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.
Sh. RiyazuddIn Siddique and ors. Vs. Central Tibetan Schools Administr ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-07-2002
Reported in: 100(2002)DLT395; 2002(64)DRJ814; 2003(1)SLJ137(Delhi)
Vijender Jain, J.1. Rule.2. This writ petition raises question of grant of parity in the pay scales to the employees of respondent No. 1 i.e. Central Tibetan Schools Administration (for short 'CTSA') who are presently holding the post of Assistants, Audit Assistants and Senior Stenographers. It was contended before me that right from their appointments they got the same pay scales as their counterparts in the Government of India so much so that the recommendations of 2nd, 3rd, 4th Pay Commission respectively had been implemented in their case as in the case of their counterparts in the Government of India.3. Counsel for respondent No. 2 has contended that the petitioners are not performing the same duties as are done by similarly situated persons in the Secretariat. It has been further contended that the duties and responsibilities of the stenographers working in the Secretariat are also not comparable with their counterparts in subordinate offices/autonomous bodies. Counsel for respon...
Delhi Transport Corporation Vs. Daya Nand and ors.,
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-07-2002
Reported in: 99(2002)DLT188; 2002(64)DRJ202; (2002)IIILLJ728Del; 2003(2)SLJ78(Delhi)
S.B. Sinha, C.J.1. Validity of a Regulation 14(10)(c) of the Delhi Road Transport Authority (Conditions of Appointment and Service) Regulations 1952 (hereinafter referred to as, 'the said Regulations') is in question in these Letters Patent Appeals, which arise out of a judgment and order passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court in various writ petitions.2. Having regard to the fact that a pure question of law has arisen for consideration in these appeals, it may not be necessary to consider the fact of the matter at length.3. Suffice it to point out that the services of the writ petitioners - respondents herein had been terminated purported to be relying on or on the basis of the aforementioned provision.4. The learned Single Judge principally having regard to the decision of the Apex Court in Delhi Transport Corporation v. DTC Mazdoor Congress and Ors. held that as prior to orders terminating services of the writ petitioners, no opportunity of hearing had been afforded, the sam...
Metropolis Travels and Resorts (i) Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Shri Sumit Kalra and ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-07-2002
Reported in: 2002VIAD(Delhi)493; 98(2002)DLT573; 2002(64)DRJ72
Usha Mehra, J. 1. Suit for recovery was filed by the appellant/plaintiff on the ground that he was theauthorised agent of Indian Airlines for the sale of itstickets. Respondent/defendant had been purchasing thetickets from the appellant since 1996 for which bills/invoices were issued. As per practice representative ofthe respondent company used to sign those bills/invoicesin token of having received bills/invoices and thetickets. On the respondent sometime itsemployees would come to collect the tickets and sometimeproprietor himself. Amounts of the bills/invoices waseither paid at that time and at times bills amounts werepaid lateron. In the year 1997 respondent purchasedtickets but failed to pay the amounts. When oralrequests failed to yield the result the appellant issuedregistered notice on 19th January, 1998. It was dulyreceived by the respondent on 11th February, 1998.Despite notice when respondent failed to make thepayment, suit for recovery was filled.2. This suit was contested ...
Jagdish Prasad Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-07-2002
Reported in: 2002VIAD(Delhi)299; 98(2002)DLT837; 2002(63)DRJ512; (2002)IIILLJ661Del
S.B. Sinha, C.J.1. Doubting the correctness an observation made by a Division Bench of this court in Shish Pal Singh and Ors. v. UOI in CWP 5071/99 disposed of on 23rd August 1999 to the effect that in the matter of maintenance of a live casual labour register, cause of action is a continuous one a Division Bench of this court referred the matter to Full Bench by an order dated 7th February 2002 and that is how the matter has been placed before us.FACTSThe petitioner allegedly was appointed as a Hot Weather Waterman during summer season under Station Superintendent, Bangarmau in the District of Morabad of Northern Railway Administration on 29th May 1983. He was disengaged at the end of the summer season. He was again appointed in the summer seasons of 1984, 1985 and 1986 at different stations within the same Division. He last performed his duty from 16th April 1986 to 14th July 1986.By reason of a Circular dated 28th August 1987, a provision has been made for maintenance of Live Casual...
Rajiv Saluja Vs. Bhartia Industries Limited and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-07-2002
Reported in: AIR2003Delhi142; 98(2002)DLT720
J.D. Kapoor, J. 1. This is an application under Order 12 Rule 6 CPC seeking interim decree for possession on the basis of admitted facts.2. There is no dispute as to the relationship of the landlord and tenant between the parties. The only dispute is with regard to the nature of tenancy and the service of notice determining the tenancy.3. The application is being resisted mainly on the ground that as per own understanding of the plaintiff the tenancy created by way of registered lease deed ended on 31.8.99 but was orally extended up to 29.2.2000 for a period of six months and, thereforee, the possession of the defendant was by way of a month to month tenancy which was terminable in terms of Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 and since in the instant case the service of notice of termination of tenancy has not been proved no decree under Order 12 Rule 6 CPC can be passed as such a decree can be passed only on the premise of admitted facts.4. According to the plaintiff the...
