the Steel Authority of India applied for appointment of G.S. Management Trainee (Technical). In the advertisement while the requisite, it was mentioned that even those candidates who were appearing in the final year examination were also eligible to apply. The petitioner applied for the said post of Management Trainee (Technical) in or around November, 2000 in which he mentioned that he is scheduled to appear for his final year examination of Bachelor of Engineering (for short B.E.) in 2000-2001. 2. Respondent No. 1 asked the petitioner to appear in the written test scheduled to be held on 31.12.2000 in Delhi. According to the original advertisement only those candidates who were in the final year of B.E. were eligible to apply and for being considered for appointment subject, however, to their having passed the final B.E. examination with 65% marks in aggregate at the time of appointment. 3. Thereafter respond...
S. Satinder Singh and ors. Vs. Raminder Sarup Singh and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-11-2002
Reported in: 2002IIIAD(Delhi)531
V.S. Aggarwal, J.1. Plaintiffs 1 and 2 and defendant No. 2 are real brothers. Plaintiff No. 3 is their sister and defendant No. 1 Sardarni Raminder Sarup Singh is their mother. The plaintiffs have filed the civil suit seeking a declaration that the oral family understanding as stated in the plaintiff i.e. during the lifetime of Sardar Bahadur Sarup Singh (father of the plaintiffs), the will dated 4.6.1981 of their father and the will executed by defendant No. 1 lying in the custody of ANZ Grindlays Bank, Shimla so far as it relates to property No. 3 Sardar Patel Marg, New Delhi, the oral settlement of 20th October, 1987 and the protocol dated 23rd October, 1987 besides the family arrangement of 15th September, 1988 besides the will of 17th September, 1988 of defendant No. 1 and of 10th June, 1992 are binding on all the plaintiffs and the defendants. It also seeks a declaration that the compromise by way of is No. 10195/93 is Suit No. 3403/91 does not bind the plaintiffs because they we...
Hindustan Pencils Ltd. Vs. Swami Dayal Sharma and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-11-2002
Reported in: 2002(24)PTC494(Del)
Mukundakam Sharma, J.1. This is a suit filed by the plaintiff seeking for a decree of permanent injunction restraining the defendants, their servants, agents, stockings and all other persons acting on their behalf from using the offending trade mark NATRAJand device of NATRAJ, trade mark APSARA BEAUTY of the plaintiff or from using any other trade mark, which is deceptively similar to the plaintiff's aforesaid registered trade marks and also from using the firm name of M/s. Hindustan PencilFactory and Natraj Pencil Industries. The plaintiff has also sought for a decree of rendition of accounts.2. Summons were issued to the defendants and an ad interim injunction was granted in favor of the plaintiff and against the defendants restraining them, their agents and servants from selling and marketing their goods under the name ofAPSARA BEAUTY and NATARAJ along with the device of NATARAJ and cartons like Annexure-Y or any carton or label which is deceptively similar to the registered carton ...
Panacea Biotec Limited Vs. Anchor Pharma Pvt. Limited
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-11-2002
Reported in: 2002IIIAD(Delhi)598; 97(2002)DLT407; 2002(24)PTC752(Del)
D.K. Jain, J. 1. The plaintiff company has filed the presentsuit for permanent injunction, passing off, infringement of copy right and damages, inter alia, praying for a decree restraining the defendant, their servants, agents, dealers, proprietors/ partners/directors, stockists, representatives and all other persons acting on their behalf from manufacturing and selling, offering for sale or otherwise dealing in, directly or indirectly, drugs, pharmaceuticals and medicines including Nimesulide tablets under infringing trade mark 'Ansulide' or any other trade mark which may be identical with or deceptively similar to the reputed trade mark 'Nimulid' of the plaintiff's; from passing off defendant's goods as goods of the plaintiff; from infringing the copy right of the plaintiff with regard to their distinctive packing box/packing wrapper and packing strips in respect of medicines including Nimesulide tablets and for order for destruction of all the blocks, dies, packing cartons/wrappers,...
