Delhi Court February 2003 Judgments
Browse smarter
Turn browsing into brief-ready notes
Open any judgment and get a structured AI Brief in seconds — plus Semantic Search when you need to hunt by meaning, not keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed — log in to pick up where you left off.
Mukta Sons Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-28-2003
Reported in: 2003IIAD(Delhi)645; 103(2003)DLT508; [2003]43SCL616(Delhi)
A.K. Sikri, J. 1. Under the provisions of Foreign Trade (Development and Regulation) Act, 1992 (for short `the Act'), respondent No. 1 notified the Export and Import Policy for the period 1992-97 (hereinafter referred to as `the EXIM Policy), under the provisions of para 88 C of this EXIM Policy a total quantity of 3 kgs. of gold from the Minerals & Metals Trading Corporation (MMTC) on 1st July, 1994 vide contract No. L-0963 dated 30th June, 1994. It may be mentioned that in para 88 various schemes for export of gold/silver jewellery and articles are stipulated. Para 88 C deals with ' Gold and Silver jewellery and articles Export Promotion and Replenishment Scheme' and reads as under:'88 C. Gold and Silver jewellery and articles Export Promotion and Replenishment Scheme:'Against export of gold/silver jewellery and articles, the scheme provides for replenishment of gold/silver through the designated branches of SBI or any other agency nominated by the Ministry of Commerce, at a price in...
Zodiac Power Controls Ltd. Vs. Uttam Singh Dugal and Co. Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-28-2003
Reported in: 2003IIAD(Delhi)589; 2003(2)ARBLR144(Delhi); 103(2003)DLT544; 2003(2)RAJ194
R.C. Jain, J. 1. The above named petitioner has filed this petition under Section 20 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 (for short the `Act') praying for a direction on the respondent to file the arbitration agreement and thereafter for making an order of reference to the arbitrator in terms of the arbitration clause contained in the agreement dated 5th October, 1981. 2. The petition has been filed with the averments and allegations that petitioner is a company duly incorporated under the Companies Act and Mr. M.L. Jotwani, one of the director of the petitioner company, is duly authorised to sign and verify the petition and institute the same. The respondent company was awarded the contract at Baghdad (Iraq) for the construction of Jad Riyah University project and on 5th October, 1981 entered into an agreement sub-contracting the electrical work to the petitioner. After the petitioner completed the work entrusted to it in terms of the agreement, the respondent vide its letter dated 18th May,...
Punjab Tractors Limited Vs. International Tractors Limited and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-28-2003
Reported in: 2003(67)DRJ374; 2003(26)PTC341(Del)
J.D. Kapoor, J.1. This is an application moved by the plaintiff under Order 39 Rules 1 & 2, CPC for interim injunction for restraining the defendants from using the drawings of the plaintiff relating to manufacture of components in respect of tractors of 35 to 60 HP. The drawings have been filed in the aforesaid suit. Similar application has been moved by the defendant in S. No. 301/2003 restraining the plaintiff from using the drawings adopted by it which also relate to the manufacture of parts of tractors of 35 to 60 horse power. Mr. Kapil Sibal, learned senior counsel for the plaintiff-Punjab Tractors Limited (in short PTL) has stated that PTL has not at any time used the drawings of CMERI/MERADO, save as those drawings related to 20 HP tractors, the proprietorship of which vested in NRDC and in respect of which the license to use was given to PTL in accordance with the agreements dated 31st July, 1972 and 2nd August, 1972. However, this claim of Mr. Sibal has been disputed by Mr. S...
Shri Nandan Prasad Gupta Vs. Shri Sunil Gupta
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-28-2003
Reported in: 2003IIIAD(Delhi)48; II(2003)BC541; 104(2003)DLT132; 2003(68)DRJ315
S. Mukerjee, J.1. The plaintiff has filed the suit under Order 37 CPC on the basis of the sale agreement agreement executed by the defendant in his favor for the sale of the first floor of the property bearing No. D-68, East of Kailash, New Delhi for a total sale consideration amounting to Rs. 25 lakhs.2. It is stated that the plaintiff has paid Rs. 6 lakhs through cheque No. 481325 dated 30.10.99 drawn on Bank of India, Haus Khas, New Delhi. The possession of the property was to be handed over after completion of construction on or before 30.6.2000 and simultaneously the sale of documents were to be executed and registered besides the balance consideration of Rs. 19 lakhs was to be paid at the time of registration of the documents. It is further stated that the defendant from time to time approached the plaintiff and expressed need for money on the ground that construction is going on and he is short of money. The plaintiff believed his representation and entrusted a sum of Rs. 6 lakh...
Manju Gupta and anr. Vs. Delhi Development Authority
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-28-2003
Reported in: 2003IIIAD(Delhi)645; 103(2003)DLT776; (2003)134PLR9
ORDERCW 3491/2000: Rule. 1. With the consent of learned Counsels for the parties the petition is taken for final disposal. 2. The respondent issued a public advertisement for auction of shops/stalls, kiosks, restaurants, etc. in November, 1996 including for auction of the same at CSC Rajdhani Enclave, Pitam Pura for which auction was scheduled on 28.11.1996. The petitioner participated in the said auction and was the successful bidder for shop No. 1 being the vegetable stall for a consideration of Rs. 2,62,000/-. The petitioner deposited 25% of the earnest money amounting to Rs. 65,500/- at the fall of the hammer. 3. The petitioner addressed letter dated 3.12.1996 informing the respondent that on inspection at the site he found that the area of the stall in question was comparatively much less than the area scheduled for auction. It may be noticed that the area scheduled for auction given on the date of the auction was 9.88 square metres. The petitioners sought confirmation that the ar...
