Delhi Court February 2003 Judgments

Sawhney Export Houses Vs. Commr. of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2003)(88)ECC446

1. In this appeal the appellants have challenged the impugned order-in-appeal dated 6-6-2002 vide which the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) had affirmed the order-in-original of the Deputy Commissioner disallowing refund of Rs. 2,52,678/-.2. The facts are not much in dispute. The appellants through Bill of Entry dated 25-5-89 sought clearance of the imported goods (metal findings) on payment of duty of Rs. 2,32,646/-. But the Customs authorities alleged that the quantity actually imported was in excess of the declared quantity and accordingly the Assistant Commissioner adjudicated the matter and ordered confiscation of the goods with option to get the same redeemed on payment of fine of Rs. 2000/- and imposed a penalty of Rs. 500/-. The goods were valued in the adjudication order at Rs. 10,400/-. The appellants accordingly paid dues and got the goods cleared. They however, filed an appeal against that adjudication order before the Collector (Appeals) who dismissed the same on the gr...

P.L. Gupta and anr. Vs. the Registrar Co-op. Societies and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2003IIAD(Delhi)249; AIR2003Delhi340; 103(2003)DLT14; 2003(67)DRJ245

Vijender Jain, J.1. Mr. Munjal has contended that respondent Nos.3, 4 & 5 were ineligible for allotment of plot of land in the respondent No.2 society. The first submission of learned counsel for the petitioners is that in terms of bye-laws of the society, respondent Nos.3, 4 & 5 had incurred disqualification. Bye-law 5(i)(a) of the society is to the following effect:- ' A person is eligible to become member of the society provided he is a CSIR employee.' 2. It was contended before us that respondent Nos.3, 4 & 5 were the employees of the CSIR, however, their shares could be transferred to those who were CSIR employees and respondent Nos.6 to 9 were not the employees of CSIR. Respondent Nos.6 & 7 are the sons of respondent Nos.3 & 4 and respondent Nos.8 & 9 are the sons of respondent No.5. In this connection reliance has been placed on bye-law 8(viii):- 'A member or the nominee or successor of an ex-member may transfer his shares to another member or applicant qualified under bye-law (...

N.C. Kapoor Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2003IIIAD(Delhi)42; 104(2003)DLT106; 2003(68)DRJ243; 2003(2)RAJ633

Badar Durrez Ahmed, J.1. In this Writ Petition the Petitioner who is a Civil Contractor registered in Class III (B&R;) with the C.P.W.D. (Central Public Works Department) has sought the quashing of Office Order No. 160/2001 dated27.2.2001 and Show Cause Notice No. C44/3068-III(B&R;)/NDZ.m/960 dated 13.11.2000 and all other nothings remarks and other actions based thereupon. The Petitioner has also sought a direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to permit the petitioner to revalidate the enlistment of the petitioner with the CPWD for a further period of five years from 1.4.2001 and to permit him to participate in future tenders. By the impugned Office Order dated 27.2.2001 the Petitioner's enlistment has been withdrawn for two years by the Respondents with immediate effect. It is the Petitioner's contention that this Office Order is arbitrary and has been passed without a proper application of mind to the materials on record.2. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner s...

Frito Lay India and ors. Vs. Shivdeep Food Products Pvt. Ltd. and anr.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2003(67)DRJ370; 2003(26)PTC309(Del)

J.D. Kapoor, J.1. This is a suit for permanent injunction for restraining the defendants from using the 'KURRAM KURRAM' packaging with simitar expressions or any other packaging/expressions which is a substantial reproduction or colourable imitation of the plaintiffs 'KURKURE' packaging/expressions, in relation to snack food products or any other products in any manner whatsoever, so as to constitute infringement of the plaintiffs' copyright.2. The case of the plaintiffs is that they created the 'KURKURE' brand as a separate brand. The product was also given a completely different look. The packaging was designed in such a manner as to make it completely innovative and a mere look at the depiction of the snack product on the packaging would make it clear that the product is 'KURKURE'. The appearance of the product is so different and unique that no other existing snack product looks similar to this product. The mark 'KURKURE' is one that was adopted by the plaintiffs for the first time...

Pac Workers Union (Regd.) Vs. Secretary (Labour) and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2003IVAD(Delhi)400; 104(2003)DLT565; 2003(71)DRJ766; (2003)IILLJ966Del

S.K. Mahajan, J. 1. RULE. 2. With the consent of the parties, the matter has been heard and disposed of by this order. 3. Petitioner claims to be a Union of the employees working with respondent no.3 management. There arose certain disputes between the employees of respondent no.3 and the management in December, 1998. The respondent no.3 closed down its establishment and the matter between the employees and the management was settled by means of a settlement arrived at on 25.1.1999. This settlement, I am informed has been duly registered with the Conciliation Officer. Even otherwise, there is no dispute between the petitioner and the management that such a settlement was duly arrived at between the parties. In terms of the settlement, the workers working with respondent no.3 were paid all their dues including earned wages, leave encashment, notice pay, bonus, compensation, re-employment benefits etc. and the relationship of `master' and `servant' was agreed to be terminated on permanen...