Poonam Dubey Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-11-2002
Reported in: 76(2002)DLT101
Virender Jain, J.1. Rule It is contended by the Counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has got twominor children, one is infant of four months. It is further contended that there is an Office Memorandum dated 12.6.1997 issued by the Government of India, inistryof Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions (Department of Personnel and Training) (which is at page No. 41 of the paper book) inter alia, stating that spouseshould be posted at the same Station where the other spouse is working to enable them to lead a normal family life and look after the welfare of the children especially till the children are 10 years of age.2. Counsel for the petitioner has further contended that the petitioner has not availed the spouse posting in her 10 years service and is working at Hindon(Ghaziabad) w.e.f. 4.5.1998, and now she is transferred at Silchar (Assam), husbandof the petitioner is residing in Delhi.3. On the other hand Counsel for the respondents has contended that the Office Memorandu...
Mr. K.C. Sethi Vs. the Registrar General, Supreme Court of India
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-11-2002
Reported in: 2002IIAD(Delhi)414; 97(2002)DLT936; 2002(62)DRJ864
Usha Mehra, J.1. Mr. K.C. Sethi, appellant was appointed as Senior Stenographer in the Registry of the Supreme Court of India on 25th July, 1970. He rose to the position of Joint Registrar officiating i.e. group 'A' post. According to the respondent performance of this appellant was found wanting. He was an average officer, who in-spite of notice did not improve his performance. Hence on his completion of qualifying service, his case was put up to Judges Committee duly constituted by the Hon'ble Chief Justice who after considering his entire service record including ACR dossiers recommended discontinuance of his service. The said recommendation was accepted by Hon'ble Chief Justice of India. thereforee, w.e.f. 4th April, 2000 when he attached the age of 57 years he was made to retire compulsorily from service of the Supreme Court of India.2. Aggrieved by the order of compulsory retirement dated 4th April, 2000 this appellant challenged the order by way of civil writ petition, inter ali...
Anil Agarwal Vs. Commissioner of Customs,
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jan-10-2002
Reported in: (2002)(141)ELT185TriDel
1. This appeal has been filed by the appellants against the impugned Order-in-Original dated 26-12-1997 passed by the Commissioner of Customs vide which he had ordered the confiscation of 6 gold biscuits valued at Rs. 3,25,425.60, foreign currency equivalent to Indian Rs. 51,05,230/- under Section 111(d) of the Customs Act, Indian currency of Rs. 7,80,900/- under Section 121 of the Customs Act, two attachie cases valued at Rs. 400/- under Section 119 of the Act and also imposed personal penalty of Rs. 5,00,000/- on the appellant.2. The facts leading to the filing of the present appeal may briefly be stated as under: - On 29-3-1995, Officers of Customs Staff, Ludhiana with the aid of the Punjab Police carried out the search of residential premises of the appellant bearing property tax No. 200, Bharat Nagar, Ludhiana in the presence of two independent witnesses. The search resulted in recovery of six gold biscuits of foreign markings, foreign currency 69949 U.S. Dollars, 28700 U.S. Pond...
Jayanti Food Processing Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex., Jaipur
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jan-10-2002
Reported in: (2002)(80)ECC219
1. The appeal at the instance of the assessee is directed against the common order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) dated 25-5-2001 dismissing three appeal Nos. 200/III/2000, 377/VII/2000 and 378/VII/2000 filed by the appellant. Challenge in these appeals was against Orders-in-Original dated 28-2-2000,18-4-2000 and 27-4-2000 respectively.2. The appellant is engaged in the manufacture of ice-cream falling under sub-heading 2105 of the Central Excise tariff Act, 1985. The issue that arises for consideration in this appeal is whether in respect of 4 ltrs. pack of ice-cream manufactured by the appellant duty has to be assessed under Section 4 or Section 4A of the Central Excise Act, 1944. Show cause notices were issued to the appellant directing it to show cause why duty on 4 ltrs. pack (bulk pack) of ice-cream should not be charged on the value determined under Section 4A of the Act read with Notification No. 20/99-CE. (N.T.), dated 28-2-99. The appellant contended that Packaged Comm...
- ‹ Prev
- 17
- 18
- 19
- 20
- 21
- 23
- 24
- 25
- 26
- 27
- Next ›
- Last »