Delhi Court August 2004 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.
Jai Gopal Goyal and anr. Vs. Shri Bishen Dayal Goyal
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-13-2004
Reported in: AIR2005Delhi39; 114(2004)DLT345; 2004(77)DRJ165
Mukul Mudgal, J. 1. The brief facts as stated by the plaintiff in the plaint are as follows:-(a) Though the suit property at C-254, defense Colony, New Delhi was acquired by the defendant in 1968, the plaintiff No. 1 came into possession thereof and started living in the premises as he was jointly with the defendant running the business in the name and style of M/s Steel Trading Company as the defendant was permanently settled in Calcutta. (b) The plaintiff No. 2 shifted in Delhi in the suit premises in the year 1979 due to losses suffered by him in his business in Rajasthan. In the year 1981-82 M/s Steel Trading Company was dissolved and the defendant became the sole proprietor thereof. The plaintiff No. 2 apart from looking after the business of the above firm, was also running his independent business of M/s Kalptaru Enterprises from the ground floor of the property in question. (c) The plaintiff No. 1 was occupying the entire first floor with servant quarter and the plaintiff No. 2...
Vinod Kumar JaIn Vs. Blumac Electricals India
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-13-2004
Reported in: [2005]128CompCas190(Delhi)
Vikramajit Sen, J.1. In this suit under Sections 134 and 135 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, the plaintiff has prayed for the issuance of ad interim injunction restraining the defendant from using, manufacturing, selling, advertising or displaying or directly or indirectly dealing in the trade mark 'Johnson' or any other trade mark identical with or deceptively similar thereto. It is not in dispute that this trade mark was in the ownership of Classic Equipments Pvt. Ltd., Delhi, which had in fact assigned it to the plaintiff vide deed dated April 1, 1999. Classic Equipments Pvt. Ltd. had become the proprietor of the trade mark 'Johnson' on its acquisition of M/s. Johnson Sales (India) by an agreement dated April 2, 1992.2. The factum of the execution of a registered user agreement dated March 23, 1992, between Classic Equipments Pvt. Ltd. and the defendant for a period of 51 years, subject to payment of royalty by the defendants is not in dispute. The agreement also includes a covenant t...
Sneh Contracts (P.) Ltd. Vs. Tara Cements Pvt. Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-13-2004
Reported in: [2005]128CompCas908(Delhi)
A.K. Sikri J.1. Tara Cements Private Limited, against whom C. P. No. 159 of 1994 was filed for winding up by the petitioner had taken finance from the Haryana Financial Corporation (HFC) as well and the immovable and movable properties were mortgaged/hypothecated with HFC. As the respondent-company failed to make payment to the HFC, the HFC put the property on land measuring 15 kanals 9 marlas situated in the revenue estate of village Tajpur, Tehsil Narnaul, District Mahendragarh to auction by inviting tenders. After various attempts ultimately the bid of Sh. Mukesh Kumar Sanghi, the applicant herein was accepted at Rs. 18 lakhs by the High Level Committee of HFC, vide order dated November 26, 2001. The applicant had deposited a sum of Rs. 15,000 at the spot on the date of auction and Rs. 2.70 lakhs, to cover 15 per cent. of the bid amount, after receipt of letter dated November 26, 2001. On January 23, 2002, an agreement to sell was entered into between the applicant by which time tot...
Flex Engineering Ltd. and Flex Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Aug-12-2004
Reported in: (2005)(99)ECC516
1. These two appeals have been filed by M/s. Flex Engineering Ltd. and M/s. Flex Industries Ltd. against Order-in-Original No. 71-72/2000 dated 30.12.2000 by which the Commissioner has confirmed the demand of duty and imposed penalties on both the Appellants.2. Shri K.K. Anand, learned Advocate submitted that M/s. Flex Industries Ltd., Appellant No. 2, imported 100 pieces of seamless carbon steel pipes which were declared by them as capital goods for the purpose of availing the Modvat credit Under Rule 57 Q of the Central Excise Rules, 1944; that they filed an intimation dated 25.3.96 with the Department Under Rule 57 S (5) [subsequently 57 S (7)] of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 for removal of the said pipes for repair/reconditioning to M/s. Flex Engineering Ltd., Appellant No. 1; that two show cause notices were issued to them for demanding Central Excise duty on the ground that the job work done by the Appellant No. 1 was not in the nature of repairing/reconditioning but it amount...
Arvind Chemicals Ltd. Vs. Cce
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Aug-12-2004
Reported in: (2004)(96)ECC289
2. Appellants filed this appeal against the Adjudication order passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise.3. The appellants are engaged in the manufacture of Rubberized Coir Mattresses. The appellants filed classification list claiming the benefit of Small Scale Exemption Notification. The Adjudicating authority denied the benefit of the notification and approved the classification list.4. The appellants filed appeal and Commissioner (Appeals) allowed the appeal filed by the appellants. The Revenue challenged the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) and the Tribunal vide Final Order No.256/04-B dated 3.3.2004 dismissed the appeal filed by the Revenue.5. The present proceedings were initiated by issuing a show cause notice in consequence to the approval of classification list whereby the benefit of notification is denied. The classification issue is settled by the Tribunal by holding that appellants are entitled for the benefit of Notification No. 6/2000-CE, dated 1.3.2000 and ...
