Delhi Court January 2005 Judgments

Konark Printing and Packaging Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2005)(182)ELT319TriDel

2. The contention of the assessee is that they have only carried out printing of paper and paperboards as job work, and printed products attract nil duty under chapter sub-heading 4901.90. During the hearing of the case, learned Counsel has drawn our attention to the invoices in question and submitted that invoices make it clear that the activity undertaken by the appellant was limited to printing.3. Perusal of the invoices show that the job work carried out by the appellant was that of printing and since this attracted no duty, the duty demand is not sustainable. The impugned Order is set aside and the appeal is allowed....

Mother Dairy Foods and Processing Ltd. Vs. Zee Telefilms Ltd.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: AIR2005Delhi195; 117(2005)DLT272; 2005(80)DRJ74; 2005(30)PTC219(Del)

Manmohan Sarin, J.1. Plaintiff by the application bearing I.A. No. 8185/2003 under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151, Code of Civil Procedure, seeks a restraint on the defendant from telecasting, publishing or showing on the website, its programme titled 'Inside Story- Safed Doodh Ka Kala Karobar' or any variant of the said programme, in so far as it concerns the name, goodwill and fame of the plaintiff.2. The plaintiff filed the suit for permanent injunction and seeks a decree of damages of Rs. 1,05,00,000/- (Rupees One Crore Five lacs only). Plaintiff claims that the impugned programme contains references to the plaintiff which are defamatory. Programme has immensely harmed the goodwill and reputation of the plaintiff.3. Plaintiff, Mother Dairy Food Processing Ltd. a Public Sector Enterprise is a major supplier of milk and milk products. It professes to supply quality milk in the National capital region, while offering remunerative prices to rural milk producers organized ...

Hari Mohan Gupta Vs. D.D.A.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 117(2005)DLT178; 2005(80)DRJ5

S. Ravindra Bhat, J.1. Issue Rule. With consent of parties, the petition has been finally heard.2. In these proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution, a direction has been claimed for quashing the demand of respondent Delhi Development Authority ( DDA) in respect of a 60 square yard plot. Additionally, a direction has been sought to the DDA for charging the cost prevailing in 1989 in respect of the plot allotted to the petitioner.3. The petitioner had initially registered himself in the housing scheme of DDA, known as the MIG (Middle Income Scheme), in 1971. In the year 1981, DDA launched another scheme known as the Residential Plots for the Rohini Residential Scheme (hereafter called 'the Rohini scheme'). Existing registrants in other schemes, like the petitioner, were offered an option to apply under the Rohini Scheme, upon exercise of option, such registrants were given a 'priority number' in the scheme. It appears that the scheme, accommodated different categories, which in...

Sajay Bansal Vs. Sh. Rakesh K. Ahlawat and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: [2006]130CompCas634(Delhi); 2005(80)DRJ91

S. Ravindra Bhat, J.1. Issue Rule. With consent of parties, taken up for final hearing.2. In these proceedings, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, an appropriate writ/ order has been sought against the respondents from taking over physical possession of portion of first floor property, South Extension Part-I, New Delhi ('the suit property'). The action assailed is under Section 14(2) of the Securitisationand Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act 2002 (hereinafter referred to as the 'SecuritisationAct'). A further direction seeking certiorari against an order dated 1.12.2004 passed by the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Delhi in Case No. 232/2004, at the request of the second respondent No. 3 has also been sought.3. The petitioner claims to be a tenant of the suit property; he alleges that the tenancy was created on 15.5.2001, by an unregistered deed. The pleadings and materials disclose that the tenancy was stated to be for a unlimited ...

Hindustan Pencils Limited Vs. G.T.V. Marketing

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 117(2005)DLT386

Pradeep Nandrajog, J.1. Mr. Manmohan Singh stated that he has instructions to press only reliefs A & B as prayed for.2. Defendant was proceeded ex parte. Plaintiff has led evidence by way of affidavit.3. Prayer made is to injunct the defendant or any person acting under it from selling mathematical instruments, pencils, erasers and other stationery goods using the trade mark NATRAJ/GTV'S NATRAJ or other device of NATRAJ or any mark deceptively similar to the said trade mark. By way of evidence led, plaintiff has established that it is the registered proprietor of the trade mark NATRAJ with device of NATRAJ in respect of goods falling in Class 16. Goods being pencils, Sharpners, fountain pens, erasers, clips, staples, stapling presses, adhesive materials, paint brushes, etc. registration was obtained as per documents proved on various dates commencing from 17.8.1979 onwards.4. Evidence led would show that the plaintiff has effected sales which have risen from Rs. 77,000/- in the year 19...

