Delhi Court March 2006 Judgments

insulators and Electrical Co. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. This stay application is directed against confirmation of interest of Rs. 64,927/- against the appellants. Since the issue involved in this case is in very narrow compass, I allow the stay application and take up the appeal itself with the consent of both sides.2. Learned Advocate for the appellants submits that the differential duty is payable by them for the period 1.4.2001 to 1.4.2003. It is his submission that the payment of differential duty arose due to the fact that there was an upward revision of the price of their goods which was supplied to their customers. Since the goods were already cleared on payment of duty they raised supplementary invoices showing the raised price and calculated the differential duty and deposited the same with the Government. He submits that they were issued show cause notice on 29.3.2004 directing them to pay an interest of Rs. 64,927/-under Section 11AB of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The appellants contested the show cause notice on two ground...

Dy. Cit Vs. Pasupati New Tec. Ltd.

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi

Reported in: (2006)7SOT107(Delhi)

Revenue had filed an appeal against the order dated 28-2-2001 of the Commissioner (Appeals)-XIV, New Delhi for assessment year 1997-98. On a difference of opinion between the learned Members of the Delhi Bench-D, New Delhi, who heard the appeals, the Hon'ble President has nominated me as a Third Member in regard to the following points of difference :- (1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, Commissioner (Appeals) was justified in allowing the business loss of Rs. 53,57,968 during the assessment year 1997-98 on account of money advanced by the assessee to BWA without controverting the finding of assessing officer that the said sum had not become irrecoverable during the assessment year 1997-98.(2) Whether for claiming deduction by way of business loss, the onus lies on the assessee to establish that the amount advanced by it has become irrecoverable.The relevant facts briefly stated are that the assessee is in the business of manufacture and export of readymade...

Saurabh Exports Vs. Blaze Finlease and Credits Pvt. Ltd.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: [2006]133CompCas495(Delhi); 129(2006)DLT429; 2006(89)DRJ372; [2006]72SCL321(Delhi)

Sanjay Kishan Kaul, J.1. The plaintiff has filed a suit for recovery of Rs.21,00,650/- against the defendants jointly and severally. The plaintiff is the proprietorship concern of Smt. Prabha Uppal and claims to be engaged in the business of exports. Defendant No. 1 is the private limited company stated to be engaged in the business of leasing and financing having been incorporated on 17.08.1995. Defendants No. 2 and 3 are the Directors of defendant No. 1 company while defendant No. 4 is the husband of defendant No. 3 and the brother of defendant No.2. It is stated in the plaint that the subscribed capital is held by defendants No. 2 and 3 being 10 equity shares each amounting to the total amount of Rs.100/- for each of the defendants.2. In November, 1996, defendant No. 4 is stated to have approached Mr. Virendra Uppal, Authorised Representative of the plaintiff firm and the brother-in-law of Smt. Prabha Uppal stating that defendant No. 1 company was inviting short-term deposits at goo...

La Chemise Lacoste and anr. Vs. R.H. Garments and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2006(32)PTC481(Del)

Anil Kumar, J.1. This judgment shall dispose of plaintiffs' suit for permanent injunction, passing off, infringement of copyright, rendition of accounts and damages in respect of their trade mark Lacoste and/or crocodile device and/or Chemise Lacoste.2. Plaintiffs contended that plaintiff no.1 is a company organized under the laws of France and Mr S.S. Negi is a constituted attorney duly authorized to sign, verify and institute the plaint on behalf of plaintiff no.1. Plaintiff no.2 is a company incorporated under the laws of India and Mr S.S.Negi is also the constituted attorney of plaintiff no.2 and authorized to sign, verify and institute the plaint on behalf of plaintiff no.2.3. The pleas of the plaintiffs are that they are internationally renowned manufacturer and dealer of clothing articles including T-shirts and are proprietors in India of copyright in artistic work consisting of a device of a crocodile which was prepared by Mr. Robert George and was first published in France in ...

Charu Sharma Vs. Motilal Nehru College and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 128(2006)DLT798

Vikramajit Sen, J.1. A piquant situation has arisen in this case. The Petitioner had gained admittance to the MotiLal Nehru College (hereinafter referred to as College) which is affiliated to the Delhi University in the B.A.(Hons.) English Degree Course. She is presently in the 2nd year B.A. (Hons.) English. She had applied and gained admission to the College and the said Course as a Ward of an Employee, namely Shri Sanjay Sharma, of the College. Numerous irregularities in Admissions to the College had been detected towards the end of the previous Academic Year 2004-2005 in which Mr. Sanjay Sharma allegedly played a central and pivotal role. In the course of investigation it was discovered that the Petitioner was not the daughter of Mr.Sanjay Sharma and thereforee, did not fall within the definition of 'Wards' of employees which entitled the Petitioner to preferential treatment so far as Admission to the College is concerned.2. This Court would be loathe to come to the aid of any perso...