U.P. Sugar Corporation Ltd. Vs. Cce
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: May-06-2002
Reported in: (2002)(82)ECC748
1. This is an appeal filed against the order dated 17.8.2001 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Allahabad. The appellant is engaged in the manufacture of sugar and molasses failing under Chapter sub-heading 1701.31/39 and 1703.10 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. They store molasses in steel tanks While conducting scrutiny of RT 12 returns of molasses for the month of October, 1998, it was noticed that 746.65 quintals of molasses was shown to be lost due to storage in column 6 of RT 12 meant for duty free clearances without giving any reasons for the loss. The appellants vide their letter dated 5.11.1998 addressed to the Superintendent, Central Excise Range, Sardar Nagar, Gorakhpur, informed about shortage of 746.65 quintals of molasses in the tank which was detected by them on physical verification on 23.10.1998. They stated that excess quantity which was being shown, was due to formation of foam/air bubbles in the molasses.This letter was received by the Superintend...
Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Rollatainers Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: May-06-2002
Reported in: (2002)(144)ELT649TriDel
1. When the case was called none appeared on behalf of the respondents in spite of notice.3. The brief facts of the case are that the respondents filed rebate claim in respect of the goods exported by them. The goods were shipped for export on 3-10-97 and rebate claim was filed on 3-4-98. The Commissioner (Appeals) in the impugned order held that rebate claim is within the period limitation, that is, of six months.4. The contention of the Revenue is that when the goods were shipped for export on 3-10-97, six months will expire on 2-4-98, therefore, the rebate "claim filed on 3-4-98 is one day late after expirty of six months.5. The issue in respect of calculation of the time period is already settled by the Tribunal in the case of Collector of Central Excise v.S.A.I.L., Rourkela Steel Plant, reported in [1992 (61) E.L.T. 732 (Tribunal)]. The Tribunal held that in view of the clear decision regarding the effect of word "From" which has also been used in Section 11B of Central Excises &...
Cc, Air Cargo Unit Vs. Secure Meters Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: May-06-2002
Reported in: (2002)(82)ECC598
3. With the consent of both the sides, we proceed to decide the appeal on merits.4. This appeal has been preferred by the Revenue against the impugned order-in-appeal dated 4.12.2001 passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), vide which he has reversed the Order-in-Original of A.C.dated 11.11.98 and allowed benefit of Notification No. 011/97-Cus dated 1.3.97, to the respondents.5. The facts are not much in dispute. The respondents imported a consignment of PACS software and electricity metering components. They claimed the benefit of Notification No. 011/97-Cus dated 1.3.97 under which the computer software were completely exempt from the customs duty. The AC. denied the benefit of this notification, while the Commissioner (Appeals) has allowed the same.6. The issue regarding the applicability of the above said notification to the computer software imported by the respondents already stands settled in their favour by the Tribunal judgment in the case of BPL Mobile Communications...
Jolen Inc. Vs. Doctor and Company
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-06-2002
Reported in: 2002IVAD(Delhi)645; 98(2002)DLT76; 2002(25)PTC29(Del); [2004]52SCL46(Delhi)
J.D. Kapoor, J.1. There are three sources for the creation of trade mark rights in any country, namely, registration, prior and continuous user and widespread reputation and goodwill of the mark irrespective of the fact whether or not goods are sold in that particular country as an aggrieved party has a right to protect its reputation and goodwill wherever it is sought to be encased or traded upon unauthorizedly. Merely because a party has no legal source for sale of its products or even has no business in the fore shares of a particular country does not mean that it has no right to protect the integrity of its reputation or goodwill of its name or trade mark. Such a right is not only inviolable but un-infringeable also.2. The plaintiff is a company existing under the laws of the United States of America having its principal place of business at 25, Walls Drive, Fairfield, Connecticut, U.S.A. and carries on an established business as manufacturer of a wide range of cosmetics, toiletrie...
Central Bank of India Vs. Delhi Motors Traders Association
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-06-2002
Reported in: 2002VIAD(Delhi)629; 98(2002)DLT606
Vikramajit Sen, J.1. These two Appeals are against the Judgment dated 21.9.1972 of the learned Single Judge, and shall be disposed of by this common judgment.2.The facts in both cases are similarin essential features. The Respondent had filed Suit No.285/1969for the recovery of Rs.34,864.38/- (Rs.thirty four thousand eight hundred sixty four and thirty eight paise only) together with interest; it is the subject matter of RFA (OS) No.18/1972. In the plaint it was averred that on 15th October, 1965 the Respondent Delhi Motor Traders Association (hereinafter referred to as the `Motor Association') had appliedto the Appellant/Defendant for the opening of a Letterof Credit (in short LC) in favor of the West German supplier of the imported consignment of ball-bearings. The L.C. was opened on 19th October, 1965. On 4th March, 1966and 5th March, 1966, the German supplier drew two Drafts (Ex. P1 and P2) on the Bank, and these were honoured by their London office in due coursein March/April,1966...
- ‹ Prev
- 16
- 17
- 18
- 19
- 20
- 22
- 23
- 24
- 25
- 26
- Next ›
- Last »