Delhi Court December 2003 Judgments

Glaxo Smithkline Consumer Healthcare Gmbh and Co. Kg Vs. Amigo Brushes ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 109(2004)DLT41; 2004(28)PTC1(Del)

Mahmood Ali Khan, J.1. Plaintiff has filed is 6474/03 under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 CPC for grant of interlocutory order restraining the defendant from manufacturing, selling or offering sale of toothbrushes, a sample of which is attached as annexure 'C' and which is an obvious and fraudulent imitation of, and amounts to infringement of the registered design No. 183197 or any other toothbrush which are a fraudulent or obvious imitation thereof and further restraining the defendant to deliver to the plaintiff all toothbrushes, a sample of which is attached as annexure 'C' to the application including unfinished products etc as well as the moulds used for the manufacture of such toothbrushes, which infringe the plaintiff's registered design bearing No. 183197 and the defendant be called upon to allow inspection of their accounts to assist in ascertaining the amount of damages suffered by the plaintiff by the manufacture and sale of the offending toothbrushes.2. Briefly, the facts are that th...

In Re: Pooja Gupta and anr.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 118(2005)DLT492; I(2005)DMC571

Mukul Mudgal, J.CM. 1518/2003 (condensation of delay):Allowed subject to all just exceptions. Delay in filing the present appeal stands condoned.FAO 756/2003:1. This is an appeal against the Order of the Additional District Judge, Delhi dated 9th September, 2003, passed in H.M.A. No. 550/2003 by which an application moved by both the parties, i.e., appellant No. 1, Pooja Gupta and the appellant No. 2, Nikhil Badhwar on 16th July, 2003 seeking permission to present the petition under Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (in short the 'HMA') for divorce by mutual consent prior to the expiry of one year from the date of marriage of the parties, i.e., 5th February, 2003 was rejected.2. The relevant portion of the proviso to Section 14 of the HMA reads as follows:'14(1). Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, it shall not be competent for any Court to entertain any petition for dissolution of a marriage by a decree of divorce [unless at the date of the presentation of the p...

Ram Kishan and Sons Vs. Freeway Marketing (India) Pvt. Ltd. and anr.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2004(2)ARBLR508(Delhi); (2004)2CompLJ37(Del)

Mahmood Ali Khan, J. 1. This application is filed under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act (for short the Act) for setting aside the award dated 31.10.2002 rendered by the sole arbitrator Mr. Justice (Retd) K. Ramamoorthy so far as it is based on the finding on issue No. 6, that the respondent No. 2 is not liable to pay the awarded amount personally. The facts of the case may be stated as follows. The respondent No. 1 is a company incorporated under the Indian Companies Act and respondent No. 2 is its President, Managing Director and CEO. Respondent No. 1 entered into an agreement dated 7.5.1999 for having premises situated at Block A, House No. 1, Dr. Jha Road, Okhla, New Delhi fitted. The said contract contained in arbitration clause for reference of the dispute which may arise between the parties. The petitioner executed the contract and certain disputes with regard to the payment of the running account bills and final bill submitted by the petitioner to the responde...

Raju Gupta Vs. State

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2004(72)DRJ201

S.K. Agarwal, J. 1. By this petition under Section 439, Cr.P.C. petitioner is seeking bail in case FIR No. 114/2001 under Section 498-A/304B, IPC, P.S. Ambedkar Nagar.2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner is the brother-in-law (devar) of the deceased and was, admittedly, living in Hardoi, Uttar Pradesh. The deceased died while she was living with her husband in Delhi. Learned APP for the State does not contest these facts.3. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the petition is allowed and petitioner is ordered to be released on bail on his furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs. 15,000/- with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial court,4. Petition stands disposed of. Order dusty....

Commissioner of C. Ex. Vs. Avanti Lpg India Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2004)(166)ELT186TriDel

3. The Revenue's appeal can be decided on a very short point. The allegation against the respondents is that, on the dale of visit to the factory raw material for manufacture of LPG was found excess.3. The ld. adjudicating authority ordered the confiscation under Rule 209 of the Central Excise Rules and imposed penalty. The appellate authority did not uphold the order stating that there was an explanation from the respondent that, the excess stock was noted because the said stock could not be moved to the shop floor and remained in the raw material store despite debit entry in RG 23A Part-I i.e. raw material register. This explanation was not accepted by the adjudicating authority. However, the Commissioner (Appeals) also ruled out the confiscation under Rule 209(1)(b).4. In the Revenue's instant appeal invocation of Rule 209(1)(b) is justified for the reason that the same is applicable if any manufacturer does not account for any excisable goods manufactured, produced or stored by hi...

