Delhi Court September 2003 Judgments

Talbros (P) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2003)(158)ELT247TriDel

1. The present appeals have been directed against a common order-in-appeal dated 31-1-2003 vide which the Commissioner (Appeals), has upheld the Order-in-Original of the adjudicating authority who confirmed the duty and penalty as detailed therein, on the appellants, for the period in dispute.2. The only issue involved in the appeal is as to whether the appellants had used the brand name "Talbros" belonging to M/s. Talbros Automotive Components Ltd., on their products and as such are not entitled to the benefit of the SSI exemption Notification. The facts are not much in dispute. The appellants are engaged in the manufacture of Rubber Parts, and Cork Sheets, gaskets classifiable under Tariff Headings 45 and 40. They are clearing these goods under the brand-name "Talbros Rubber Parts".3. The Revenue has sought to deny them the benefit of SSI Exemption Notification on the ground that the brand-name'Talbros" belongs to M/s.Talbros Automotive Components Ltd. who are engaged in the manufac...

Chhaya Rani Vs. Shardanand and anr.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: I(2004)ACC316; 2003VIIIAD(Delhi)47

S.K. Mahajan, J. 1. The appellants have filed this appeal challenging the award of the Tribunal whereby the Tribunal has attributed contributory negligence on the part of the deceased in causing the accident and has awarded only 50% of the total compensation in favor of the appellants. The appellants besides challenging the findings of the Tribunal on contributory negligence have also sought enhancement of compensation not only on the ground that the Tribunal has not taken into consideration the future prospects in the life and career of the deceased but also on the ground that the multiplier has not been correctly applied and just compensation has thus not been awarded in their favor. A few facts relevant for deciding this appeal are:-The deceased at the time of the accident was about 30 years old and was working as a skilled turner at a salary of Rs. 800/- per month in a factory in Wazirpur Industrial Area. On the fateful day the deceased was going on his bicycle so as to join duty i...

Filtrex Consultatnts and Engineers Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union of India (Uoi)

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2004IIAD(Delhi)102; 2003(3)ARBLR474(Delhi); 112(2004)DLT896; 2004(1)RAJ204

S.K. Mahajan, J.1. ADMIT.2. The appellant has filed this appeal challenging the judgment dated 28.9.1996, passed by the learned Additional District Judge whereby his application for making the award a rule of the Court and passing decree in terms thereof was dismissed and the award and proceedings were directed to be returned to the Arbitrator for being presented in a Court of competent jurisdiction. A few facts relevant for deciding the appeal are :-3. In the matter of dispute between the parties an Arbitrator was appointed who made and published his award on 8.4.1994. That award was filed in a Court in Delhi and after notice of filing of the award was served on the parties, objections thereto were filed by the respondents. Besides other objections taken by the respondents, the respondents also objected to the jurisdiction of the Courts in Delhi to entertain the petition on the ground that as no cause of action had accrued within the territorial jurisdiction of the Delhi Courts, it ha...

Salma Begum and ors. Vs. Vinod Kumar Malhotra and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: I(2004)ACC351; 2003VIIAD(Delhi)522

S.K. Mahajan, J. 1. ADMIT.2. With the consent of the parties, matter has been heard and disposed of by this order.3. The appellant has filed this appeal for enhancement of compensation for the death of their four year old son who died in a road accident alleged to have been caused by the rash and negligent driving of the vehicle owned by respondent no.1 and insured with respondent no.2. The Tribunal has awarded Rs.1 lakh as compensation in favor of the appellants along with interest @ 9% per annum. Learned counsel for the appellant has relied upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in Lata Wadhwa and others Versus State of Bihar and others : (2001)IILLJ1559SC to contend that the Supreme court in the case of the death of a child between the age of 5 to 10 years had awarded compensation of Rs.2 lakhs. It is submitted that the compensation, thereforee, awarded by the Tribunal need be enhanced.4. In Lata Wadhwa and others Versus State of Bihar and others (supra) the Court was concerned with...

Dev Pharmcy Vs. Nova International

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2003(27)PTC395(Del)

Mahmood Ali Khan, J.1. Plaintiff has filed this application for amendment of paragraph 10 of the plaint. The proposed amendment is specified in paragraph 4 of the application, which is as under:--'Further the plaintiff also issued upon the defendant cease and desist notice dated 19.7.2003 to discontinue forthwith their impugned activities under the trademark Paurush Jiwan Label of the plaintiff. This notice was duly replied to on 23.7.2003 and 26.7.2003 respectively wherein instead of complying with the terms of the notice, the defendant blatantly denied the knowledge of the plaintiffs products under the impugned trademark. Besides the replies are illegal, vague and baseless.'2. The plaintiff has fifed this suit for passing off action against the defendant. The defendant has not filed the written statement as yet. Instead has filed an application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC which is yet to be heard. The proposed amendment does not change the nature of the suit. It does not cause any prej...

