Delhi Court September 2002 Judgments

Purify Filters Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2003)(85)ECC539

1. The appellants M/s. Purify Filters manufacture Oil Filters falling under Chapter Heading 8421.00. They were issued a show cause notice dated 2-2-99 by the Addl. Commissioner of Central Excise, Faridabad, in which it is alleged that on 28-8-98, the Central Excise Officers intercepted a Tempo bearing Regn. No. HR-30-6073 at Faridabad. Sh.Manoj Kumar, Driver of the tempo on enquiry stated that he had loaded the goods from the premises of M/s. Gauri Pack, NIT, Faridabad for delivery to M/s. Escorts Ltd., Faridabad. He produced a covering document which on scrutiny revealed that it covered 3000 pieces of oil filters and 200 pieces of liners in the brand name of 'Escorts' which were packed by M/s. Gauri Pack and the goods were received from the appellants M/s. Purify Filters, Faridabad, M/s. Lumax Filters Pvt.Ltd., Gurgaon and M/s. Western Auto Spares, Ahmedabad. The Central Excise Officers visited the premises of the appellants M/s. Purify Filters, Faridabad. Sh. D.K. Mattoo, partner of...

Smt. Rupa Rani Vs. Dcit, Spl. Range 29

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi

1. This order is being passed for disposing of the petition of the assessee dated 30.5.2002 seeking permission to raise the following additional ground of appeal in ITA No. 5211/Del/96:- "On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the authorities below erred in treating a sum of Rs. 1, 48, 471/- as falling under the purview of section 158-BC(c) of the Income Tax act. 1961 read with clause (c) of subsection (1) of section 158-BB ibid. 11 is prayed that the said sum cannot be called undisclosed or such which has not been disclosed or would not have been disclosed and was, therefore, no includable as part of the undisclosed income for the block period. It is prayed that the same may kindly be vacated." 2. The said appeal has been earlier filed by the assessee on 24.9.96 against order of block assessment dated 29.8.96 passed by the assessing officer. Referring to the decision of the Hon'ble High Court in the case of Maruti Udyog Limited Vs. ITAT 244 ITR 303. Id. counsel ...

Indian Oil Corporation Limited Vs. Kiran Construction Co. and anr.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 102(2003)DLT908

Usha Mehra, J. 1. By this order, we propose to dispose of Civil Writ Petition Nos. 1710/2002 and 1719/2002. These Writ Petitions raise common questions of fact and law. The facts lie in a narrow compass.2. The short point involved in these petitions is; whether the Chief Justice or his nominee can remove the named arbitrator and appoint an independent arbitrator, secondly whether when one party has appointed an arbitrator-though beyond the period stipulated in the Act, the Chief Justice or his nominee could, when approached by the other party, appoint another (sole) arbitrator?3. In order to answer the same we may have quick glance to the of this case. Respondent No. 1 M/s Kiran Construction Company was awarded construction of civil and structural works by the petitioner for its plant building and pump foundation for Indian Oil Corporation, Bhatinda Oil Terminal. The said agreement contained an arbitration clause with clear stipulation that in case of dispute the named arbitrator or hi...

Atlas Cycles (Haryana) Ltd. Vs. Atlas Products Pvt. Ltd. and anr.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 101(2002)DLT324; [2003]47SCL304(Delhi)

D.K. Jain, J. 1. The plaintiff, M/s. Atlas Cycle (Haryana) Limited, a public limited company, has filed this suit praying for a decree of permanent injunction restraining the defendants from using their trade mark 'ATLAS' or any other mark or name deceptively or confusingly similar to the said mark either as its trade mark or as part of its corporate name in respect of bicycles and bicycle parts or in any other manner infringing the registered trade mark of the plaintiff and for rendition of accounts etc. There are two defendants; the first defendant being a private limited company, namely, M/s. Atlas Products Private Limited and the second defendant, earlier an Additional Joint President (Works) of the plaintiff company and now stated to be one of the promoters of the defendant company along with his wife. Along with the suit, this application under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure has been filed, seeking ad interim injunction, restraining the...

Vinod Kumar Chhabra and anr. Vs. Virender Kumar Arora and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2003(68)DRJ680

S.B. Sinha, C.J.1. The petitioners herein are third parties to the suit.2. The second petitioner and the second respondent herein entered into an agreement for sale on 3rd April 1995. A General Power of Attorney was executed by the second respondent in favor of the petitioner No.2. In the said General Power of Attorney, the said respondent described himself as co-owner and co-sharer of leasehold rights with structures thereon in respect of property No. 14/26 East Patel Nagar, New Delhi. A Special Power of Attorney was also executed on the said date by the respondent No.2 in favor of petitioner No.2. Allegedly, the consideration amount of Rs. 1,90,000/- as specified in the agreement for sale has been paid by the petitioner to the said respondent. It is stated therein:'The 1st Party hereby assures the 2nd party that the above mentioned property i.e. barasati floor with terrace roof rights out the property No. 14/26 East Patel Nagar, New Delhi, under sale is free from all sorts of encumbr...

