Delhi Court September 2005 Judgments

Anand Shrivastav and anr. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: [2006]129CompCas664(Delhi); [2007]73SCL64(Delhi)

Vikramajit Sen, J.C.Ms. 11110/2005 & 11117/2005 (Exemption)1. Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.W.P. (C) No.17416-17/2004 2. This Writ Petition prays inter alias for the setting aside of the impugned Order dated 30.11.2004 passed by the Chairman, Company Law Board, Principal Bench, New Delhi. It cannot be disputed that that Order has already been assailed unsuccessfully before the Company Judge, High Court of Delhi. Thereafter a Special Leave Petition was preferred against the Order of the learned Company Judge and that was also dismissed. This is, thereforee, the second salvo of litigation in respect of the same Order. The contention is that in the previous round of litigation the Petitioner had not put forward the argument that the impugned Order ought to have been passed by a Bench comprising of more than one person. This ground was certainly available to the Petitioner even in the previous round of litigation. The principles and prescriptions of constructive rest judicata wou...

New Holland Tractors (India) Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Raja Industrial Works and o ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2005(2)CTLJ493(Del)

Swatanter Kumar, J.1. The plaintiff filed a suit for recovery of Rs. 1,33,62,163/- against the defendants on the basis that the parties negotiated and after some correspondence, the plaintiff issued a Letter of Intent dated 17th December, 1998 in favor of defendant No. 1 expressing its willingness to appoint defendant No. 1 as its non-exclusive authorized dealer and authorized service representative at Shimoga with concentration areas of Chikmagalur, Chitradurga and Bellary districts of Karnataka State subject to defendant No. 1 fulfillling the conditions of the Letter of Intent. This letter was issued from the registered office of the plaintiff at Delhi which was endorsed and signed by the defendants and their representatives at Delhi on 17th December, 1998. The plaintiff maintains running account in respect of each of its dealers. The supplies are made to the dealers subject to the terms and conditions stated on the invoices raised by the plaintiff each time the supply of product or ...

Mtnl Vs. Om Shakti Roller Flour Mills (P) Ltd.

Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi

Rumnita Mittal, Member: 1. The appellant had disconnected the telephone No. 6863596 subscribed by the respondent on account of arrears in respect of telephone bearing No. 6868518 belonging to M/s. Gujral Auto Industries Pvt. Ltd. As such the respondent had filed a complaint before the District Forum alleging deficiency in service on the part of the appellant. Vide impugned order dated 29.7.1999 the appellant was directed to restore immediately the telephone No. 6863597 (New No. 61931596) of the respondent and pay a compensation of Rs. 5,000. 2. Aggrieved by the said order, the present appeal has preferred before us. 3. The case of the complainant before the District Forum, in brief, was that the respondent being the subscriber of telephone No. 6863596 had been regularly paying the dues in respect thereof. However, the same was disconnected on 17.12.1997 on account of non-payment of dues amounting to Rs. 5,25,203 in respect of telephone No. 6868518 belonging to M/s. Gujral Auto Industri...

Monsanto Manufacturers Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commr. of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2006)(193)ELT495TriDel

1. M/s. Monsanto Manufacturers Pvt. Ltd. manufacture ice creams and sell to HCL, who in turn, sell these ice creams to distributors. A part of the ice creams produced by M/s. Monsanto Manufacturers Pvt. Ltd., is packed in one gallon (four litre) packs. (They claim it to be "Bulk Pack"). There is also ice cream in catering cups of 100 ml. not intended for retail sale. One gallon packs had been prominently marked as "for catering and institutional sales only : not for retail sale".Similarly, 100 ml. catering cups had the marking "specially packed for catering industry; not for retail sale".2. These appeals are in respect of valuation of ice cream in the above packs. The appellant claims valuation under Section 4 of the Central Excise Act i.e. based on its sale price/transaction value. The impugned order has held that since ice cream is a specified item under Section 4A of the Central Excise Act, the valuation must be based on Maximum Retail Price (MRP) of the ice cream.3. The dispute is...

Ved Prakash and O.S. Gautam Vs. the Food Corporation of India

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 124(2005)DLT130; 2005(84)DRJ532

Sanjiv Khanna, J.1. The present matter has been placed before us pursuant to the order passed by learned Single Judge (Pradeep Nandrajog, J) dated 15.3.2004 Learned Single Judge felt that this Court in the case of V.K. Ranade v. Food Corporation of India reported in 1998 IV AD (Delhi) 543 has not correctly interpreted judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Surjit Ghosh v. Chairman and Managing Director, UCO Bank, reported in : (1995)IILLJ68SC . Relying upon two other judgments of the Supreme Court in case of State Bank of Patiala v. S.K. Sharma reported in : (1996)IILLJ296SC and Managing Director ECIL v. B. Karunakar reported in : (1994)ILLJ162SC , learned Single Judge, inter alia, held that mere infraction of a rule or violation of principles of natural justice would not result in disciplinary proceedings being set aside unless prejudice is caused. V.K. Ranade's case (supra) is also a decision by a Single Judge of this Court and pursuant to orders of the Hon'ble Chief Justice, t...

