Delhi Court May 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.
Mirahul Enterprises and ors. Vs. Mrs. Vijaya Sirivastava and Mr. R.R. ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-10-2002
Reported in: AIR2003Delhi15; 100(2002)DLT290
Devinder Gupta, J.1. These four appeals have been preferred against the common judgment passed by learned Single Judge in two separate suits. Two appeals are by the plaintiffs Smt. Vijaya Srivastava and Rear Admiral R.R. Sood (Suit No. 451/86 and Suit No. 450/86) and the other two appeals are by the defendants.2. Facts giving rise to the filing of the suits may be given as are alleged in the suit filed by Mrs. Vijaya Sirivastava, in which the facts and circumstances, as alleged by her pertaining to her suit as also of the suit of Rear Admiral R.R. Sood are mentioned. Learned Single Judge described the plaintiffs as 'V' (Mrs. Vijaya Srivastava) and 'S' (Rear Admiral R.R. Sood). At this stage, it may be mentioned that Brig. K.K. Sirivastava (Retd.), the husband of Mrs. Vijaya Sirivastava has singed the plaint in both the suits, as holder of General Power of Attorney of his wife Smt. Vijaya Sirivastava and as Special Power of Attorney of Rear Admiral R.R. Sood. He alleged in the plaint th...
West Bengal Cement Ltd. and anr. and Byford (Workshop) Pvt. Ltd. Vs. S ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-10-2002
Reported in: 99(2002)DLT420
Dalveer Bhandari, J.1. A number of appeals have been filed against the judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 10.10.1988. By this judgment we propose to dispose of all the aforesaid appeals. These appeals involve an important and interesting question of law whether the amount initially advanced can alone be treated as principal sum2. For the sake of convenience facts of only RFA (OS) No. 22/89 are recapitulated as under:3. The respondent/plaintiff has filed a suit for recovery against the appellants/defendants. The respondent bank provided facility of overdraft limit of Rs. 10 lakhs to the appellant company against hypothecation of fiat cars, jeeps and commercial vehicles. The appellants in consideration of the said overdraft limit executed a demand promissory note dated 2.2.1972 for the said amount of Rs. 10 lakhs carrying interest @ 10% p.a. for the time being. The appellants also executed further documents as set out in the plaint and availed of the said overdraft limit of Rs. 1...
Mushtaq Ahmed and anr. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-10-2002
Reported in: 98(2002)DLT299
S.K. Mahajan, J. 1. Rule. In the present petition, the petitioners have sought a declaration that the properties bearing Nos. 1437 and 1463 are not 'enemy properties' and that the notice dated 19.9.1999, was illegal and ultra vires. Facts in short relevant for decision of this petition are: One Haji Mohd. Siddique owned different properties in Delhi. One of the properties owned by Haji Mohd. Siddique bears No. 1463, Mandi Pan, Sadar Bazaar, Delhi. Haji Mohd. Siddique died on 21.3.1963. He had two sons, namely, Zikrur Rehman and Mohd. Rafiq. Both these sons had migrated to Pakistan during the life-time of their father and obtained Pakistani citizenship. Haji Mohd. Siddique died on21.3.1963. On the death of Haji Mohd. Siddique one of his sons Mohd. Rafiq came to India and filed a petition for the grant of Letters of Administration of the properties left behind by his father Haji Mohd. Siddique. In this petition being probate case No. 6/1964, the senior Sub-Judge, conferred with the deleg...
Shyam Sunder Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-10-2002
Reported in: 2003(26)PTC340(Del)
S.K. Mahajan, J.Civil Writ Petition No. 762/20021. Petitioner had filed this petition on the allegations that despite the application of the petitioner for registration on trade mark having been allowed, the registration certificate has not been issued to the petitioner. The petitioner has, thereforee, sought a direction to be given to the respondents to issue the registration certificate to the petitioner in respect of the trade mark 'OSHAM' application for which was registered as No. 441900 in Class-7 on 19th August, 1985. The petitioner has also prayed for renewal of the registration of the said mark for two period of seven years each from 19th August, 1992 and from 19th August, 1999, under the Act. Counsel for the respondent today states that respondents have already issued the registration certificate in respect of the Trade Mark No. 441900 in Class-7. It is further submitted that as regards the further renewal of the Trade Mark, the same will be taken up in near future, as most o...
Jaininder JaIn and ors. Vs. Registrar of Trade Marks and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-10-2002
Reported in: 2004(29)PTC160(Del)
Devinder Gupta, J. 1. The appellants filed a petition in this Court under Section 56 of the Trade and Merchandise Marks Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') seeking removal/rectification/correction of the registration alleged to have been illegally made on 30.10.1996 by respondent No. 1 in favor of respondents 3, 4, 5 and 6 in respect of the trade mark Nos. 376224, 384556, 463530 and 486516. Main crux of the petition being that respondents 3 to 6 have obtained the Trade Marks by misrepresentation and concealment of material facts and respondents 1 and 2 failed in discharging their duties to maintain purity of the Register. Along with the said petition, an application for interim relief was filed praying for staying the operation of the order passed on 30.10.1996 by respondent No. 1. By the impugned order passed on 1.5.1997, the said interim application was dismissed by the learned Single Judge, who declined to grant stay of the impugned order. The present appeal has been preferre...
