Delhi Court July 2003 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
Hotel Workers Union (Regd.) and anr. Vs. Govt. of Nct of Delhi and ors ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-24-2003
Reported in: 109(2004)DLT391; 2004(75)DRJ388; (2004)IILLJ700Del; (2004)137PLR22; 2004(2)SLJ382(Delhi)
Mukul Mudgal, J.1. This writ petition by the workman challenges the Orders dated 31st December, 1998; 28th May, 1999/1st June, 1999; 18th January, 2000 and 22nd March, 2000 and further seeks reference under Section 10(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947(hereinafter referred to as the Act) of a dispute, raised by the petitioner No. 2/workman. 2. The petitioner No. 2/workman claimed to work continuously in Punjab Bhawan, Delhi for more than 3 years and upon his termination of services and rejection of the demand notice dated 4th October, 1996, sought to raise an industrial dispute under Section 12 of the Act. On 31st December, 1998, an order was passed by the Secretary (Labour), Government of NCT of Delhi that the dispute cannot be referred as the Punjab Bhawan activities did not constitute 'Industry' within the meaning of Section 2(j) of the Act and the review against this order was dismissed by the Order dated 28th May, 1999/1st June, 1999 on the same grounds as noticed in the Orde...
Suresh V. Chaturvedi Vs. Aes Control Pvt. Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-24-2003
Reported in: 3(2003)CCR418; 105(2003)DLT978; 2003(70)DRJ210; 2003(3)JCC226; 2003RLR566
J.D. Kapoor, J. 1. Impugned order dated 17.7.2003 passed by Sh.A.K.Garg, learned Addl. Sessions Judge reflects the strange and preposterous way the application of the petitioner for exemption from personal appearance was dealt with. Petitioner (Accused No.2) paid the price of engaging the same counsel which his co-accused (Accused No.4) had engaged as the learned ASJ dismissed the application of the petitioner on the highly unjudicial premise that since similar application was made on behalf of accused no.4 in an irresponsible manner on the last date by the counsel who happens to be the counsel of petitioner, he would not proceed on the presumption that the application on behalf of petitioner has been made today on proper instructions. Not only the application was dismissed but the most coercive process of non-bailable warrant was ordered to be issued against the petitioner.2. To imagine that the counsel was having similar instructions for the petitioner he had from his co-accused is b...
Som Nath Sapra Vs. State and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-24-2003
Reported in: 2003CriLJ4282; 106(2003)DLT139; 2003(70)DRJ197; (2003)135PLR42; 2003RLR551
SJ.D. Kapoor, J.1. It appears that Shri S.N.Dhingra, Addl. Sessions Judge has scant regard for the judgments of this Court and sticks to the procedure of trial of complaint cases under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act invented by him and not the one prescribed under the Code of Criminal Procedure. Vide impugned order dated 1.5.2003, the learned ASJ has after recording the statement of the complainant put the evidence of issuance of cheque by the petitioner against the liability towards complainant and dishonouring of the same and after eliciting the statement of the petitioner that he had no liability towards complainant as the cheque was obtained forcibly from him and in this regard he has made a complaint to the SHO, straightaway called upon the accused to produce his evidence in defense taking the case of the complainant having been proved without trial. 2. The illegality, harshness and judicial tyranny is writ large on the impugned order as the learned ASJ imposed a co...
Ayurvedic and Unani Tibbia College Vs. Durgawati Jaiswal
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-24-2003
Reported in: 109(2004)DLT465; 2004(75)DRJ412
Mukul Mudgal, J.1. The plea raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner in this writ petition challenging the award dated 5th July, 2002, is whether the respondent Durgawati Jaiswal, who has been working on a daily wages basis as an Aya in the petitioner college since 21st November 1988, could be regularized or not. The learned counsel has submitted that the age limit could be relaxed so as to permit regularization as the respondent at the time of the recruitment was over age. It is the petitioner's own case that its own Screening Committee on 1st February, 2001 recommended the age relaxation and no action was taken by the management for more than one year and no order for regularization could, thereforee, be passed as the recommendation of the Screening Committee could not be implemented without the management's approval. 2. In these circumstances, the Tribunal, in my view, rightly granted regularization. It may not be out of place to mention that the respondent had completed her...
Glaxo Group Ltd. and anr. Vs. Paun and Paum Chemicals
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-24-2003
Reported in: 2003VIAD(Delhi)518; 106(2003)DLT176; 2003(27)PTC234(Del)
C.K. Mahajan, J. 1. Plaintiff has filed the present suit for permanent injunction, infringement of trademark, passing off, rendition of accounts and delivery up against the defendants. 2. Briefly the facts are that the plaintiffs are the owners of the trademark 'Ostocalcium' in respect of medicinal and pharmaceutical preparations. Plaintiffs are also stated to be the owners of the trademark 'Ostocalcium Vet' in respect of veterinary preparations and medicated additives to feed and foodstuffs for animals and birds. The trade mark Ostocalcium is being used by the plaintiffs in a distinctive packing material. The packing material carton is the original artistic work which has been designed by the plaintiffs. The sale figures for the products of the plaintiffs run into several crores of rupees. The plaintiffs have also spent considerable amount of money on popularising the trademarks. The trademarks of the plaintiffs have acquired goodwill and reputation in India as well as in the internat...