Shri Thoru Ram Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and anr.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2003(66)DRJ172

S.B. Sinha, C.J.1. The petitioner in this writ petition has, inter alias questioned a proceedings held in General Security Force Court. He also has prayed for a direction upon the respondents to pay unto him the full pay and allowances for the period he was deployed on duty during the period of his suspension.2. Before adverting to the contentions raised in the writ petition, the fact of the matter in brief may be noticed.3. The petitioner joined the Punjab Armed Police as Constable. He was enrolled in the Border Security Force in the year 1967 in the rank of Head Constable. At the relevant point of time, he was posted as Deputy Commandant. In May 1990, he was posted in 115 Bn. which was then deployed in South Bengal Frontier of the Border Security Force.4. The petitioner allegedly asked certain candidates to undergo swimming exercises at Digberia, Distt. Barasat, West Bengal on 30th September 1991.5. In course of the said exercise, three Constables died of drowning where after the pet...

Sanyukt Nirmata Vs. Delhi Development Authority

Court: Delhi

Reported in: AIR2003Delhi68; 101(2002)DLT137

S. Mukerkee, J.1. The short point which arises for consideration in this case is whether the Judgment Debtor/DDA has satisfied the decretal amount which fell due under the decree.2. The position, as has crystalised between the parties, and as relied upon by both the learned counsel, is contained in Annexure A to the reply filed by Delhi Development Authority to EA No. 338/2000.3. It is admitted by Delhi Development Authority that the award amount Along with interest up to the date of award, was Rs. 5,22,002/62/-, which figure is also accepted by learned counsel for the Decree Holder.4. Thereafter however while calculating the interest @ 12% for the period from 22.1.92 (the day after the date of Award), till 17.11.99 (which was the date of deposit of amount in this Court), the Delhi Development Authority went on to calculate the interest only on the awarded principal amount of Rs. 4,06,214.58/-, and not upon the total awarded amount inclusive of interest up to the date of Award (viz. no...

Cj International Vs. Ndmc

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 102(2003)DLT589

S. Mukerjee, J.1. This is an application praying for recalling of the order dated 7.3.2002 passed on application (I.A. No. 4881/00) which reads as under:--'This is an application under Order 11 Rule 12 and 14 CPC. The prayer is that the defendant No. 1 directed to discover all documents, records etc. in their possession relating to the subject matter of the instant suit. Let the necessary affidavit be filed by defendant No. 1 within four weeks.List this application on 11th July, 2002.'2. This order was passed on application of the plaintiff under Order 11 rules 12 & 14 of the CPC.3. The submission of the learned counsel for the defendant/ applicant is that on 7.3.2002 the application was not properly considered and the affidavit directed/called upon to be filed should be understood to be in the form of reply to the application and that is why the application was directed to be again listed on 11.7.2002.4. Learned counsel for the defendant/ applicant has relied upon the judgment of the ...

Shri. Santosh Mehra Vs. Shri. Malik Singh Sahni

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 100(2002)DLT713; 2003(66)DRJ232

S.B. Sinha, C.J. 1. This civil revision petition is directed against an order dated 7th October 1997 whereby and whereunder the eviction petition filed by the petitioner herein purported to be filed in terms of Section 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (hereinafter called and referred to for the sake of brevity as 'the said Act') was dismissed.2. The fact of the matter lies in a very narrow compass. The petitioner's father allegedly unauthorisedly inducted one Malik Singh Sahney as a sub-tenant in the year 1978. The tenancy was earlier created for residential purpose. The said tenant and his son were residing in the premises.3. Eviction petition was filed by the petitioner's father against his tenant, inter alia, on the ground that the respondent herein had been unlawfully carrying on commercial activities in the said premises. In the said application, (since marked as Ex. RX-7), it was clearly stated that the respondents had been carrying on business which would mean that t...

Eastern Book Company and ors. Vs. D.B. Modak and ors. and Mr. NavIn J. ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 101(2002)DLT205

S.B. Sinha, C.J.1. Eastern Book Company, a well known publishing concern had filed two suits bearing Nos. 624/2000 and 758/2000 before this Court for permanent injunction restraining infringement of copyright, moral rights, unfair competition, damages etc against the respondents.The appellant is a publisher of a well-known journal known as Supreme Court Cases. It allegedly reports all reportable and unreportable judgments of the Supreme Court. In 1996, the second appellant introduced a data based package on CD-ROMs for finding out the Supreme Court ruling known as SCC-Online Case Finder. The respondents launched a software package entitled 'The Laws' and 'Jurix'.The said suits were founded, inter alia, on infringement of copyright and unfair competition. Copyright was claimed in the copy-editing of the judgment. According to the appellant, the respondent had copied the said notes and copied the text of the judgment as published in the SCC and thereby infringed its copyright.2. Various ...