Bishamber Dayal Vs. Govt. of N.C.T. of Delhi and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 109(2003)DLT28; 2004(73)DRJ689

Mukul Mudgal, J.1. This writ petition challenges the impugned Award dated 13th December, 2002 rejecting the stand of the workman/petitioner herein that he had joined the management, respondent No.3 herein in the month of December, 1955 at the age of 18 years and there was no superannuation age in the company and many workmen worked up to the age of even 70 years. Since the petitioner was retired in the year 1994 upon the company's view that he had attained the age of sixty years, he challenged the retirement on the ground that his correct date of birth entitled him to work even up to the year 1998. He has further submitted that he had produced the school transfer certificate issued by the concerned school in the year 1995 after his retirement which shows his date of birth as 14th July, 1938, entitling him to continue at least up to the age of sixty years till 1998.2. By the impugned Award dated 13th December, 2002, the Labour Court has found as under:(a) That the school transfer certif...

Social Jurist, a Lawyers Group Vs. Delhi Development Authority and ors ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2003VIIIAD(Delhi)142; 107(2003)DLT757

ORDERA.K. Sikri, J. 1. This writ petition is filed for direction to take all necessary steps to provide immediate adequate number of street lights and permanent electricity connection to the houses occupied by the people of Hastsaal Re-settlement Colony.2. The colony came in existence for the benefit of people residing in Jhuggis and for those who were occupying Jhuggis have been settled in the said re-settlement colony.3. The main grievance raised in the writ petition is that there is no electrification in the re-settlement colony in question despite the fact that the persons relocated in that area have paid their share of money as per the scheme. Insofar as provision of street lights is concerned, admittedly it is the responsibility of the DDA. On behalf of the DDA, it is stated that 70 per cent of the area is already provided with street lights and remaining street lights would be provided within a period of four months.thereforee, we direct the DDA to provide the street lights as a...

Mrs. Vimla Goyal Vs. Assistant Engineer, Delhi Vidyut Board

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 28.5.2003, passed by District Forum (Central), Mahrana Pratap Bus Terminal, Kashmere Gate, Delhi, in Complaint Case No. 2749/2000 entitled Smt. Vimla Goyal v. The Assistant Engineer, Delhi Vidyut Board. 2. The facts, relevant for the disposal of the present appeal, briefly stated, are that the appellant Smt. Vimla Goyal had filed a complaint under Section 12 of the Act before the District Forum, averring therein that the appellant was a tenant in shop No. 2. Plot No. 1, Block No. 51, Opp. Khalsa College Old Building. Deshbandhu Gupta Road, Karol Bagh, New Delhi. It was stated that the appellant applied for the supply of electricity connection for commercial purpose vide her application No. 237072 in January, 2000. It was stated that necessary inspection was carried out and inspection repor...

Jaipal Singh Vs. Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Limited and Others

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 12.5.2003, passed by District Forum (North West), Shalimar Bagh, Delhi in Complaint Case No.504/2002 entitled Shri Jaipal Singh v. Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Limited and Ors. 2. The facts, relevant for the disposal of the above mentioned appeal lie in a narrow compass. The appellants Mr. Jaipal Singh had filed a complaint under Section 12 of the Act before the District Forum averring therein that the appellant was a consumer in respect of telephone connection bearing No. 7284618, installed at his residence, situated at 66, Village Lampur, Narela, Delhi. It was stated that in respect of the above mentioned telephone connection the appellant regularly had been making the payment of the bills since December, 2000. It was stated that in June, 2001 the above said telephone of the appellant starte...

Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Ltd. and Another Vs. K.K. Electronics and An ...

Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi

Lokeshwar Prasad, President: 1. The present appeal, filed by the appellants under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), is directed against order dated 5th December, 2000, passed by District Forum - VII, Sheik Sarai, New Delhi, in Complaint Case No. 357/2000 - entitled Kay Kay Electronics (Regd.) and Anr. v. Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Ltd. and Anr. 2. The facts, relevant for the disposal of the present appeal, beiefly stated, are that respondent No. 2, Mr. Avtar Krishan, in his capacity as sole proprietor of respondent No. 1, had filed a complaint under Section 12 of the Act before the District Forum, averring therein that respondent No. 1 was a subscriber in respect of telephone, bearing No. 5799388, installed at his shop situated at WZ-396, Naraina Village, New Delhi. It was stated in the complaint, filed by the respondent, that telephone bills in respect of the above said telephone always had been below Rs. 500/- except the bill dated 1...