The National Radio and Electric Co. Ltd. Vs. Union of India (Uoi)

Court: Delhi

Reported in: AIR2003Delhi308; 2003(70)DRJ366

Badar Durrez Ahmed, J 1. This writ petition is directed against the award of contract for the 'design, manufacture, testing, supply, erection and commissioning of an Integrated Communication System' (hereinafter referred to as the Integrated Communication System) to the Respondent No. 4 (TCIL) by the Respondent No. 2 (GAIL) as a part of its Petro Chemical Complex project known as the Uttar Pradesh Petro Chemical Complex at Pata near Auraiya in District Etawah, State of Uttar Pradesh.2. At the commencement of the hearing Mr. Arvind Nigam, learned Counsel for Respondents 1 to 3 informed the Court that the Integrated Communication System has already been set up by Respondent No. 4 (TCIL) in the said Petro Chemical Complex and is functioning to the satisfaction of the Respondent No. 2 (GAIL). He contended that, as such, nothing now survives in this Petition.3. In response Mr. S.C. Dhanda, Learned Counsel for the Petitioner, while not denying the factum of the completion of the works by Res...

Ram Lal Inder Lal Vs. Dy. Cit

Court: Delhi

Reported in: (2004)90TTJ(Del)243

ORDERKeshaw prasad, A.M.:The cross-appeals have been directed by the assessed as well as by the revenue against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) dated 28-8-1997, relating to penalties under section 272A(2)(g) of the Act pertaining to assessment year 1993-94.2. Briefly, the facts of the case are that the assessed is a firm which deducted tax at source and issued TDS certificates as required under section 203 of the Act. However, there was delay in issuing such certificates and, thereforee, the assessing officer held that the assessed has contravened the provisions of section 272A(2)(g) of the Act. After considering the submissions of the assessed in response to show-cause notice, the assessing officer held that the assessed has not been able to prove that there was a bona fide case in issuing the certificate late. He calculated various delays in respect of each certificate and accordingly imposed the penalty of Rs. 33,16,400 under section 272A(2)(g) of the Act. On appeal, the Com...

B.S.E.S. Vs. Banwari Lal

Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi

Lokeshwar Prasad, President: 1. The present appeal, filed by the appellant, under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), is directed against order dated 19.10.2002, passed by District Forum (East), Saini Enclave, Delhi in Complaint Case No. 79/2002 entitled Shri Banwari Lal v. Executive Engineer, Delhi Vidyut Board, Laxmi Nagar, Delhi. 2. The facts, relevant for the disposal of the above mentioned appeal, lie in a narrow compass. The respondent Shri Banwari Lal had filed a complaint before the District Forum under Section 12 of the Act averring therein that he was a consumer, having electricity connection, bearing No. 602-1282639, installed at L-35/34, ground floor, Laxmi Nagar, Delhi for domestic purposes. It was stated in the complaint, filed by the respondent, that the appellant had levied misuse charges in respect of the above said electricity connection without issuing any notice in accordance with law. It was prayed in the complaint...

Dayal Fatumal Jiandani Vs. Director of Enforcement

Court: Appellate Tribunal for foreign Exchange New Delhi

1. In this appeal the appellant has challenged the legality of the order dated 30-6-1996 whereby Addl. Director, Enforcement Chennai was pleased to impose a penalty of Rs. 50,000 on the appellant for violation of section 8(1) of FERA. According to the charge it is alleged that the appellant was intercepted by the Customs authorities at Madras International Airport and from his possession foreign exchange of US $ 21950 and Pound 1000 was found. The appellant in his statement dated 2-8-1994 before the Customs authorities stated that foreign currencies were purchased through unknown brokers and was carrying to Singapore and Hongkong. He further stated that he used to bring foreign goods to India and sell them on profit. In reply to SCN he denied the allegation and argued that appellant is not a person resident in India and as such appellant does not come under the perview of section 2(p) of the FERA. In this connection reliance has been placed on the decision in the case of Director of En...

B.P. Singh Vs. Commissioner of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2003)(154)ELT231TriDel

1. Appellants filed this appeal against the order-in-appeal passed by the Commissioner of Customs.2. Brief facts of the case are that the appellants made an import of paper and declared the same in the Bill of Entry as scrap paper. On examination of the goods it was found that it was not scrap paper, therefore a show cause notice was issued to the appellants for classifying the goods, in question, under Heading 4804.59 of Customs Tariff. The adjudicating authority confirmed the demand, ordered confiscation of the goods and gave option to the appellants to redeem the goods on payment of redemption fine of Rs. 1.50 lakh and personal penalty of Rs. 50,000.00 was also imposed on him. On appeal, filed by the appellants, the Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the order passed by the adjudicating authority and reduced the redemption fine to Rs. one lakh.4. The contention of the appellants is that the goods are classifiable as scrap paper under heading 4070.90 of the Customs Tariff as the paper is...