Delhi Court July 2005 Judgments

Pioneer Polyfeb Limited Vs. Goyal Mg Gases Limited

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 124(2005)DLT458

A.K. Sikri, J. 1. The petitioner had supplied certain material, namely, HDPE pipes of certain specifications to the respondent (hereinafter referred to as `the company') and raised invoices numbers 33, 34, 35 and 36 of dated 21st May, 1999 for a sum of Rs. 4,44,540/- each and invoices numbers 37 and 38, both dated 22nd May, 1999 for a sum of Rs.4,00,086/- each and invoice No.39 dated 22nd May, 1999 for a sum of Rs. 3,85,268/-. According to the petitioner, total amount payable against these invoices was Rs. 29,63,600/-. The company, however, paid Rs. 2,50,000/- , that too belatedly and after much persuasion on 13th March, 2000 and even when vide letter dated 2nd August, 2000 the petitioner agreed to allow a special discount of 8% on the accepted basic price, excise duty @ 16 and CST @ 1% on extra balance of 2000 meters of 355mm OD PE-80 HDPE pipes, balance of Rs. 19,49,600/- has not been paid. Statutory notice dated 9th May, 2002 was served for payment of the aforesaid amount along with...

Novartis A.G. Vs. Wanbury Ltd. and anr.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 121(2005)DLT316; 2005(3)PTC75(Del)

Pradeep Nandrajog, J. 1. I dispose of is No.3609/2005 filed by the plaintiff under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 CPC praying that for the reasons stated in the affidavit accompanying the injunction application, the defendants, their representative, agents, assigns, successors, dealers, servants be restrained by an interlocutory injunction restraining them from manufacturing, packing, selling, distributing, marketing, dealing with any product bearing the trade mark CORIMINIC or any other trade mark deceptively similar to the plaintiff's trade mark TRIAMINIC and/or TRIOMINIC and from using a packaging/trade dress which is deceptively similar to the packaging/trade dress of the goods sold under the plaintiff's trade mark TRIAMINIC.2. Plaintiff is a Swiss company manufacturing and selling pharmaceutical preparations. First defendant is a company registered in India and up to 6.9.2004 was functioning as the distributor of the plaintiff in India. Second defendant, also a company registered in India is...

Smt. Pushpa Katoch Vs. Manu Maharani Hotels Ltd. and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: [2006]131CompCas42(Delhi); 121(2005)DLT333; 2005(83)DRJ246

A.K. Sikri, J.1. By means of this appeal the appellant is challenging two orders of the Company Law Board (in short the 'CLB'); first order is dated 12th January 2001 passed in CP No. 16/2000 filed by the appellant herein whereby the appellant's petition under Section 397/398 of the Companies Act (in short the 'Act') alleging oppression and mismanagement on behalf of the majority shareholders, was disposed of by giving certain directions; second order dated 30th August 2001 is passed by the CLB in CA No. 93/2001 seeking review of order dated 12th January 2001. By the impugned order the said review application of the appellant herein was dismissed.2. It may be noted at this stage that against the order dated 12th January 2001 passed in CP No. 16/2000, the appellant herein had earlier also filed an appeal in this Court being Co. A. (B) No. 4/2001. However, on 25th April 2001 when that appeal came up for hearing the appellant sought leave of the Court to withdraw the said appeal as she wa...

Shri A.P. JaIn Vs. Faridabad Metal Udyog

Court: Delhi

Reported in: III(2006)BC262; 123(2005)DLT114; 2005(83)DRJ389

A.K. Sikri, J.1. This appeal is preferred against the order dated 27th July 1998 passed by the Company Law Board (in short the 'CLB') in CP No. 5/1997. Vide the impugned order, the company petition of the appellants herein has been dismissed sustaining the preliminary submissions of the respondent to the maintainability of the petition and thus, without going into the merits thereof. The the CLB, agreed with the twin submission of the respondents, namely, that by filing the said petition the petitioner indulged in form shopping and the petition suffered from abnormal delay as well. For appreciating the order of the CLB it would be necessary to have some background of the litigation between the parties.2. The appellant, Sh. A.P. Jain, holds 15% shares of M/s. Faridabad Metal Udyog Pvt. Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the 'Company'). His family members also hold certain shares and the total shareholding of his family, inclusive of his shareholding, is 46.56%.3. The appellant had, in the...

Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Ram Shree Steels Pvt. Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2005)(186)ELT411TriDel

1. In this appeal the revenue has contested the correctness of the impugned order-in-appeal vide which the Commissioner (Appeals) has dropped the Service tax demand against the respondents.2. We have heard both the sides and gone through the record. The Service tax for the disputed period has been demanded from the respondents on the ground that they were working as clearing & forwarding agents for the different parties. Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) has detailed the services which were provided by the respondents to various parties, in Para 4 of the impugned order and come to the conclusion that they did not fall within the category of 'clearing and forwarding' agents made by him in Para 4 of the impugned order. It is quite evident from the details of services given by him, in that para, it is evident that the respondents were only working as commission agents, being involved in the finalisation of sales transactions between the purchaser and the buyers. They were only getting their...

Bisleri Beverages Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. These appeals raise the same issue. Accordingly they were heard together and are being disposed of under this common order.2. The appellants are manufacturers of beverage concentrates (Non-alcoholic Beverage Base (NABB). These are sold to bottlers who dilute them and sell as soft drinks. The dispute is about the excise valuation of NABB. During the relevant period, the appellants were charging, in addition to the price of NABB, amounts towards advertisement from the buyers of NABB. These advertisement charges were for promotion of beverages. The excise authorities took the view that such collection of additional amounts was only a device and actually the amount represented part of the value of NABB. For this reason, it was alleged that the amount realised towards advertisement costs of bevarages should also form part of assessable value of NABB.3. When the matter came up for adjudication, the appellants contended that the advertisement of beverages have nothing to do with the price...

Kuber (international) and ors. Vs. Cce

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2005)(103)ECC35

1. These appeals have been directed by the appellants against the impugned order-in-original vide which duty alongwith penalty as detailed therein, has been confirmed against them on account of clandestine removal of the goods during the period in dispute.2. The main ground on which at the outset the correctness of the impugned order has been questioned by the Counsel is the non-supply of the documents and non-affording of personal hearing to the appellants before passing of the impugned order. Ld. Counsel has contended that impugned order has been passed in violation of the principles of natural justice. He has also contended that even if the appellants failed to file the reply to the SCN, still they are entitled to personal hearing to explain about the documents which were collected by the Revenue during the investigation, but no personal opportunity has been afforded to them. He has referred to the ratio of law laid down in the case of Seth Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. v. CC, 1996 (88) EL...