Neel Ratan Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 129(2006)DLT132

Vikramajit Sen, J.1. The reason why the Petition has engaged considerable attention is the fact that Moderation had been carried to the detriment of the Petitioner in five papers in which he had appeared in the Civil Services (Main) Examination, 2004. The Petitioner has also averred that the Moderation had taken place in May and June, 2005 although the Results had been declared on 14.3.2005. Normally, Courts would be loathe to interfere with the Examination process as well as standards applied thereto. Under Article 226 of the Constitution the High Court would delve into the complaints only if there is a possibility of discrimination in the mould of Article 14, or there is unfairness or irregularity appearing on the face of the matter.2. The Explanationn of the Respondent is that the Moderation was completed by 23.2.2005 and the Results were declared on 14.3.2005. This is contained in an Affidavit of the Chairman of the Union Public Service Commission which I find no reason not to resp...

R.C. Aggarwal Vs. D.T.T.D.C. Ltd. and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 128(2006)DLT548; 2006(3)SLJ471(Delhi)

ORDERConsequent upon tendering his Technical Resignation vide his application dated 7.9.2000 from the post of Financial Controller and Secretary and the expiry of Lien period of two years allowed to be retained by Shri Aggarwal on the said post vide this office relieving order No. Per/579/5/91/ DTTDC/ 5753/GM dated 7.9.2000, Competent Authority is hereby pleased to terminate the said lien w.e.f. 7.9.2002. (S.P. Singh) General Manager6. This letter was posted to the petitioner at an address of Hotel Corporation of India Ltd. at Centaur Hotel, Mumbai. Since this Hotel had already been sold under disinvestments policy, letter could not reach the petitioner and he learnt about this letter very late. He then made a representation dated 3.3.2005 to the respondent of wrongful termination of his lien after a period of 2 years stating that as per the policy of Government of India, lien was to be continued for a period of five years. The policy letter of the Government of India relied by him re...

Laldee Private Limited Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2006(2)ARBLR262(Delhi); 128(2006)DLT195; 2006(88)DRJ372

Sanjay Kishan Kaul, J. OMP No. 132/20021. The present proceedings have been filed by the petitioner under section 33 of the Arbitration Act 1940 (hereinafter referred to as the 'said Act) seeking to determine the existence and validity of the arbitration clause contained in Clause (b) of Para 2900 of ISR conditions of contract and to revoke the authority of respondent no-2 arbitrator in view of the order dated 14.01.1991 passed in OMP NO. 100/87 by this court.2. The dispute relates to a purchase order placed by respondent no. 1 on the petitioner dated 13.12.1978. In view of the arbitration clause forming part of the terms and conditions of contract, the respondent no. 1 invoked the arbitration clause in terms of notice dated 22.04.1980 for non supply under the purchase Order of MS Two Way Keys. The matter was referred to the sole arbitration of Sh.J.C.Singhal, who however entered upon reference only on 13.07.1984. The respondent no. 1 kept on taking time for filing the statement of cla...

Rita Garments Vs. Sh. Ghanshyam Bajaj

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 129(2006)DLT391

R.S. Sodhi, J.1. C.M.(M) 531 of 2006 is directed against orders dated 17.12.2005 passed by the Civil Judge, Delhi whereby the learned Judge has, while disposing of the application under Order 9 Rule 7 CPC, disallowed the same on the ground that the absence of counsel can hardly be justified ground for adjournment.2. Counsel for the petitioner submits that he was pursuing the proceedings challenging the dissolution of Bihar Vidhan Sabha which was pending in the Supreme Court where it was required to file written arguments in the Registry. He contends that since he was busy in the Supreme Court, the trial court should have adjourned the matter and this ground should be sufficient to set aside the ex parte proceedings. He relies upon a judgment of the Delhi High Court in Delhi Development Authority v. Shanti Devi and Anr. : AIR1982Delhi159 . 3. I have heard counsel and have gone through the order under challenge. It appears to me that absence of counsel is no ground for the court to stay ...

Glaxosmithkline Pharmaceuticals Ltd. Vs. Vysakh Pharmaceuticals

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 131(2006)DLT224

Badar Durrez Ahmed, J.1. This is a suit for permanent injunction, infringement of copyright, passing off and rendition of accounts, etc. The defendant did not appear despite service of summons and, thereforee, this court by an order dated 27.07.2005 directed that the defendant be proceeded with ex parte. The plaintiff was permitted to lead its ex parte evidence through affidavits and was also permitted to file the documents. The plaintiff has filed the evidence affidavits of one Mrs Sree K. Patel and of Mr Gururaja R. Rao. The plaintiff has also filed various documents which have been exhibited as Exhibits-P-1 to P- 4.2. I have examined the pleadings, heard the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the plaintiff and have also examined the evidence on record and find that the packaging employed by the defendant is deceptively similar to the one that is employed by the plaintiff. The plaintiff's packaging is Exhibit-P-2 and that of the defendant is Exhibit-P-4. The colour scheme,...