Delhi Court October 2005 Judgments

Kuldip Gandotra Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: (2006)IILLJ51Del; 2006(2)SLJ299(Delhi)

Sanjiv Khanna, J. 1. The petitioner Mr. Kuldip Gandotra has filed the present writ petition against the order dated September 13, 1993 passed by the Rashtriya Pariyojna Nirman Nigam (hereinafter referred to as respondent No. 2, in short) accepting his request for voluntary retirement and stating that he shall be relieved from the service on September 22, 1993. It is a case of the petitioner that the order dated September 13, 1993 was received by him on September 18, 1993 but before the said date he had on September 14, 1993 withdrawn his application and retracted his request for voluntary retirement. 2. In nutshell the case of the petitioner is that before the acceptance of his offer to go on voluntary retirement by the respondent No. 2, the petitioner was competent to withdraw his offer and in fact he had withdrawn his offer to go on voluntary retirement and, thereforee, the acceptance communicated and received by him on September 18, 1993 is illegal and void ab initio as no concluded...

Sanjeev Woollen Mills and ors. Vs. Commissioner of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2006)(106)ECC116

1. Sanjeev Woollen Mills is a manufacturer of blankets and other items and had obtained DEC licence No. P/E/000236 dated 4.10.89 for duty free import of inputs and export of products manufactured out of those inputs. The licence permitted the import of synthetic waste/soft quality predominating acrylic contents, rest non-cellulosic and cellulosic/other textile fibre waste in terms of the import licence. It filed Bill of Entry No. 10537 dated 29.12.89 for the clearance of 159 bales of goods declared as 'Synthetic waste'. The weight of the consignment was over 36 tonnes and value was a little over Rs. Three lakhs. Invoice dated 16.10.89 produced showed the price of US $ .50 per Kg. This invoice was from M/s. A. Martin Bunzl Ltd. of London.2. The Customs Authorities doubted the nature of the goods under import as well as its value. Accordingly, investigations were initiated.Pending the outcome of the investigation, the importer was permitted to clear the goods on provisional basis and th...

Hbl Nife Power Systems Ltd. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and anr.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 124(2005)DLT202

Vikramajit Sen, J.1. In this writ petition it has been prayed that a writ, order or direction be issued to the Respondents requiring it to issue RFP (Request For Proposal) to the Petitioner in respect of Submarine Batteries Types I, II and III as the Petitioner is already registered with DGQA for various items including advanced batteries and sample cells, which are alleged to be the most critical part of submarine battery; cancelling the Proprietary Article Certificate (PAC) issued to Exide Batteries; and directing the Respondents to forthwith issue RFP to the Petitioner also for the Submarine Battery for the period up to 2009/2010.2. It has been contended by learned Senior counsel appearing for the Petitioner that the Director, Ministry of defense, Department of defense Production had recommended the avoidance of a monopolistic situation and encouragement of the 2nd source for timely supply of various types of batteries required by the Indian Navy; a similar recommendation of the Dep...

Colgate Palmolive Co. Limited and anr. Vs. Mr. Patel and anr.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2005(31)PTC583(Del)

Mukul Mudgal, J.1. A chromatic monopoly in respect of red and white colours claimed by the plaintiff by virtue of the registration of its mark is the issue which arises in this application for interim relief which affects not only the large tooth paste market in India in particular but also the issue of exclusive rights to a particular colour scheme generally. 2. The plaintiff No. 1 Colgate Palmolive Co. Ltd. and Plaintiff No. 2 Colgate-Palmolive (India) Limited have filed the present suit for permanent injunction restraining infringement of trade mark and copyright, passing off, unfair competition, damages, rendition of accounts against the defendant No. 1, Director of Ajanta India Limited, and defendant No. 2, Ajanta India Limited. 3. The plaintiffs have averred that they are an undoubted international market leader in the tooth paste trade and the plaintiff No. 2 is manufacturing and marketing Colgate toothpaste in India since 1937. The core issue enumerated above arises in view of ...

Jagatjit Industries Ltd. and anr. Vs. the Controller General of Patent ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2006(32)PTC391(Del)

Vikramajit Sen, J.1. This petition had been disposed of by Orders dated September 13, 2005. This application has been filed by Respondent No.3, namely, Austin Nichols and Co. Inc. seeking a clarification in that Order.2. The Order dated 13.9.2005 has been misconstrued by the Petitioner. This is indeed unfortunate and regrettable since it was in the nature of a consent order. I had directed the Controller General of Patents, Designs and Trademarks, New Delhi to dispose of the proceedings pending before it on or before 16.11.2005. Thereafter I had taken note of the pendency of a Civil Suit in Jalandhar. However, it had been incorrectly observed that an injunction restraining Austin Nichols from selling Benders Pride Whisky in India had been passed in those proceedings.3. The parties had agreed that till 16.11.2005 status quo would be maintained. It was in this context that an expectation had been expressed by this Court that the District Court at Jalandhar would consider the expediency o...

