Delhi Court March 2006 Judgments

Zee Telefilms Ltd. and ors. Vs. Zee and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: [2006]133CompCas712(Delhi); 129(2006)DLT450; 2006(89)DRJ18; 2006(32)PTC470(Del)

Sanjay Kishan Kaul, J.1. The plaintiffs have filed a suit for permanent injunction restraining passing off in respect of of domain names Zeetv.com, Zeecinema.com, Zeeenglish.com, Zeemgm.com, Trendz.com and Zeemusic.com and acts of unfair competition, dilution, rendition of accounts, etc.2. The plaintiff no.1 is an existing company under the Indian laws and plaintiff no.2 is existing under the laws of Mauritius while plaintiff no.3 is existing under the law of British Virgin Islands. All these companies are stated to be part and parcel of the Zee Groups of Companies. The suit has been instituted through Mr.K. Shukla in pursuance to board resolutions. 3. The plaintiffs are stated to be group companies engaged in the production of programmers/broadcastingof various channels which constitute Zee Network including the channels referred to above. The plaintiffs claim to be also the broadcaster of niche channels like Trendz (a fashion channel) and Smile TV etc. The telecast takes place all ov...

Super Fine Meat Suppliers Vs. Bharat Hotels Ltd.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: [2006]133CompCas253(Delhi); 128(2006)DLT794; 2006(89)DRJ69; [2007]78SCL252(Delhi)

S.N. Aggarwal, J.1. This appeal under Section 483 of the Companies Act, 1956 has been filed by the appellant against an order dated 29.10.2003 passed by the learned Company Judge disposing of a winding up petition filed by the appellant under Section 433(e) read with Sections 434 and 439 of the Companies Act, 1956.2. The factual matrix of the case is as follows:-3. The appellant on 1.6.1997 had entered into an Agreement with the respondent for supply of mutton to it. The rates for supply of mutton agreed upon between the parties as mentioned in the Agreement dated 1.6.1997 were valid for a period of 12 months. The Agreement expired on 31.5.1998. The appellant supplied mutton to the respondent for another two months, that is, for June and July, 1998 also, though there was no fresh agreement regarding rates between the parties. The appellant had deposited Rs. 1.25 lacs with the respondent as security deposit at the time of entering into an Agreement on 1.6.1997. After the expiry of the A...

Hans Raj and anr. Vs. State

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2006CriLJ2540; 129(2006)DLT118; I(2006)DMC650NULL; 2006(88)DRJ618

Manju Goel, J.1. The appeal is directed against the judgment of the Additional Sessions Judge (in short `ASJ') dated 24.11.1992 whereby he convicted the appellant No.1, Hans Raj, under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code (in short `IPC') and appellant No.2,Manbhari (since deceased), under Section 506 part-I of IPC. Vide sentence dated 25.11.1992, the appellant No.1, the only surviving appellant, was sentenced to imprisonment for life and fine of Rs. 2,000/- and in default to undergo further R.I. for a period of two years. The incident over which the FIR in question, namely, FIR No.12/91 P.S. Hauz Qazi was registered took place at 1873, Gali Behram Beg, Delhi at around 11.30 p.m. on 10.1.1991, i.e., in the intervening night of 10.1.1991 & 11.1.1991. In the incident in question Madhu wife of the appellant No.1, Hans Raj, received burn injuries. She was first taken to St. Stephens Hospital and from there to Tirath Ram Hospital and then to JPN Hospital. She expired four days later on 15.1.199...

Lloyd Insulation (India) Ltd. Vs. National thermal Power Corporation ( ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2006(2)ARBLR392(Delhi); IV(2006)BC471; 131(2006)DLT356; 2006(89)DRJ36; (2006)144PLR18

Badar Durrez Ahmed, J.1. This petition has been filed under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as 'the said Act') seeking a direction restraining the respondent No.1 (National Thermal Power Corporation) [hereinafter referred to as 'NTPC'] from invoking / encashing the bank guarantees detailed in paragraph 6 of the petition as also restraining the respondent No.2 (Punjab & Sind Bank, Nehru Place, New Delhi) from making any payment in any manner in respect of the said bank guarantees.2. The learned senior counsel appearing for the respondent No.1 (NTPC) is present and this application has been argued fully. The question that needs to be determined in this application is whether the invocation which has already been made by NTPC by virtue of two sets of letters dated 06.02.2006 (which are at pages 121 to 124 of the paper book) and the letter dated 22.03.2006 (a copy of which is at page 126 of the paper book) are valid invocations.3. The learne...

