Delhi Court May 2003 Judgments

J. Kohli and anr. Vs. Mr. Ram Bhagwat and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2003VAD(Delhi)496; 105(2003)DLT275; 2003(70)DRJ407; 2003(27)PTC161(Del)

R.C. Jain, J. 1. Defendants have moved is No.1263/2003 under Rule 3 Chapter VI of the Delhi High Court (Original Side) Rules, 1967 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure praying for condensation of delay in filing the written statement while the plaintiffs have moved is No.565/2003 under Order VIII Rule 10 read with Section 151 CPC praying for a judgment and decree in terms of the prayer set out in the suit on the failure of the defendants to file the written statement within the period as prescribed under Order VIII Rule 1 CPC.2. In brief, the facts are that the plaintiffs have filed a suit against the defendants for breach of contract, damages and permanent injunction from violating the registered copyright of plaintiff No.1 and other intellectual property rights etc. The suit was ordered to be registered and summons of the suit and notice of the interlocutory application under Order XXXIX Rules 1 & 2 were ordered to be issued to the defendants on 28th May, 2002, return...

Dr. B.L. Wadhera Vs. Govt. of Nct of Delhi and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 105(2003)DLT1; 2003(69)DRJ598; [2003]259ITR108(Delhi)

B.C. Patel, C.J.1. As the respondent Delhi Fire Safety Service failed in performing statutory functions, duties of protecting and safeguarding the life and property and also failed to take requisite steps to safeguard the life and property of the people residing in Delhi and particularly in the High Rise Buildings, the petitioner approached this Court for directing the respondents to take action promptly, diligently and efficiently to see that fire safety measures are provided in a building, under the Building By-laws for which, Delhi Fire Service is required to see that Fire Safety Measures are installed in a building before it is occupied or in case the buildings which were erected prior to 1983, the measures are taken so as to see that Fire Safety Measures are provided.2. In view of the urbanization, influx of people in the cities, shortage of space, nature of expansion and required civic amenities has resulted in the need of high rise buildings. For safety of people it is not only ...

Shri Kishan Chand Vs. Smt. Munni Devi

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2003IVAD(Delhi)405; AIR2003Delhi382; 105(2003)DLT191; II(2003)DMC472; 2003(69)DRJ84

C.K. Mahajan, J. 1. By way of this appeal, the appellant assails the order dated 21.10.2000 passed by the Addl. District Judge, Delhi in HMA Case No.237/99 dismissing the petition of the appellant under Sections 13(1)(ia) and 13(1)(ib) of the Hindu Marriage Act for dissolution of marriage by decree of divorce. 2. Briefly the facts are that the marriage between the parties was solemnised on 27.4.1978. In the year 1985, respondent filed a case under Section 406 IPC against the appellant and the appellant filed a petition for divorce on the ground of desertion. After reconciliation between the parties, the said divorce petition was withdrawn by the appellant. On 9.8.1989, the parties attended the Mahila Court in connection with the complaint under Section 406 IPC. It is alleged that on that date the respondent did not return to the matrimonial home and went to her mother's house. It is alleged thereforee that the respondent not only deserted the appellant but also abandoned two of her min...

Geepee Ceval Proteins and Investment Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Saroj Oil Industry

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2003(27)PTC190(Del)

Mahmood Ali Khan, J.1. In a passing off action suit, the plaintiff has filed this application for grant of ad-interim injunction restraining the defendants from manufacturing selling, offering for sale or advertising directly or indirectly in dealing in edible oil under the trade mark 'CHAMBAL' or any other trade mark or packing material amounting to passing off the trademark of the plaintiffs or amounting to association with the plaintiffs.2. Briefly the facts are that the plaintiff has filed a suit alleging that it is a company incorporated under Indian Companies Act and has engaged in the business of manufacture of edible oil. It was selling its various oil products under the trade mark CHAMBAL and its turn-over in the year 1997-98 was about Rs. 113 crores and at present it is Rs. 240 crores. The trade mark CHAMBAL has acquired distinctiveness over the years because of extensive advertisement in print and electronic media over which the plaintiff had spent a huge amount. In February...

Hindustan Penciles Ltd. Vs. Dharam Pal JaIn and Sons

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 118(2005)DLT44

H.R. Malhotra, J.1. This is suit brought by the plaintiff seeking decree for perpetual injunction restraining the defendant from infringement of the trademark of the plaintiff in respect of the stationery goods with the trademark NATARAJ.Facts as set out in the plaint are as under:The plaintiff adopted the trademark NATARAJ with the device of NATARAJ with respect to stationery goods in the year 1961. Plaintiff's claim for proprietorship of the following registered trademark.Trademark NATARAJ with the device of NATARAJ under No. 260466 dated 6.11.1969 claiming user since 22.2.1961 in respect of pencils, refills for propelling pens and pencils, pen sharpeners, pens, fountain pens, erasers, pins, clip and stapples included in Class 16. Device of NATARAJ under registration No. 283730 dated 27.10.1972 in respect of pencils of all kinds, erasers, refills for propelling pens and pencils, pencil sharpeners, fountain pens, pins, clips, wire stapples for stapling presses and pins.2. According to...