B.R. Enterprises Vs. Commissioner of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2004)(164)ELT266TriDel

1. The issue for determination in the instant four appeals are common, hence these are being disposed of through a common order. The Customs authorities effected seizure of certain goods and, being unable to issue the show cause notice within a period of six months as stipulated in Section 110(2) of the Customs Act, 1962, the Commissioner of Customs proposed to extend the said period of six months by issuing show cause notice in terms of proviso to the said Section 110(2). The proviso stipulates that, the period of six months can be extended by the Commissioner of Customs for a period not exceeding six months, on sufficient cause being shown. It is an undisputed fact that, in all the four cases, the Commissioner did issue a show cause notice proposing the extension of this period of six months. However, the order that was passed pursuant to this show cause notice proposing extension, was issued after the expiry of six months from the date of seizure.2. The ld. Counsel for the appellan...

Rational Business Corporation Vs. Commissioner of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2004)(168)ELT463TriDel

1. The issue raised in the instant appeal relates to infringement of the provisions of Section 77 of the Trade and Merchandise Marks Act, 1958. The appellants imported a consignment of recycled inkjet cartridge declaring them as Expert Recycled InkJet Cartridges for HP printers of various models. On examination of goods, it was revealed that, these were recycled inkjet cartridges containing old PCB and other parts. The cartridges were also found to bear HP marking (logo of Hewlett Packard).2. The point at issue is, as to whether or not, the appearance of logo "HP" on the cartridges amounts to use of "HP" brand and consequently, an infringement of Section 77 of the Trade and Merchandise Act, 1958.3. Heard both sides. Sub-section (1) of Section 77 of the said Act is extracted below: (a) Without the assent of the proprietor of the trade mark makes that trade mark or a deceptively similar mark; or (b) Falsifies any genuine trade mark, whether by alteration, addition, effacement or otherwi...

Cosco Blossoms Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2004)(164)ELT423TriDel

1. The appellant is an EOU. It produces cut rose flowers for export. It is also entitled to selling part of the produce, as permitted by the Development Commissioner, in the domestic tariff area.2. The Commissioner of Customs and Central Excise, Central Excise Commissionerate, Delhi-III has demanded a customs duty of about Rs. 88 lakhs from the appellant under Section 28 of the Customs Act, 1962 read with Notification No. 126/94, dated 3-6-1994. There is a demand for interest under Section 28AA of the Customs Act, 1962 and imposition of penalty of Rs. 17 lakhs under Section 114A of the Customs Act, 1962.The duty amount demanded is the customs duty payable on about Rs. 3 crores worth flowers cleared to the domestic area during the period 1997-98 to 2001-2002. The contention of the appellant in the present appeal is that the findings in the order are entirely contrary to the settled law on the issue. It is pointed out that goods produced in an EOU are subject to central excise duty as a...

Cenlub Systems Vs. Cce

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. The issue raised in this appeal at the instance of the assessee is whether installation charges received by it are liable to be included in the assesseeable value of the parts of the machinery cleared by it from its factory. Reliance was placed by the appellant on the decision of the Supreme Court in Triveni Engg. Works Ltd. Vs. CCE, 2002-Taxindiaonline-14-SC-CX. The Commissioner (Appeals) observing that ratio in Triveni Engg. Works Ltd. is not applicable to the appellant's case, upheld the demand. We fail to understand as to how the Commissioner (Appeals) has come to such a conclusion. He does not give any reason to hold that Triveni Engg. Works Ltd. is not applicable to the facts of the case. According to us, ratio of the decision of the Supreme court is directly applicable to the appellant's case. We, therefore, set aside the order impugned and allow the appeal....

Pradeep Mahajan Vs. Commissioner of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2004)(92)ECC544

1. This appeal has been directed against the impugned Order-in-Original dated 26.3.2001 vide which the Commissioner of Customs had imposed penalty of Rs. 10 lakhs under Section 112(b) of the Customs Act on the appellant on account of recovery of one gold biscuit, Indian and foreign currency, besides ordering confiscation of his two cars, as detailed therein.The facts of which the present appeal arises may briefly be summed up as under: 2. On 4.9.97, the appellant was intercepted in the area Pitampuras while going in a Maruti Esteem VX car bearing registration No.DL-6CA-1614 by the DRI officers at about 0830 hrs. On enquiry, he disclosed his parentage, address and after initially denying, later on, on persistent questioning, admitted that he was carrying in the car Indian and foreign currency which was the sale proceeds of the smuggled gold biscuits. His statement was allegedly recorded at the spot. But the search of his car was not taken there. He was brought in that car to the DRI Of...