L.T. Overseas Ltd. Vs. Guruji Trading Co. and anr.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 123(2005)DLT503; 2005(31)PTC254(Del)

Sanjay Kishan Kaul, J.1. The plaintiff has filed a suit for decree of permanent injunction in respect of trademark 'DAAWAT' and for damages. The plaintiff is a limited company incorporated and registered under the Companies Act, 1956 engaged in the business of processing ad selling of rice.2. The trademark 'DAAWAT' is stated to be adopted by the predecessor-in-interest of the plaintiff but by virtue of an agreement dated 26.03.1999 the rights were taken by the plaintiff for valuable consideration. The business is stated to be carried to under the said trademark for the last 14 years and the sale is not only in India but even in abroad.3. In para 8 of the plaint the sales made for the period of financial years commencing from 1991-92 to 1998-99 have been given showing substantial sales running into crores of rupees. In the last financial year before filing of the suit a sum of Rs. 75 lakhs is stated to have been spent on advertisement alone.4. Defendant No. 1 is stated to be a distribut...

Mount Abu Education Society (Regd.) a Society Registered Under the Soc ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2005(84)DRJ365

Madan B. Lokur, J1. In this batch of appeals under Clause X of the Letters Patent, the Appellants are aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 6th May 2003 passed by a learned Single Judge in a batch of writ petitions.2. The facts of the case are few and undisputed. The Appellants are societies that had applied to the Delhi Development Authority for allotment of 4 acres of land for running a senior secondary school in terms of the Delhi Master Plan. The case of the Appellants was recommended by the Institutional Allotment Committee for allotment of 4 acres of land but they were in fact allotted only 2 acres and at a rate which, according to the Appellants, is unreasonably high. The grievance of the Appellants before the learned Single Judge and before us also relates to two issues: firstly, the decision of the Delhi Development Authority (for short DDA) to allot approximately 2 acres of land to the Appellants is contrary to the Delhi Master Plan as against their clam for allotment of ...

Shailesh Kumar Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 123(2005)DLT513

Sanjiv Khanna, J.1. The appellant Mr. Shailesh Kumar being aggrieved by the refusal of the respondent to give him employment on compassionate grounds, filed Civil Writ Petition No. 3048/201 but was not successful before the learned single Judge and has accordingly approached us by way of present appeal under clause 10 of the Letters Patent Act.2. Father of the appellant who was serving as a Senior Auditor at Section (CDA Army) expired on 11.9.1998. At that time the appellant was 29 years old, married with children. His mother had expired earlier in December, 1994 and his elder sister had got married in February, 1994.3. On the death of the father, the appellant received the following terminal benefits:-'GPF accumulation ... 1,95,987.00Encashment of Leave ... 77,159.00CGEIS ... 39,900.00DCRG ... 2,92,807.00------------TOTAL 5,92,853.00------------'4. No family pension was sanctioned to the appellant as he was already major in age.5. The appellant as per the averments made in the appeal ...

Autocentre Workshop Vs. Delhi Administration and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 125(2005)DLT675; [2006(108)FLR772]; (2006)ILLJ1027Del

Mukul Mudgal, J.1. By this writ petition the petitioner/employer challenges the award dated 5th July 1999 made by the Labour Court. On 4th August 1980 a reference at the behest of the respondent/workman has been made by the Secretary (Labour) Delhi Administration, Delhi on the following terms for adjudication:'Whether the termination of services of S/Shri Abdul Hamid and Hayat Singh is legal and justified and, if not, to what relief are they entitledand what directions are necessary in this respect?'2. The case set up by the respondent Nos. 3(i) Abdul Hamid and 3(ii) Hayat Singh, workmen in the statement of claim, before the labour court, is as follows:-a) Respondents No. 3(i) and 3(ii) were employed by the management of the petitioner, M/s Auto Centre since 1962 as Head Motor Mechanic and Motor Mechanic respectively.b) The motor repairing workshop was being run in the backyard of the petrol pump which was earlier run and managed by the same management.c) The workmen were not being pai...

Owen Brockway (i) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. In this appeal against the impugned order-in-appeal, the appellants has contested the confirmation of duty, confiscation of the goods, imposition of redemption fine and disallowance of the cenvat credit and imposition of penalty as detailed therein.2. I have heard both the sides. The perusal of the record shows that the appellants during the relevant period detailed in the SCN, had a bottle making unit at Virbhadra and another printing unit at Tapowan (known as ACL unit). The duty amount in dispute has been confirmed against them in respect of the short quantity of decorated bottles of various sizes and brand prints, which was found by the officers at the time of visit to their factory on 25-1-05. But it is evident on the record that the quantity of the broken bottles (cullets) which was cleared by the appellants during the period in dispute under the duty paid invoices had not been taken note of. The copies of the challans have been placed on the record by the appellants which con...