Prince Gutka Ltd. Vs. Dy. Cit

Court: Delhi

Reported in: (2004)90TTJ(Del)255

ORDERB.R. Jain, A.M.:This appeal by the assessed has been preferred against the order dated 23-2-2002, of the learned Commissioner (Appeals)-III, New Delhi, on the following grounds :'1. That the learned Commissioner (Appeals) has grossly erred, both on the facts of the case and as per law, in upholding the reassessment of the income of the assessed-company under section 147 without appreciating that the initiation of reassessment proceedings under section 147 were time-barred in view of proviso to section 147.2. That the learned Commissioner (Appeals) has grossly erred, both on the facts of the case and as per law, in reassessing the income of the appellant- company under section 147 since by restoring to provisions of section 147, the assessing officer has reviewed the order of his predecessor, which is in contravention of the decision of jurisdictional High Court in the case of Jindal Photo Films Ltd. v. Dy. CIT .3. That the learned Commissioner (Appeals) has grossly erred in uphold...

Sandeep Kumar Tandon Vs. Punjab National Bank

Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi

Rumnita Mittal, Member: 1. This appeal has been filed by the appellant, assailing the order of District Forum (Central), Kashmere Gate, Delhi dated 25.8.2002 passed in Complaint Case No. 1042/99 entitled Shri Sandeep Kumar Tandon v. Punjab National Bank. 2. The relevant facts, in brief are that the appellant was maintaining two accounts with the respondent Bank, Current Account No. 249 in the name of M/s. Sandeep Kumar and Associates (Prop. Shri Sandeep Kumar Tandon) and Saving Bank Account No. 3335 in the name of Shri Sandeep Kumar Tandon. The appellant had issued two cheques on 2.6.1997, one for Rs. 10,000/- drawn on his Current Account No. 249 and another for Rs. 8,000/- drawn on his Saving Bank Account No. 3335 and handed them to his employee Shri Kageshwar Senapati for encashment. However, the said employee of the respondent did not return with the money so withdrawn. Thereafter, the appellant met the Manager of the respondent Bank at the Extension Counter, Salwan Public Shool, Ra...

Govind Ram Mittal Vs. Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Ltd.

Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi

Rumnita Mittal, Member: 1. The present appeal has been filed assailing the order of District Forum, Shalimar Bagh, Delhi dated 30.10.2001 passed in Complaint Case No. 3157/2001 entitled Shri Govind Ram Mittal v. MTNL. 2. The brief facts, leading to the filing of the present appeal, in brief, are that the appellant had approached the learned District Forum with a Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) with the grievance that the appellant is subscriber of two telephone Nos. 7276877 and 7270984 installed at his premises. The telephone No. 7276877 went out of order on 10.7.2000, and despite repeated complaints and personal visits, the defect in the said telephone was not rectified and the telephone in question continued to remain non-operational till 10.10.2000. Furthermore, despite the fact that the said telephone remained out of order from 16.7.2000 to 15.9.2000, respondent raised a bill inclusive of the rental charges and se...

Tara Chand Shival Vs. Cce

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2003)(90)ECC131

1. This appeal is against imposition of personal penalty of Rs. 10 lakhs on the appellant under Rules 198 and 209 A of the erstwhile Central Excise Rules, 1944 and under Sections 112 and 117 of the Customs Act by the Commissioner of Central Excise & Customs, Jaipur.The appellant was the authorized signatory of M/s. Reliable Poly Fib (India) Ltd. (for short, M/s. RPFL) during the period relevant to this case. M/s. RPFL were a 100% Export Oriented Unit (EOU). The appellant's brother Shri Richhpal Sharma was one of the Directors of another company, M/s. Pushpa Silk Mills Pvt. Ltd. (for short M/s. PSML), which was also a 100% EOU. Both the companies were engaged in the manufacture of grey fabrics. For the manufacture of grey fabrics, M/s. PSML used polyester/nylon filament yarn either imported or procured from other 100% EOUs at 'nil' rate of duty. 106.062 MTs of nylon filament yarn so procured were shown to have been sold by them to M/s. RPFL at 'nil' rate of duty against CT-3s. The ...

S.D. Technical Service Vs. Cc

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2003)(88)ECC236

1. In this appeal at the instance of the importer the issue that is coming up for consideration is whether the amount of UK Pound 50,000 payable as technical know-how fees by the importer is liable to be included in the assessable value of the goods imported.2. M/s. S.D. Technical Services Pvt. Ltd. was permitted by the Ministry of Industry to have a foreign collaboration with M/s. Westing House Brake & Signal Company Ltd. U.K. (for short, WBS) for the manufacture of Air Brake Distributors and pneumatic Door Closers. Under the agreement between the appellants and WBS an amount of U.K. Pound 50,000 is to be paid by the appellant to WBS in lieu of disclosure of technical know-how. As per agreement the appellants are given the right to manufacture and assemble in India licensed equipment for use in railway locomotives and rolling stock with the technical know-how supplied by the WBS. Agreement also provided for training by WBS to employees of the appellants. Appellants were to manufa...