Delhi Court September 2005 Judgments

infosys Technologies Ltd. Vs. Access Infosys and anr.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2005(31)PTC374(Del)

Anil Kumar, J.1. This is a suit of plaintiff for permanent injunction against infringement of his trade mark/corporate name 'infosys' and for rendition of accounts and payment of damages against defendants.2. The suit was filed by the plaintiff contending that 'Infosys Consultants Pvt. Ltd.', was incorporated on 02.07.1981 in the State of Maharashtra and shifted its base to the State of Karnataka in 1992. Its name was changed to 'Infosys Technology Pvt. Ltd.' on 21.04.1992 and was converted to a public limited company on 02.06.1992.3. The plaintiff contended that the word 'infosys' was coined by the plaintiff in order to distinguish its business and goods and the plaintiff is maintaining its corporate identity under the said name and its products and services are sold in the market all over the world under the said trade mark. The word 'infosys' by virtue of its inherent distinctive and extensive use has become distinctive of plaintiff in the eyes of the consumers all over the world in...

Smt. Mamta Sahu Vs. the State (Nct of Delhi)

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 124(2005)DLT300

Manju Goel, J.1. The present revision petition is directed against the order dated 12th October, 2004 whereby the petitioner-Mamta Sahu has been charged of abetting suicide by her husband-Mahender Sahu. The impugned order is brief. By way of ground for framing charge, the Additional Sessions Judge has merely stated in the order that from the statement of Kapil Sahu(son of the accused) and Seema, there is a prima facie material under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code(for short `IPC') against the accused. It is submitted before this Court by the learned counsel for the revision petitioner that two statements of Kapil Sahu and Seema do not indicate any offence of abetment to suicide punishable under Section 306 of the IPC.2. Mahender Sahu(hereinafter referred to as `the deceased') was admitted to Tirath Ram Shah Hospital on 10th July, 2002 at 1.30 AM. He had been brought there by his wife and brother. The MLC shows that the deceased had consumed melathion 50% EC half-an-hour before he ...

Ms. Kamala Sen W/O Sh. P.K. Sen Vs. Registrar of Cooperative Societies ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: AIR2006Delhi123; 124(2005)DLT407; 2005(84)DRJ529

Vijender Jain, J.1. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner praying inter alias issuance of an appropriate writ or direction to the respondents to execute and register a conveyance deed in favor of the petitioner pursuant to and in the terms of the the agreement to sell dated 16.6.54 and subsequent letter dated 10.9.55 issued to the petitioner with regard to transfer of half of the plot no. 50, i.e. 50 A, Friends Colony, New Delhi and to produce relevant records with regard to the plot no. 50 and 50 A, Friend Colony, New Delhi as maintained with the respondent. 2. Pursuant to filing of this writ petition notice was issued to the respondent. Nobody appeared for the respondent No.2. Counsel appearing for the respondent/RCS who has filed reply to the application took the stand that there is no such society in the records of the respondent no.1 and whether the same has been in liquidation or not is also not on record of the respondent no.1. It is a case of abandonment of its ob...

Noida Toll Bridge Company Ltd. Vs. Mitsui Marubeni Corporation

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2005(3)ARBLR234(Delhi); 124(2005)DLT337; 2005(84)DRJ377

ORDERO.P. Dwivedi, J.1. The petitioner above named has filed Objections under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 ( for short the 'Act') against order dated 17.11.2004 passed by Arbitral Tribunal holding that the prohibition contained in Section 69 of the Partnership Act is not applicable to the proceedings before Arbitral Tribunal. The petitioner herein is a company incorporated under the Indian Companies Act, 1956 and the respondent herein is an unincorporated joint venture between two Companies incorporated outside India. In October 1996, the petitioner had invited bids for the construction of the Delhi-Noida Bridge Project under an engineering, procurement and construction contract (hereinafter referred to as EPC Contract). In response thereto respondent submitted their bid which was accepted vide letter of acceptance dated 24.12.1997. An agreement was signed between the petitioner and the respondent on 19.1.1998 in Tokyo, Japan, for execution of the Delhi-Noid...

AmstrIn Pharma Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

2. The dispute is about Central Excise Valuation of two medicines manufactured by M/s. Amstrin Pharma Pvt, Ltd. and supplied to M/s.Abbott Laboratories (I) Limited. Up to 21-3-2000, the sale price of M/s. Abbott Laboratories (I) Limited was being adopted as the assessable value for payment of Central Excise duty. From that date, the manufacturer started assessing their medicines based on sale price to M/s. Abbott Laboratories (I) Limited. In the proceedings before the lower authorities, it has been concluded that sale price of M/s. Abbott Laboratories (I) Limited should continue to be the assessable value.3. The submission of the appellant/assessee is that they were supplying the medicines to M/s. Abbott Laboratories (I) Limited against negotiated prices. It is being emphasized that since excise is on manufacture, assessable value can have relation only to the transaction value between the manufacturer and the first buyer and that sale prices at later tiers of trade are of no concern ...