V.K. Sharma Vs. Union of India (Uoi)

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 124(2005)DLT606; 2005(85)DRJ165

Mukul Mudgal, J.1. Rule has already been issued in this writ petition on 19th May, 1998. With the consent of the counsel for the parties, the writ petition is taken up for final hearing.2. This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenges the Order dated 16th September, 1995 passed by the respondent.3. The facts of this are not in dispute. In November, 1964 the petitioner was appointed as `Emergency Commissioned Officer' in 5th Battalion Jammu and Kashmir Rifles. In 1968 he was posted at Secunderabad as Officer Commanding, Andhra Pradesh. While undergoing training at Intelligence School, Pune, the petitioner used the unit's vehicle to return to Sholapur as his scooter broke down. On 8th June, 1970 the petitioner was dismissed from service inter alias on the ground of use of unit's vehicle without permission and due to dishonour of cheques. The petitioner stand was that he was traveling to report for duty to Secundrabad on account of his scooter having broken ...

Jaspal Singh Vs. Asha Rani and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: II(2006)ACC587; 2006ACJ577; (2006)142PLR21

ORDERPradeep Nandrajog, J.1. R-6, Kusum Singh was the registered owner of two-wheeler scooter bearing No. DL-4S-A-8170. The scooter struck another two wheeler scooter which resulted in the death of Ramesh Chand.2. By and under the impugned award finding returned is that Jasmeet Singh (respondent No. 5 in appeal), son of appellant was driving the motor vehicle i.e., scooter No. DL-4S-A-8170. Finding is that he was driving the scooter in a rash and negligent manner and death of Ramesh Chand is due to his afore-noted rash and negligent act.3. On the issue of ownership of the offending scooter, evidence came on record that the appellant had signed on Form-30 (Transfer Form). However, he took the defense that he had signed the form blank and that the deal did not materialize.4. For record, I may note that stated transfer of the scooter from respondent No. 6 to the appellant was stated to have been somewhere in July, 1992.5. The Tribunal has accordingly held that the appellant as well as res...

Vijaya Bank Vs. Arya Central Transport Limited

Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi

J.D. Kapoor, President: 1. On account of deficiency in service on the part of the appellant Bank inasmuch as it did not take due diligence in clearing as many as five cheques with forged signatures of the respondent and without establishing the knowledge of the respondent as to the forgery of the cheques, has been directed vide impugned order dated 27.8.1998 passed by the District Forum to pay Rs. 1,40,000/- towards the withdrawal amount of five cheques. Feeling aggrieved the appellant has directed this appeal. 2. Relevant facts stated below are self explanatory to demonstrate the lack of due diligence on the part of the appellant Bank and the conspiracy of the appellant Bank in making unauthorised withdrawal from the account of the respondent. Respondent has current account No. 15 with the appellant Bank, which was being operated through its cashier Sh. Bansal. As many as five cheques bearing No. 157502 dated 2.8.1993 amounting to Rs. 20,000, cheque No. 157503 dated 3.8.1993 amounting...

Smt. Savitri Devi and anr. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 124(2005)DLT180; 2005(85)DRJ175; [2006(107)FLR1116]

Sanjiv Khanna, J.1. The present writ petition is directed against the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal dated 16.9.2003 dismissing the original application filed by the petitioner No. 2 Mr. Mukesh Kumar and his mother, Mrs. Savitri Devi. By the impugned order learned Tribunal upheld the order dated 8.2.2002 passed by the respondent rejecting the request of the petitioners for compassionate appointment of Mr. Mukesh Kumar in view of the death of his father Mr. Shiv Dutt. The petitioners thereafter filed a misc. application, which was also dismissed by the learned Tribunal by order dated 17.11.2003. This order is also impugned in the present writ petition.2. Mr. Shiv Dutt, father of the petitioner No. 2 was appointed as a book binder in the Government of India Press, Faridabad on 19.12.1967. He expired on 18.1.2000 and at the time of death he was about 58 years old and ad about two years to go before his retirement. The petitioner No. 2 and his mother Mrs. Savitri Devi made an...

Guljar Singh Vs. Union of India (Uoi)

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 124(2005)DLT114; (2006)IILLJ690Del

Sanjiv Khanna, J.1. The petitioner Mr. Guljar Singh was appointed as a Gangman in the Civil Engineering Department of Northern Railway. After several promotions, he was working as Inspector at Railway Station, Jhandiala, Punjab. On 3.6.1983 there was a rail accident in which last four wheels of the rear trolley of the last coach of a train got derailed, however, no one died in the said accident.2. Disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the petitioner in respect of the said accident. During the course of the enquiry proceedings, the petitioner made an application dated 3rd December, 1984 to call five persons, namely, Nathu Ram, Chander Mandal, Budh Prakash, R.S. Mathur and Joginder Singh, as defense witnesses. Later on by letter dated 24th January, 1985, this list was reduced and the petitioner informed the enquiry officer that he wanted to examine Mr. Budh Prakash, Mr. R.S. Mathur and the driver of the train as his defense witnesses. The enquiry officer was asked to arrange to...