Kwality Restaurant Vs. Mr. Jagdish and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-24-2003
Reported in: 2004IAD(Delhi)102; 107(2003)DLT541; 2003(71)DRJ421; (2004)ILLJ562Del; 2004(2)SLJ296(Delhi)
H.R. Malhotra, J. 1. This is a suit brought by the plaintiff seeking decree of permanent injunction against the defendants restraining them from holding any demonstration, dharna within a radius of 500 metres from the boundary walls and entrances of the Restaurant at Connaught Place, known as 'Kwality Restaurant' situated at 7, Regal Building, Connaught Place, New Delhi. Further injunction is sought restraining the defendants from holding demonstration at the residence of the Managing Partner, Mr.Sunil Lamba at N-23, Panchsheel Park, New Delhi.2. Facts giving rise to the filing of the present suit are as under:-3. Defendants No.1 to 5 are the workmen of the plaintiff as also the office bearers of the Union affiliated to Hotel Mazdoor Union and defendants No.6 and 7 are stated to be the President and General Secretary of that Union.4. It is averred in the plaint that defendant No.6 gave charter of demands dated 15th April, 2000 to the plaintiff seeking various financial demands includin...
Sudhir Nathani Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-24-2003
Reported in: 2003VIIIAD(Delhi)248; 108(2003)DLT108; 2004(72)DRJ116; 2003(3)JCC1883
J.D. Kapoor, J.1. This petition ruminates significant questions of law as it challenges the legality of impugned order dated 8.7.2003 passed by Sh.Prem Kumar, learned Special Judge whereby bail application of the petitioner was dismissed on his appearing in the court in response to summons for appearance issued while taking cognizance in a warrant case and was sent to judicial custody in spite of the fact that throughout investigation and till the filing of charge sheet under Section 173 Cr.P.C the petitioner was neither arrested nor brought before the court nor was forwarded in custody under Section 170 Cr.P.C.2. Following proposition of law emerges for determination:-'Whether the court after having exercised discretion to issue summons while taking cognizance under Section 204 Cr.P.C in a warrant case can enter into the domain of nature of offence other than those for which there is prohibition for granting bail under the provisions of Section 437 Cr.P.C and thereby send the accused ...
Commissioner of C. Ex. and Cus. Vs. V.V.F. Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jul-23-2003
Reported in: (2003)LC616Tri(Delhi)
1. The issue involved in this appeal, filed by the Revenue, is whether Soap noodles manufactured by M/s. V.V.F. Ltd. are classifiable under sub-heading No. 3401.19 as claimed by the Revenue or under sub-heading No. 3401.11 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act as confirmed by the Commissioner under the impugned order.2. Shri A.S. Bedi, learned SDR, submitted that the respondents M/s.V.V.F. Ltd. manufacture various brands of soap and also soap noodles; that soap noodles are consumed captively as well as are cleared for home consumption; when they clear soap noodles for home consumption they classify the same under sub-heading 3401.11 but when cleared for captive consumption they classify the same under sub-heading 3401.19; that the soap noodles remains soap noodles whether cleared for home consumption or for captive use and the classification cannot be changed on the basis of end-use. He, further, submitted that soap noodles are appropriately to be classified under sub-headi...
Commissioner of C. Ex. Vs. Ozone Ayurvedics
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jul-23-2003
Reported in: (2003)(90)ECC550
1. Revenue filed these appeals against the order-in-appeal passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), whereby the Commissioner (Appeals) held that wanish skin cream/lotion is manufactured by the respondents is a ayurvedic medicine.3. The contention of the revenue is that wanish skin cream/lotion is not a medicament as provided under Chapter 30 of the Central Excise Tariff. It is only a skin cream for preventing and diminishing post delivery stretch, scars, etc., and these marks, on the skin, are not a disease or ailment, but these are only a natural phenomena and the product, in question, is only used as cosmetic to improve the condition of the skin.4. The contention of the revenue is also that wanish skin cream/lotion can be used by any person at any time without the prescription of the medical practitioner. The contention of the revenue is that normally the medicine is prescribed by a medical practitioner and it is used for a limited period. The contention of the revenue is also that the...
Mangala Ispat (Jaipur) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jul-23-2003
Reported in: (2003)(161)ELT917TriDel
1. In this appeal which has been filed by the appellants against the impugned order-in-appeal, the issue relates to the availability of Modvat credit in respect of capital goods received by the appellants in their factory prior to 1-4-2000, but installed later on. Both the authorities below by placing reliance on the Board's Circular No.522/2000, has disallowed the credit.2. The learned Counsel has referred to CENVAT Rules which came into force on 1-4-2000 and the Board's Circular dated 3-4-2000, and contended that the impugned order is contrary to the provisions of Rule 57AC (2)(C) as well as the Board's Circular dated 3-4-2000.3. On the other hand, the learned JDR has reiterated the correctness of the impugned order.4. I have heard both sides and gone through the record. Undisputedly, the CENVAT Rules, which were notified vide Notification 11/2000-C.E.(N.T.), dated 1-3-2000 came into force from 1-4-2000. Under Rule 57AC (2)(c) a manufacturer is entitled to take Modvat credit on the ...
- ‹ Prev
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- Next ›
- Last »