Rampur Engineering Co. Ltd. Vs. Cce

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2006)2STR210

1. The applicant filed this application for waiver of pre-deposit of Service Tax of Rs. 3,70,000/- and penalty of the equal amount. In this case the demand in respect of Service Tax was confirmed under the head 'Consulting Engineer'.2. The applicants were supplying design and drawings of conveyor belt system for consideration to the other manufacturers and conveyor belt system are being manufactured as per the design and drawing supplied by the applicant.3. The definition of Consulting Engineer under Clause (31) of Section 65 of Finance Act provides that Consulting Engineer means any professional qualified engineer or an engineering firm who, either directly or directly, renders any advice, consultancy or technical assistance in any manner to a client in one or more disciplines of engineering, but not in the discipline of Computer Hardware Engineering or Computer Software Engineering.4. The applicant relied upon the earlier stay order in the case of Metzeler Automotive Profile India (...

Prestolite of India Ltd. and ors. Vs. Union Bank of India

Court: DRAT Delhi

Reported in: I(2006)BC68

1. An interesting question of law is raised in this appeal on behalf of the appellants on the competence of a Presiding Officer to permit a Recovery Officer to decide the objections raised at the time of issuance of a recovery certificate.2. I have heard the learned Counsel for the appellant as well as the learned Counsel for the respondent Bank.3. From the narration of facts, it would appear that initially a suit in OS No. 350 of 1981 was filed in the Court of the Additional Sub-Judge, Faridabad. A compromise decree has been passed on 15.11.1991. However, the defendants seem to have initiated execution proceedings before the said Civil Court against the respondent-Bank alleging that the respondent-Bank has violated certain terms of the consent decree made on 15.11.1991. The said execution proceedings seems to be still pending before the Civil Court.4. After the enactment of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993, the suit pending before the Civil Cour...

Khatri Cooperative Urban Bank Ltd. and anr. Vs. Delhi Development Auth ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: AIR2006Delhi43; 123(2005)DLT600; 2005(84)DRJ282

R.S. Sodhi, J. 1. Nobody appears for the DDA today. Even on the previous dates of hearing, that are, 13th January, 2005, 23rd February, 2005 and 18th March, 2005, nobody appeared for the DDA. This matter has been adjourned time and again. Since the DDA is not interested in the matter, it has become essential to dispose of the same without their assistance.2. This revision petition is directed against the judgment dated 25th November, 1981, of the Additional Sessions Judge in Crl.Appeal No. 126/80, whereby the learned Judge has dismissed the appeal arising out of the Order dated 24th September, 1980, of the Metropolitan Magistrate, holding the Petitioners guilty under Section 29(2)/14 of the Delhi Development Act and sentenced them to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- and in case of default of payment of fine on behalf of Petitioner No.1 herein to issue attachment warrant against it and in case of default of payment of fine on behalf of Petitioner No. 2 herein to undergo simple imprisonment for...

Bacchu Singh Vs. State of Delhi

Court: Delhi

Reported in: (2005)141PLR56

ORDERR.S. Sodhi, J.1. This appeal has been received by this Court from transfer from the Bench of His Lordship Mr. Justice R.C. Chopra. The transfer it appears is on account of his son having entered appearance in this case. It has come to my notice that a large number of matters are being transferred from the Board of His Lordship on account of Mr. Sachin Chopra, Advocate, having entered appearance. It also appears that Mr. Sachin Chopra is engaged to provide legal aid to the inmates of Tihar. In the present case, from the record I find that this appeal was initially marked to Mr. Rajesh Mahajan and subsequently to Ms. Sindhu Vishwakarama. This arrangement continued till November 10, 2004, when the matter was directed to be listed for final disposal in the month of March, 2005. On 13th September, 2005 this matter is directed to be transferred and thereafter Mr. Sachin Chopra's name appears in order sheet. I have already in my earlier order dealing with the same situation requested Mr....

interds Advertising Private Limited Vs. Modi Spinning and Weaving Mill ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: [2008]144CompCas551(Delhi); 2006(87)DRJ315

Sanjay Kishan Kaul, J.is 3646/1998 (Order 12 Rule 6 of CPC)1. Learned counsel for the plaintiff does not press this application.2. Dismissed as withdrawn.IA 11573/20033. This is an application filed by defendants under the provisions of Section 22 of Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 ( hereinafter referred to as 'Act'). The suit has been filed under provisions of Order 37 of CPC and the leave to defend application has been filed by defendants which is pending consideration. 4. The facts set out in the present application as also in the affidavit fled by Sh Alok Sangal, Director of Defendant no.1 show that initially the scheme propounded was rejected, but the subsequent scheme was accepted by the BIFR. However the matter went in appeal and appeal has been admitted before the AIFR. The order dated 08.06.2004 of the AIFR has been filed showing hearing on the interim application being concluded and learned counsel for the defendants states that subsequently orders ha...