H.K. Malhotra and anr. Vs. Jasbir Singh
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-28-2003
Reported in: 2003(26)PTC488(Del)
S. Mukerjee, J.1. The Plaintiff No. 1, Mr. H.K. Malhotra is a partner of Plaintiff No. 2, H.K. Mahinder & Co. having its registered office at 2167, Khampur, Opp. West Patel Nagar, New Delhi-110027. The partnership has been in existence since 1967 and was duly formalized in 1992.2. The Plaintiff No. 2 is engaged in manufacturing and selling brushes under the trademark MAHINDAR in two device/logo formats with reference to its artistic depiction as described in paragraph 7 of the Plaint since the year 1980. The trademark MAHINDAR was adopted and selected by the Plaintiff No. 2 as it was the name of the brother of the Plaintiff No. 1 who was also a partner with the Plaintiffs firm.3. The Trademark was registered under the provisions of Trade and Merchandise Marks Act, 1958 in respect of brushes falling in classes 16 under No. 479533 in 1987 and 21 bearing No. 272693 in 1981.4. The Defendant Mr. Jasbir Singh individually as well as trading as M/s. Brush India Corporation at 36-Jind House, A...
Steel Marketing Co. of India and anr. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-28-2003
Reported in: 2003IIIAD(Delhi)9; 103(2003)DLT792; 2003(66)DRJ256; 2003(88)ECC119; 2003(161)ELT134(Del)
A.K. Sikri, J. 1. In this writ petition the petitioners are seeking to challenge the action of the respondents in not allowing the petitioners to release skimmed milk powder imported by the petitioners. The case of the petitioners is that two concerns, viz. M/s. Ventura, Greater Kailash, New Delhi and M/s. Saraf Textiles Pvt. Ltd. who were recognized and established Export Houses were issued initial licenses. The respondents permitted the imports to be made by the license holder through their agents in whose name letter of authority were issued by the licensing authority. The petitioners at the request of license holder have been issued Letters of Authority for the import of permissible items on the basis of said Letter of Authority. 2. The petitioners entered into an Agreement with M/s. A.H. Gandhi for the import of skimmed milk powder valued at Rs.9 lakhs. In order to ensure the payment of the same, two Letters of Credit both dated 1.4.1978 were opened. The goods so imported arrived ...
Shiv Dayal Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-28-2003
Reported in: 2003VIAD(Delhi)559
Badar Durrez Ahmed, J.1. In this Writ Petition the petitioner has prayed for quashing of the order of termination No. OD-I/GO/PF/Con/88/4895 dated 21.10.1988 (Annexure-`A') and the order No. PLD-S/4(2)/89/197 dated 7.2.1989 rejecting his appeal there from. The petitioner has also sought reinstatement with consequential benefits of service including pay and allowances in full.2. The petitioner was employed as a conductor with the Delhi Transport Corporation. He joined service on 16.2.1970 and was confirmed on 30.5.1973. It is the petitioner's case that he fell ill and could not attend to his duties on account of his ailments which included a psychiatric problem. The petitioner has annexed several medical certificates dated 13.7.1988, 9.11.1988 and 24.11.1988 to substantiate this allegation of his. Though, the Respondents in their Reply Affidavit have categorically stated that no such medical certificates were ever received by them and that the petitioner abstained from duty without any ...
Commissioner of Customs Vs. Magna Corpro Chem (i) Pvt. Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Feb-27-2003
Reported in: (2003)(155)ELT291TriDel
1. When the application for stay in this appeal filed by the Revenue came up for hearing it was agreed by both the sides that the appeal itself can be disposed of. We, therefore, proceed to dispose of the appeal.2. Revenue challenges the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) dated 29-11-2001 under which he revised the order-in-original passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Customs, SVB, Custom House, Chennai. The Commissioner had taken the view that the respondent herein who is the sole distributor of M/s. Magna International Pvt. Ltd., Singapore would come under the term of 'related person' and therefore, the transaction value declared in respect of the import made by the respondent cannot be accepted.3. It was contended by the importer before the Commissioner (Appeals) that merely because they are the sole distributor of M/s. Magna International Pvt. Ltd., Singapore they cannot be treated as 'related person'. The above contention was accepted by the Commissioner (Appeals).4. Aft...
Hindustan Lever Ltd. Vs. Commr. of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Feb-27-2003
Reported in: (2002)LC480Tri(Delhi)
1. The issue involved in this appeal filed by M/s. Hindustan Lever Ltd., is whether the refund of Central Excise duty claimed by them is hit by the principle of unjust enrichment.2. Shri C.S. Lodha, learned Advocate, submitted that the Appellants had been claiming the deductions of expenses from the assessable value under Section 4 of the Central Excise Act; that the clearances of excisable goods were allowed on the basis of provisional assessment under Rule 9B of the Central Excise Rules, 1944; that after the judgment of the Supreme Court in Government of India v. M.R.F., 1995 (77) E.L.T. 433, the Assistant Commissioner under Order dated 31-3-1997 disallowed certain expenses; that thereafter the Appellants submitted papers, documents and evidence to the Range officer and on the basis of these evidences submitted by them, the Assistant Commissioner passed the Order dated 5-5-1997 finalising the provisional assessment for 17 years [1974-75 to 1987-88 and 1991-92 to 1993-94]; that the A...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »