Delhi Court July 2003 Judgments

Sh. Sharat Chander Chopra Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2004IAD(Delhi)649; 109(2004)DLT342; 2003(71)DRJ93

Badar Durrez Ahmed, J.1. In this writ petition, the petitioner has sought a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to release the petitioner's alleged dues towards royalty for the script allegedly written by the petitioner in respect of the TV Seriall entitled 'Devi Choudhrani'.2. A short background would be necessary. Devi Choudhrani is a novel written by Bankim Chandra Chattopadhay. Doordarshan desired to telecast the said novel in the form of a 13 episode TV Seriall. For the purpose, the Director, Central Production Centre, Doordarshan by a letter dated 03.03.1989 written to the petitioner and one Sh. Bhaskar Nayar indicated that they were grateful to them for having agreed to adapt the said novel for a TV Seriall of not more than 13 episodes of 25-30 minutes duration each. In paragraph 2 of the said letter, which forms the basis of the agreement between Doordarshan on the one side and the petitioner and Sh. Bhaskar Nayar on the other side, it is recorded as under:...

Castrol Limited Vs. A.K. Mehta and anr.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2003VIAD(Delhi)504; 106(2003)DLT153; 2003(27)PTC600(Del)

C.K. Mahajan, J. 1. By way of the present suit, the plaintiff seeks permanent injunction and damages against the defendants. The plaintiff has also sought a decree for delivery up of all the infringing containers, blocks, dies, wrappers, packing material etc. 2. Briefly the facts are that plaintiffs are engaged in processing of and trading in industrial lubricants, greases, brake fluids, wood preservatives, metal cleaning compounds, anti-freezing compounds, hydraulic fluids and like products in India. The plaintiff No. 1 is the registered proprietor of trademark 'CASTROL' in respect of oils for heating, lighting and lubricating. The word Castrol appears in an oblique script across the horizontal member of the white portion. The turnover of the plaintiffs runs into crores. The plaintiffs have also spent a large amount of money on advertising and publicity of Castrol products. The plaintiffs are also selling its products under the mark 'Castrol AP-3' in which the plaintiffs also enjoy co...

Mr. Madhu Kishan Gupta Vs. Municipal Corporation of Delhi and anr.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2004IAD(Delhi)121; 2004(1)ARBLR26(Delhi); 107(2003)DLT211; 2003(3)RAJ638

H.R. Malhotra, J. 1. This is a petition made under the provision of Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 seeking appointment of the Arbitrator other than the what was named in the agreement as, according to the petitioner; the respondent failed to appoint the nominated Arbitrator within the statutory period after sending legal notice and even before filing of the instant petition. 2. It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner was awarded the work of Houses for Safai Karamcharies. Since the respondent committed breaches of the contract by not providing drawings in time and delay occurred because of fault of the respondent and thereforee, dispute had arisen between the parties and accordingly Sh.D.D. Nayar, Chief Engineer was appointed as sole Arbitrator vide letter dated 1st October, 1997.3. Sh.Nayar, however, retired from his office in July, 2000 and as such vacancy was created and in terms of clause 25 of the general conditions of contract, the Commiss...

Masonic Club Vs. Land and Development Officer and anr.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2003(70)DRJ282

Badar Durrez Ahmed, J. 1. Despite opportunities being granted to the respondent no reply has been filed in respect of CM.No. 9169/2002. This CM had been filed in respect of the order dated 19-7-2002 whereby this Court had required the petitioner to deposit a further sum of Rs. 5 lacs. The prayer in this application is for recalling of the said order dated 19.7.2002 and for confirming the stay without imposing the said conditions. In view of the allegations of the petitioner that the petitioner is not the owner of the premises in question but is merely a tenant under Jamuna lodge which is the owner of the premises in question, since no reply in the CM.No. 9169/2002 has been filed, it might have been appropriate for me to confirm the stay and allow the application till the writ petition is finally disposed of. However, it appears that the writ petition itself can be disposed of at this stage itself as would be indicated below. 2. The petitioner has alleged that it is a tenant in respect ...

Bhatia Service Station and anr. Vs. Indian Oil Corporation and anr.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2004IAD(Delhi)34; 107(2003)DLT207; 2004(72)DRJ491

Badar Durrez Ahmed, J. 1. The petitioner runs a petrol pump near Bhikaji Cama Place on Ring Road at New Delhi. On 6.6.2001, the petitioner received a delivery of petrol and diesel from the respondent. The petitioner maintains 5 tanks and the goods received on 6.6.2001 were unloaded in Tank Nos. 2 and 3. On 9.6.2002, an inspection was carried out by the respondent and samples were taken from each of the five tanks. The samples, taken from the tanks, were sent to the laboratory for testing. Apparently, the inspection was done and samples were taken in view of a complaint dated 5.6.2002 which was received by the respondent on 7.6.2002. On 13.6.2002, the petitioner received a letter from the respondent entitled 'Sub : Fact finding report' in which it was indicated that the samples taken from the tank No.2 and 3 failed to meet the specification in respect of requirement of RON Test as well as distillation test and copies of the test reports were enclosed with the said letter. This letter wa...

Ram Shankar Gupta Vs. State

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2003(70)DRJ704

S.K. Agarwal, J. 1. This is a petition under Section 439 Cr.P.C. for grant of bail to thepetitioner in the case FIR No. 114/2001 under Section 498-A/304-B, IPC, P.S.Ambedkar Nagar.2. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the petitioner is the brother in law of the deceased; that he was admittedly living at Hardoi in U.P. and that the deceased died while she was living with her husband in Delhi.3. In the facts and circumstances of the case, 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.5. dusty....

Arun Marwath Vs. Government of N.C.T. of Delhi and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 4(2003)CCR386; 107(2003)DLT670

ORDER1. By this petition, petitioner seeks quashing for FIR No. 662/2001 dated 16.12.2001 under Sections 408, 420, 120-B, IPC registered at P.S. Connaught Place on the basis of agreement/compromise arrived at between the petitioner and respondent No. 3.2. The petitioner was engaged in business dealing with respondent No. 3 since 1.4.1999 and the petitioner's company has done business transaction of approximately Rs. 1 crore with respondent No. 3. Dispute arose between the petitioner and respondent No. 3 pertaining to the payment of 31 tickets which culminated in registration of FIR in question.3. In the meantime, since the matter related to a commercial transaction and with mutual understanding and negotiation the dispute between the petitioner and respondent No. 3 was amicably settled and an agreement/compromise dated 31.7.2002 was signed by both the parties settling all the claims and differences.4. Affidavit has been filed by Shri Shyam Mansharamani, Manager of respondent No. 3, com...

V.K. JaIn and Sons Vs. Commissioner of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2003)(89)ECC23

1. The issues involved in this Appeal, filed by M/s. V.K. Jain & Sons, are whether the synthetic fabrics and synthetic laces seized from their godowns are liable for confiscation being smuggled goods and penalty is imposable on them under the Customs Act.2.1 Shri V.N. Nankani, learned Advocate, submitted that the Appellant, a proprietary concern, is a trader in textiles/fabrics procured locally by them; that they own premises at Gulabi Bagh, New Delhi where they have office cum residence and godowns on the ground floor; that on 30.7.1999 Customs Officers seized 7,10,244 metres of fabrics and 1,59,123 metres of synthetic laces from the godowns; that during the course of search one Vinay Kumar Bansal, an Assistant of Mahesh Kumar, their Accountant, came there with a file which was also seized by the Customs Officers; that the Officers also seized fabrics/textiles from the premises of M/s. New India Agencies (NIA) on 31.7.99; that on 4.2.2000 a show cause notice was issued to the App...

Cosco Blossoms Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2003)(156)ELT413TriDel

1. The duty demand is on cut flowers produced in an EOU and removed to Domestic Tariff Area (DTA). Demand has been made under Section 28 of the Customs Act, 1962 and rate applied is the rate applicable to imported cut flowers. The contention of the appellant is that provisions of Section 3 of Central Excise Act apply to goods produced in an EOU and removed to DTA, and not the provisions of Customs Act. It is, therefore, submitted that the entire duty demand is not sustainable. It is also pointed out that the appellant had completed his export obligation and no imported goods also had been used in growing these flowers. 2. We find merit in the submission of the appellant. It is settled law that the duty payable on goods removed to DTA by an EOU is the duty as stipulated in proviso to Section 3 of the Central Excise Act. In view of this, waiver of pre-deposit is allowed.Matter to come up for hearing on 18th September, 2003....

C.C.E. vs. B.H.E.L.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. Revenue filled this appeal against the order-in-appeal passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), whereby the refund claim was allowed on the ground that the goods imported by the respondents are entitled for the benefit of notification no. 35/79 Cus dated 15.2.79.3. Brief facts of the case are that the respondents made import of rotor shaft and filled a bill of entry claiming classification under heading 8463.00 of Customs Tariff. The goods were assessed accordingly and the respondents paid duty.4. Thereafter, respondents filed a refund claim before the Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise on the ground that the goods, in question, were entitled for the benefit of notification no. 35/79-Cus.5. The refund claim was rejected by the adjudicating authority.However, the Commissioner (Appeals) allowed the refund claim.6. The contention of the revenue is the imported goods were assessed under heading 8463.00 of Customs Tariff as claimed by the respondents.The respondents had not challenge...