Saveair India Ltd. Vs. C.C.E.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Aug-12-2004
Reported in: (2005)(99)ECC29
1. Shri R. Krishnan, learned Advocate, submitted that M/s. Saveair India Ltd., manufactured parts of air-conditioning system, exhaust units and scrap of iron and aluminium and availed MODVAT Credit of the duty paid on the inputs; that they were selling their finished goods on F.O.R. destination basis and have taken transit risk insurance policy for covering the risk of the goods from factory gate to the customer site. The Revenue has confirmed the demand of duty by including the cost of freight and insurance in the assessable value. The learned Advocate, further, submitted that the issue stands decided by the Supreme Court in the case of Escorts JCB Ltd. v. CCE, 2002 (146) ELT 31 (SC) wherein it has been held that the ownership property has no relevance in so far as insurance of goods sold, during transit, is concerned and that the view that the ownership in the property continues to be retained by the assessee till it is delivered to the buyer for the reason that the assessee has arr...
Graduate Engineers and Vs. C.C.E.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Aug-12-2004
Reported in: (2005)(99)ECC20
2. Heard Departmental Representative. The issue involved in this appeal is in regard to the classification of Gear Ring Halves. The Revenue classified the Gear Rings under Heading 8483.00 of the Central Excise Tariff, whereas appellants claimed the Classification under Heading 8417.00 of the Central Excise Tariff as part of the claim.3. We find that issue is already settled by the Tribunal in the case of HMT Ltd. (Machine Tool Division) v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Hyderabad, 2003(151) ELT 666 (Tri.-Bang). In this case the Tribunal held that Gears Rings, even if specially designed for machines, are classifiable under Heading 8483 of the Central Excise Tariff. In view of the above decision, we find no merit in the appeal. The appeal is dismissed....
Jt. Cit Vs. Dinesh Kumar Gupta
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Decided on: Aug-12-2004
Reported in: (2005)2SOT126(Delhi)
As common facts are involved in these 3 appeals the same were argued together by the learned Departmental Representative and the learned authorised representative of the assessee. These appeals are being decided by this consolidated order, for convenience.Appeal in ITA No. 502 is appeal filed by the revenue on 4-2-2000 against the order of learned CIT(A)XXlX, New Delhi dated 5-11-1999. In this appeal the dispute is as to whether the income arising to the assessee on sale of shares should be assessed under the head 'capital gains' as held by the learned CIT(A) or the same should be assessed as business income as contended by the revenue.Facts of the case leading to this dispute briefly are that the assessee carried on business in the name of M/s. Sharad Sales and M/s. Keshav Agencies. Under the name of M/s. Sharad Sales the assessee carried on the business of dealing in motor parts. In the name of M/s. Keshav Agencies the assessee dealt in shares to only of 2 companies viz., M/s.Goetz ...
Ex. Capt. R.S. Dhull Vs. Union of India (Uoi) Through Secretary, Minis ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-12-2004
Reported in: 113(2004)DLT338
Mukundakam Sharma, J 1. The issue that arises for consideration in this writ petition is whether an Emergency Commissioned Officer, who was engaged and appointed as Captain for a total period of 10 years, 1 month and 23 days would be entitled to claim pension and other benefits under the provisions of the Pension Regulation as admissible to Permanent Regular Commissioned Officers of the armed forces. 2. The petitioner joined the Indian Army as an Emergency Commissioned Officer on 29.4.1963. After the aforesaid engagement, the petitioner served from 29.4.1963 to 1.7.1968 as Emergency Commissioned Officer in the rank of Captain. The petitioner again served the Indian Army as an Emergency Commissioned Officer from 31.10.1969 to 22.9.1974. Thus the total military service rendered by the petitioner was 10 years, 1 month and 23 days (5 years, 2 months and 2 days in the first stint and 4 years, 11 month and 21 days in the second stint). 3. It is stated in the petition that despite the aforesa...
Ashwani Mathur Vs. Chief of the Air Staff and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-12-2004
Reported in: 112(2004)DLT197; 2004(76)DRJ165
Mukundakam Sharma, J. 1. This petition is filed by the petitioner challenging the action of the respondents in imposing upon him the market rate damage rent for occupation of the residential accommodation of the respondents. The petitioner has alleged in the petition that he was allotted a Station Married Quarter No.206/8 on 1.6.99 and that as per the extant rules the petitioner was entitled to remain in the said quarter for a period of five years. It was also stated that as per the provisions of Para 1725 of the Air Force Regulations, the petitioner is entitled to remain in the service quarter as long as he is posted with the present strength. As the petitioner was transferred/posted out to 35 wing, on 27.4.2001, he moved an application for retention of the station married quarter for the reason of posting in the modified field area, which was filed on 17.9.2001. It is alleged that not only the said request was not acceded to but instead the respondent No. 2 issued a letter/notice dat...
- ‹ Prev
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 14
- 15
- 16
- 17
- 18
- Next ›
- Last »