Shri Gobind Ram Arora Vs. Shri Narender Khandari and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 129(2006)DLT174; 2006(88)DRJ539

Vijender Jain, J. 1. Vide impugned order dated 16.2.2006, the learned Single Judge has allowed impleadment of respondents No.9 and 10 along with consequential amendment in a suit for partition filed by respondent No.1 against respondents No.2 to 7. The impugned order was passed on an application being I.A.No.10242/2005 filed by respondent No.1 for impleadment of respondents No.9 and 10 in his aforementioned suit for partition. 2. The facts that necessitated filing of the aforementioned application are that during the pendency of the aforesaid suit, the appellant had filed an application under Order I Rule 10 read with Section 151 CPC for his impleadment on the ground that respondent No.2, Smt. Pushpa Kandhari, had sold the front portion of the property bearing No.C-3/9, Krishna Nagar, Delhi to him on the basis of a registered Sale Deed dated 4.3.2000. Through that application, the respondent No.1 learnt that respondent No.2, against whom a suit for partition was filed, had also sold th...

Lasalle Products (India) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2006)(108)ECC186

1. The appellant challenges the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) upholding the order-in-original dated 6.3.2002 passed by the Deputy Commissioner, ICD JRY Kanpur by which the consignment imported vide bill of entry No. 001038-DEPB dated 29.1.2002, was valued, as stated in the order as against the declared value for the purpose of assessment of customs duty.2. A show cause notice was issued on 14.2.2002 on the appellant in connection with clearances of 4855 pieces of suitcases of the sizes of 20" to 32" at the unit price FOB of US$ 5.99 (for 20" size to US$ 10.17 for 32") size under bill of entry No. 1038 dated 29.1.2002 alleging that on comparison made with the contemporaneous import of identical goods of the same brand under bill of entry No. 000642-DEPB dated 29.9.2001, the declared value was found to be exceptionally low. It was alleged that the appellant who was asked to submit manufacturer's invoice/price list and to justify the genuineness of the declared value in comparison ...

M.B. Plywood Indus. (P) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. The appellants filed the stay applications for waiver of pre-deposit of duty of Rs. 16,28,147/- and the penalty of equal amount on M/s. M.B.Plywood Indus. (P) Ltd. and personal penalties on different appellants.2. The appeals filed by the appellants were dismissed by the Commissioner (Appeals) for non-compliance to the provisions of Section 35F of the Central Excise Act as the appellants failed to comply with the conditions of the stay order.3. The contention of the appellants is that, they were supplying their products through different dealers and they were not supplying the goods to the customers directly. The dealers were supplying further the goods to various customers including the Government organizations. The demand is confirmed on the ground that certain quantity of goods were supplied to the Government organizations through M/s. Shri Ji Traders M/s. Shri Ji Enterprises and the appellants, M/s. M.B. Plywood Industries (P) Ltd. received the consideration amount directly.How...

S.K. and Company (P) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. There are three appeals before us viz. E/2031, E/2032 and E/2140 of 2004, all challenging an order dated 9-2-04 passed by the C.C.E., Rohtak of them, the two appeals are filed by the consignment stockist company M/s. S.K., & Company Ltd. and its Director Shri S.K. Gupta and the remaining one by the transporter of goods, Shri A.K. Goyal, partner of M/s. Rohan Roadways. In this case, investigations made by the department crystallized into a show cause notice dated 10-5-2001 issued to one M/s. Aravali India Ltd. for wrongful availment of Modvat credit to the tune of Rs. 86,87,465/-. The case against them was that they received PVC resin under invoices which contained false description of transporting vehicles which on enquiry were found to be scooter, Motor cycles, tractors, cars, tanker, etc. which were not capable of carrying them in bulk quantity. The allegation, therefore, was that the goods were not really carried to the premises of M/s. Aravali India Ltd. from the premises o...

S.K. Industries Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. The appellants, M/s. S.K. Industries Pvt. Ltd., have filed this appeal challenging the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) dated 20.1.2004. In the impugned order, the Commissioner (Appeals) had held that, the product in dispute is nothing but packing materials for jelly based products manufactured by the appellants. He has also observed that similar other packing material like plastic cups used by the appellants for packing their jelly product are being purchased by them from the market. He has also noticed that the product in question does not emerge in the integrated process of manufacture of jelly based products.2. We have seen the sample of the product in question. The sample shown to us is like a toy which can contain the jelly based product. In the appeal itself the appellants have called such products as "containers" which is not disputed, as these are the containers in various forms resembling toys. The jelly based products when packed in a container like toy would attract ...

Cce Vs. Rishabh Velveleen (P) Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2006)(110)ECC246

1. This appeal is filed by the Revenue against the Order-in-original No. 73/Commisioner/95 dated 29.12.95.2. M/s. Rishabh Velveleen (P) Ltd. (hereinafter referred to RVPL), Hardwar are manufacturers of flocked fabrics falling under Central Excise Tariff sub-heading No. 59.06. On the basis of information that respondents are evading central excise duty, the central excise officers conducted search at their factory, branch offices and at the premises of their customers/ dealers and transporters. As a result of the search, 9095.10 metres of velveleen flock fabrics unaccounted were seized at the factory and incriminating documents were recovered from the various premises. On scrutiny of the documents recovered, statement of various concerned persons were recorded. During investigation, it was found that the respondents were maintaining a register for sale of velvet fabrics for the year 1993-94. The register is numbered at serial No. 93 in the list of the seized documents. The register was...