Delhi Court February 2005 Judgments
Home Cases Delhi 2005 Page 7 of about 296 results (0.037 seconds)Shri N.K. Sethi Vs. India Trade Promotion Organization
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 118(2005)DLT181; 2005(80)DRJ630; 2005(3)SLJ345(Delhi)
Manmohan Sarin, J.1. Petitioner by this writ petition seeks revocation of his suspension and reinstatement by the respondent. Petitioner had been placed under suspension on 27.10.2003 in contemplation of the disciplinary proceedings to be initiated in a case being investigated by the Vigilance Department of the respondent. The Chairman-cum-Managing Director of respondent in exercise of the powers conferred under rule 22(1) of the ITPO (Employees) CDA Rules had passed the impugned order of suspension. 2. Petitioner's case in brief is that his continued suspension is contrary to the rules and in violation of Notification dated 23.12.2003 issued by the Department of Personnel and Training (DOPT) and the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules,1965. Petitioner contends that respondents having failed to carry out the reviews within the stipulated period of 90 days, the order of suspension could not be extended and is liable to be revoked in terms of the above Notif...
Tag this Judgment!Sartori Livio Vs. the State (Delhi Admin)
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 118(2005)DLT81; 2005(80)DRJ482; 2005(99)ECC545
Badar Durrez Ahmed, J.1. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the alleged recovery from the petitioner is of 20 gms of charas and 20 gms of smack, both of which are far below the commercial quantity. He further submits that this is the second application for bail. Earlier, the application for bail was rejected by this court on 04.11.2004 He says that since then, four more witnesses have been examined and there are several contradictions in their statements with regard to the recovery and the manner in which the samples have been sent to the FSL for testing. He also submits that insofar as 20 gms of charas are concerned, the punishment would be of six months only and that period has already been undergone by the petitioner, who is in judicial custody since 6.06.2004 The learned counsel for the petitioner, thereforee, argued that as the bar of Section 37 of the NDPS Act would not be applicable, this is a fit case in which the petitioner, who is an Italian national, should ...
Tag this Judgment!Microsoft Corporation Vs. Mr. Yogesh Papat and anr.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 118(2005)DLT580; 2005(30)PTC245(Del)
Pradeep Nandrajog, J.1. Plaintiff is the registered proprietor of the trade mark 'MICROSOFT'. The mark is registered in class 9 and 16 vide registration No. 430449-B and 430450-B. Plaintiff claims to have created various kinds of software in which plaintiff claims a proprietory right. When the software is sold, purchaser has a license agreement setting out the terms of permissible user of the software which is contained in a flopy. CD/floppies are handed over. Term of the license agreement permits the use of the CD's/flopies, as per conditions.2. It is stated in the plaint that the defendants, without a license are loading the software on the hard disk of computers being sold by them and in this manner are causing financial loss to the plaintiff. It is alleged that the defendants do not have any permission from the plaintiff to copy or sell the licensed programmes as per software developed by the plaintiff. Following reliefs are prayed for:-a) An order for permanent injunction restrain...
Tag this Judgment!Delhi Transport Corporation Vs. Shri Jasmer Singh (Ex-conductor 13688)
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 118(2005)DLT656; 2006(1)SLJ242(Delhi)
Mukul Mudgal, J.1. Rule. Pleadings are complete. With the consent of the counsel for the parties, the writ petition is taken up today for hearing.2. This writ petition challenges the Order dated 8th October, 2002, passed in O.P.No.107 of 1992 by the Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal-II, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi(hereinafter referred to as the `Tribunal') in an application under Section 33(2)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act(hereinafter referred to as the `ID Act') by the petitioner/DTC seeking approval of the action for the removal of the respondent from service.3. The charge related to non-issue of tickets to the passenger after collecting the tendered fare. The order finds against DTC and refuses permission for approval on the failure of the petitioner/DTC to produce before the Tribunal, the passengers, who paid the fare but were not issued tickets. The non-production of passengers is not a ground for setting aside the order of removal against the conductor, i.e., the responden...
Tag this Judgment!Sushil Kumar Raut Vs. Hotel Marina and ors.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 121(2005)DLT433; 2005(81)DRJ533
B.A. Khan, J.1. An impasse has been created with two arbitrators conducting parallel arbitration proceedings. One is the appointing Authority under the arbitration clause and the other his appointee. The appointing Authority (R-3) has revoked the authority of the appointee (R-3). Whether he could do so and who out of the two is the real arbitrator is the question. 2. This interesting question arises in the following facts. The appellant is a builder/contractor whereas respondent No. 1 is a partnership concern. Respondent No. 2 is the appointing authority under the arbitration agreement and respondent No. 3 is the arbitrator appointed by him. 3. Respondent No. 1 awarded a work contract for its hotel at Agra to be executed by respondent No. 1. The contract contained an arbitration clause which reads as under:'18. Settlement of Disputes Any dispute between you and owner's project Manager/Resident Engineer regarding true interpretation of this work order/contract or about any other matter,...