Navdeep Vs. State

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 118(2005)DLT105; I(2005)DMC552; 2005(80)DRJ486

Manju Goel, J.1. Sunita, wife of the petitioner Navdeep died of burn injuries on 5.8.2001. On 3.8.2001 an information was received by sub inspector Kishan Kumar of PS Mandavli in respect of the incident in which Sunita had put kerosene oil on herself. Sunita's statement was recorded by the SDM, Preet Vihar. In her statement she attributed burn injuries to an accident. The mother of the deceased made a statement indicting the petitioner. Statements on some other witnesses were recorded and thereafter a challan u/s 498 IPC was filed. However, the Magistrate observed that a case should have been registered u/s 304B & 498 A IPC. He found that the local police had not done sufficient investigation. Vide order dated 9.5.2002, he directed the DCP (East) to conduct an inquiry into the whole episode and to take action against any official if found guilty for any lapse or inaction and to file a report. This order was challenged before this court and vide order dated 18.2.2003, this Court again d...

Digital Filing System Inc. Vs. Akhilesh Agarwal and anr.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: AIR2005Delhi282; 118(2005)DLT313; 2005(30)PTC574(Del)

1. Whether this Court or for that matter any Civil Court in India could injunct a person from pursuing his lawfully instituted proceedings in a foreign Court and whether such injunction would amount to staying the proceedings of that Court are the interesting questions arising in this appeal.2. The appeal is directed against an ex-parte interim order dated 27.7.2004 passed by the learned Trial Judge in respondent's suit No.1470/2002 and interim stay matter (IA No.2785/2003) directing appellant not to proceed any further in his case pending in the Court of Magistrate Judge PEPE, United States District Court at Michigan, USA. 3. The parties are involved in a dispute on infringement of copyright in software under the name 'DIGIFILE'. While Appellant has filed a suit at Michigan, USA seeking cancellation of US copyright registration obtained by the respondent the respondent has also filed a declaratory and injunction suit in this regard along with an application under Section 39, Order 1 a...

Mr. Vijay Budhraja and anr. Vs. R.K. Sandhu, Dcit

Court: Delhi

Reported in: (2006)203CTR(Del)293

Manju Goel, C.J.1. The petitioners originally filed this petition under Articles, 226, 227 and 14 of the Constitution of India read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing the complaint filed by the respondent - Mr. R.K. Sandhu, DCIT. Office of the Appropriate Authority under Section 276 AB of the Income Tax Act. On the statement of learned Counsel for the petitioners, the writ petition was treated as Criminal Revision Petition on 5-9-2003.2. Section 269UC of the Income-tax Act (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') requires that whenever an immovable property exceeding a prescribed minimum is sought to be transferred by way of sale, exchange or lease, an agreement for transfer be executed at least four months before the intended transaction and that agreement be recorded in a prescribed manner and be furnished to the appropriate authority in such manner and within such time as may be prescribed by each of the parties to such transaction. In case this provision ...

J.U. Mansukhani and Co. Vs. Kalyan Tiwary

Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi

J.D. Kapoor, President: 1. Appellant is a share broker. Vide impugned order dated 23.12.1997, passed by the District Forum, it has been directed to either deliver the shares of M/s. Rockland Leasing Ltd. of the value of Rs. 1,03,115/- to the respondent or refund the amount to him with interest @ 12% p.a. from the date of payment till the date of realisation, on account of deficiency in service. 2. Facts giving rise to this appeal are that the respondent invested Rs. 35,000/- with the appellant towards purchase of shares of M/s. Rockland Leasing Ltd. in March, 1994. He handed over share certificates of Shri S. Gadekar for sale from which the respondent realised Rs. 58,800/- making the total of Rs. 93,800/-. Shares worth Rs. 65,685/- of M/s. Rockland Leasing Ltd. were delivered leaving the balance of Rs. 28,115/- with the appellant. The respondent further deposited a sum of Rs. 25,000/- on 1.4.1994 and Rs. 30,000/- on 16.4.1994 making the total deposit of Rs. 1,03,115/- but no further sh...

R.K. Saini Vs. Shakuntala Bajpai

Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi

J.D. Kapoor, President: 1. Appellant is an Advocate by profession. Vide order dated 23.8.2001, passed by the District Forum, he has been directed to return the documents of the respondent lying with him and to pay compensation and cost of Rs. 2,000/- on account of deficiency in service inasmuch as that the appellant had no right to retain the document and cannot put any rider for the return of the same. 2. Feeling aggrieved he has preferred this appeal. 3. Relevant facts in brief are that service of the appellant were hired by the respondent for filing a writ petition in the High Court for which Rs. 5,000/- as professional charges and Rs. 1,000/- expenses were quoted. According to the respondent she had paid Rs. 2,500/- by way of cheque and when the respondent apprehended that no writ has been filed as no copy of the judgment was given to her she demanded a suitable compensation. 4. Perusal of the record shows that the appellant had filed the writ petition in the High Court within thre...