Purket and Otheres Vs. Asstt. Cit
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-10-2002
Reported in: (2004)90TTJ(Del)289
ORDERDiva Singh, J.M.These eleven appeals are filed by different assessed against the orders of Assistant Commissioner, Circle-I, Saharanpur. All these appeals were heard together and are being decided together as identical issues are raised therein.2. Various grounds have been raised by the assessed in ITA No. 1653/Del/1996 which read as under :'1. The authority below erred on facts and in law in assessing a sum of Rs. 4,16,110 as remuneration received by the assessed, foreign technician in Czechoslovakia from his foreign employers based in Czechoslovakia as a permanent employee of the said foreign employers for the services rendered by him as a (specialist) employee of the foreign employers in assisting them in performing their part of the obligation under the collaboration agreement, which payment by the foreign employers as such could not be brought to tax under the Indian tax law.2. That the foreign technicians were in India, merely to assist only their foreign employers in Czecho...
P.C. Point Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise,
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: May-09-2002
Reported in: (2002)(144)ELT181TriDel
1. The appeal is at the instance of the assessee. Challenge is against the demand of Rs. 9,035/- towards duty and Rs. 17,375/- as redemption fine along with imposition of penalty of Rs. 1,000/- on the ground that the assessee had been engaged in manufacture of computers contravening the provisions of Rules 9(1), 43, 44, 45, 51 A, 52, 52A, 53, 54, 55, 173B, 173C, 173F, 173Q and 226 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944.2. The only issue arising for consideration is whether the 7 com- puters found at the premises of the assessee were assembled by them or whether the assessee had only upgraded old computers. Admittedly, upgra- dation of old computer would not attract any excise duty. The assessee con tended that they purchased old computers and upgraded the same and they are doing the business of job work, training of hardware and software, mar keting of computers of various companies and not engaged in the manufac ture of computer. In support of its case that they had purchased old com pute...
Assistant Commissioner of Income Vs. Antarctica Investment (P) Ltd.
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Decided on: May-09-2002
Reported in: (2003)78TTJ(Delhi)257
1. The appeal has been directed by the Revenue against the order of the CIT(A) dt. 22nd Dec., 1995, pertaining to asst. yr. 1992-93. The Revenue has raised the following ground of appeal : "On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law learned CIT(A) was not justified in treating the share application money as explained even though the major share investing companies were non-existing".2. Briefly the facts of the case are that the assessee is an investment company engaged in purchase and sale of shares and advancing money to industrial and other corporate bodies. During the course of assessment proceedings, the AO noted that the following share application money has been received by the assessee :(i) M/s National Commercial (P) Ltd. Rs. 89,50,000(ii) Nobru Commercial (P) Ltd. Rs. 45,00,000 3. In order to verify the genuineness of shares application money, the assessee was asked to produce Shri Ajay Gupta, the Delhi based director of both the companies. The assessee was ...
Earnest Builders Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-09-2002
Reported in: 2002VIAD(Delhi)308; 2002(2)ARBLR548(Delhi); 98(2002)DLT71; 2002(64)DRJ521
D.K. Jain, J.1. This is an application under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short the Act) seeking appointment of an arbitrator for adjudication of some of the disputes, which have not been referred to the arbitrator nominate by the persona designate namely, the Chief Engineer (Air Force) (WAC), respondent No. 2 herein, on 23 October 1997.2. Brief facts are that the applicant was awarded some construction work in terms of the contract agreement dated 17 July 1993. The work was scheduled to be completed on 2 May 1994 but was in fact completed on 29 October 1994, after an extension was granted by the respondents on 29 July 1994. According to the applicant, the delay in the completion of the work awarded occurred on account of the delay in handing over of the site. The applicant submitted his final bill, which, inter alia, included damages on account of prolongation of the contract period. However, various amounts claimed by the applicant were objected to by...
Jagat Singh S/O Late Chaudhary Badri Singh Vs. the Estate Officer, Del ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-09-2002
Reported in: 2002VAD(Delhi)713; 98(2002)DLT151; 2002(63)DRJ756
Madan B. Lokur, J.1. The meaning of the words 'public premises' as defined in Section 2(e) of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1971 read with the Cantonments Act, 1924 is the subject of decision in this case.Facts 2. The Petitioner is said to be in unauthorized occupation of a parcel of land in the Delhi Cantonment bearing Quarter No. 1/125, Sadar Bazar. He had allegedly made some illegal construction thereon with the result that he was issued a show cause notice dated 5th March, 1997 under the provisions of Section 5-A(1) of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 calling upon him to remove the illegal structure. The show cause notice was issued by Respondent No. 1, the Estate Officer appointed under Section 3 of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1971 (for short the Act).3. The Petitioner submitted a reply dated 25th March, 1997 to the aforesaid show cause notice, but it was not found satisfactory. Acc...
- ‹ Prev
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 16
- 18
- 19
- 20
- 21
- 22
- Next ›
- Last »