Tag this Judgment!Adidas Salomon Ag and ors. Vs. A. Dhawan
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 118(2005)DLT560
R.C. Chopra, J.1. This suit for permanent injunction restraining infringement of trade mark and copyrights, passing off, damages, rendition of accounts and delivery up, etc., was filed by the plaintiffs alleging that they are the proprietors of the trade mark 'adidas' which is being used since 1949 for the production and sale of shoes, track suits, T-shirts, shorts, polo shirts, socks, caps, wristbands, sun glasses, bags and various other accessories and equipment used in sports. This trade mark has acquired international trade reputation and goodwill and the goods manufactured and sold under this trade mark are distinctive and associated with plaintiffs' for the last so many years. The 'adidas' logo and trefoil device having three thick lines, which create an imaginary triangle, are being used for the last over fifty years by the plaintiffs to distinguish the plaintiffs' products which have enormous sales all over world. The said trade marks are valid and subsisting in India also. The...
Tag this Judgment!Adidas-salomon Ag and ors. Vs. Jagdish Grover
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 2005(30)PTC308(Del)
R.C. Chopra, J.1. This suit for permanent injunction restraining infringement of trade mark and copy rights, passing off, damages, rendition of accounts and delivery up etc., was filed by the plaintiffs alleging that they are the proprietors of the trade mark 'adidas' which is being used since 1949 for the production and sale of shoes, track suits, T-shirts, shorts, polo shirts, socks, caps wrist bands, sun glasses, bags and various other accessories and equipment used in sports. This trade mark has acquired international trade reputation and goodwill and the goods manufactured and sold under this trade mark are distinctive and associated with plaintiffs' for the last so many years. The 'adaidas' logo and trefoil device having three thick lines, which create an imaginary triangle, are being used for the last over fifty years by the plaintiffs' to distinguish the plaintiffs' products which have enormous sales all over world. The said trade marks are valid and subsisting in India also. T...
Tag this Judgment!Director of Income Tax (Exemptions) Vs. Indo Soviet Medicare and Resea ...
Court: Delhi
Reported in: (2005)196CTR(Del)183
ORDER1. CM No. 2318 of 2005The application is allowed, subject to just exceptions.2. The delay in re-filing the appeal is condoned.3. CM stands disposed of.IT Appeal No. 59 of 20054. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant at some length. The challenge in this appeal under Section 260A of the IT Act, 1961, is to the order passed by the Tribunal, dt. 30th Jan., 2004, for the asst. yr. 1990-91.5. The basic question that was determined by the Tribunal related to the benefit of Section 10(22) of the IT Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), on the ground that the assessed's work relates to the performance of contract and not for providing regular education for anybody interested in learning Russian language. The order of the AO making certain additions in that regard and declining the benefit of the above provision to the assessed, allowed the appeal of the assessed and held that the appellant would get a relief of Rs. 54,85,870 for the asst. yr. 1990-91 as well as for c...
Tag this Judgment!Dit Vs. Indo-soviet Medicare and Research Foundation
Court: Delhi
Reported in: [2005]146TAXMAN384(Delhi)
ORDERCM No. 2318/2005The application is allowed, subject to just exceptions.The delay in re-filing the appeal is condoned.CM stands disposed of.ITA No. 59/20051. We have heard learned counsel for the Appellant at some length. The challenge in this appeal under section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 is to the order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal dated 30-1-2004 for the assessment year 1990-91.2. The basic question that was determined by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal related to the benefit of section 10(22) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') on the ground that the assessed's work relates to the performance of contract and not for providing regular education for anybody interested in learning Russian language. The order of the assessing officer making certain additions in that regard and declining the benefit of the above provision to the assessed, allowed the appeal of the assessed and held that the Appellant would get a relief of Rs. 54...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Orient Paper and Industries Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (2005)(183)ELT126TriDel
1. Heard both sides. Common issue is involved in these appeals, therefore, they are being taken up together.2. Revenue filed these appeals against the Order-in-Appeal passed by the Commissioner (Appeals). The Commissioner (Appeals) in the impugned order held that question of penalty and interest will arise only if service tax is not paid within six months from 13-5-03 from the date of revalidation Act. Commissioner (Appeals) further held that if any violation is found to have been committed, a show cause notice was issued by the proper officer. In both the cases, Revenue is not disputing the fact that service tax has been paid by the appellant prior to six months from 13-5-2003.3. We find that Section 68 and 70 of Finance Act, 2003 amended respectively by the Finance Act, 2003 and a new Section 71A has been inserted to validate the collection of service tax from the service receiver in case of service of goods transport operator. This rule provides that in case service is provided by ...
Tag this Judgment!