Delhi Court April 2006 Judgments

Daljit Singh and anr. Vs. Yogeshwar Prasad

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2006(88)DRJ698

Sanjiv Khanna, J.1. By this Order, I propose to dispose of the application under Order XXII Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as the Code, for short) filed by the appellant for bringing on record the legal representatives of the respondent.2. The legal representatives of the respondent have opposed the said application on the ground that the right to sue does not survive after death of the respondent. An injunction, it was stated, does not run with the land but acts only in personam or against a person. Reliance in this regard was placed on Shankara Lingappa v. Nanje Gowda reported in AIR 1981 Kar 78 and Tej Kumar Jain v. Purshottam reported in : AIR1981MP55. It was further submitted that the original suit as filed was not based upon a contract between the appellant and the respondent but based upon 'torts' and on the death of the respondent the said suit, thereafter made subject matter of an appeal abated. Reliance in this regard was placed upon the ...

Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Kandhari Beverages Pvt. Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. The applicant challenged the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) setting aside the order in original by which demand of duty of Rs. 1,04,227/- was confirmed under Section 11A of the Act, and penalty of the like amount was imposed on the respondent with the direction to pay interest on the duty amount.2. The respondents was engaged in the manufacture of aerated water falling under Chapter Heading 22 of the Central Excise Tariff Act. In the monthly returns filed by the party for the months of April, 1998 to December, 2003, it was found that the appellant was substracting some quantity of aerated water bottles on the ground that the same had been destroyed/broken during handling/loading them.3. It appears that relying upon the Board's Circular dated 17-9-75 the respondent was calculating breakages on monthly basis and making adjust- merits. According to the respondents, clearance effected during the month were to be taken on the basis of written off breakages upto 0.5%, where breakage...

National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Pooja and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: II(2006)ACC382; 2007ACJ1051; 129(2006)DLT363; 2006(88)DRJ751

Sanjiv Khanna, J.1. The present appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as the Act, for short) has been filed by the National Insurance Company Limited, the appellant, against the award dated 16th April, 2004 passed by the learned Motor Accidents Claim Tribunal in Claim Petition/Suit No. 117/2003 titled Smt. Pooja and Ors. v. Gulfam and Ors..2. By the impugned award the learned Motor Accidents Claim Tribunal had decided some other claim petitions also, however, I am not concerned with them. It may also be relevant to state here that the Oriental Insurance Company Limited-the respondent No. 9 in the present appeal has also filed cross- objections. This order will dispose of the appeal and the cross-objections of the respondent No. 9.3. It is admitted case of the parties that on 24th October, 1999 at about 2.30 a.m. the deceased-Mr. Sarvesh Kumar along with others was traveling in a Tata Sumo bearing Registration No. DL 4CJ-0261 and was coming to...

Central Bank of India Vs. Shri Lalit Kumar Bhargava (Huf)

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 129(2006)DLT338

S.N. Aggarwal, J.1. A nationalised bank-Central Bank of India (hereinafter referred to as the `appellant'), aggrieved by an order passed by the learned Single Judge under Order XII Rule 6 CPC on 16.11.2005 directing it to hand over possession of the demised premises within one month of the date of the order, has preferred this appeal in its quest to retain possession of the said premises as long as it can by dragging the litigation through misuse and abuse of the legal process unmindful of its public duty to act as a role model for others in such like matters.2. The demised premises consists of an area of 2709 sq.feet on first floor of property bearing No. 73,74,75/1 and 60/1, Chawri Bazar, Delhi. The said premises was let out by the respondent to the appellant in 1986. The lease of the said premises expired on 7th July, 1996. A notice of termination of tenancy dated 5th July, 1996 was served by the respondent upon the appellant and it was directed in the said notice that in case the a...

Dr. Reckeweg and Co. GMBH through Constituted Attorney Mr. Subash Gupt ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 130(2006)DLT16; 2006(32)PTC458(Del)

Madan B. Lokur, J. 1. The Plaintiff filed is No. 2788/2003 under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of the CPC for an injunction restraining the Defendants from infringing the copyright of the Plaintiffs in the catalogue and literature pertaining to its homeopathic medicines and also from using the alphanumeric series L-1 to L-75 in respect of homeopathic medicines. The latter grievance arises because, according to the Plaintiffs, they have been using the alphanumeric series R-1 to R-75 for several years and by using the alphanumeric series L-1 to L-75, the Defendants are trying to pass off their homeopathic medicines as those of the Plaintiffs.2. By an ex parte ad interim order dated 7th March, 2003 the Defendants were restrained from marketing, distributing and selling homeopathic medicines under the 'Lords L' alphanumeric series, since the alphanumeric description of the medicine of the Defendants and the corresponding ailment were identical to the alphanumeric description of the medicine of...

Alka Sharma Vs. the State

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 129(2006)DLT642

Badar Durrez Ahmed, J.1. By virtue of these petitions, the petitioners are challenging the order on charge dated 03.08.2005 as well as the formal charge which has been drawn up against them on 08.08.2005. The petitioners are the sister-in-law (Alka Sharma), father-in-law (Om Dutt Sharma), brother-in-law (Arun Sharma) and mother-in-law (Krishna Kumari Sharma) and the husband (Manoj Kumar Sharma) of the complainant (Smt Kamini Sharma). The charges have been framed against all these petitioners by virtue of the impugned orders, firstly under Sections 498A/34 IPC and, secondly, under Sections 315/34 IPC and, thirdly, under Sections 506/34 IPC. Insofar as the mother-in-law, namely, Krishna Kumari Sharma is concerned, an additional charge under Section 406 IPC has also been framed.2. Mr Luthra, who appears for all the petitioners, submits that, first of all, the case under Section 315 IPC is not made out inasmuch as before it could be said that the offence under Section 315 IPC is made out, ...

Radhey Shyam Gupta Through Legal Representatives Vs. Kamal Oil and All ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: [2006]133CompCas90(Delhi); (2006)5CompLJ437(Del); 129(2006)DLT346; 2006(88)DRJ676

S.N. Aggarwal, J.1. To condone, or not to condone, is the only short question that needs our consideration in this appeal. What we have to consider here in this appeal is the effect of delay in re-filing of an application for substitution of legal heirs after removal of objection put up by the Registry on the said application.2. The facts that have led to the filing of this appeal are that the appellant along with respondent No. 7 had filed a Company Petition being CP No. 1/1982 in the year 1982 under Sections 397, 398, 402 and 403 of the Companies Act, 1956. The said Company Petition was dismissed as not maintainable by an order passed by the then Company Judge on 7.2.1984. Aggrieved by this order of dismissal, the appellant along with respondent No. 7 filed a Company Appeal being Company Appeal No. 8/1984 which was allowed by a Division Bench of this Court vide order dated 26.11.1998 and the case was remitted back to the Company Judge for disposal on merits.3. Subsequent to remand, w...

Ram NaraIn Prasad Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2007(3)SLJ510(Delhi)

ORDER1. Rule DB.2. With the consent of the parties matter is taken up for final hearing.3. This writ petition by the petitioner an erstwhile Food Inspector under the Central Government, challenges the original order dated 21st December, 2004 and the order in review dated 21st February, 2005 in R.A. No. 40/2005 by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Delhi (CAT) in O.A. No. 1884/2004.4. The order dated 27.8.2002 impugned by the petitioner in CAT reads as follows:SO. 911 (E)--In exercise of the powers conferred by Sub-section (1) of Section 9 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (37 of 1954), the Central Government hereby rescinds the notification of the Government of India in the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare (Department of Health) S.O. No. 2243 dated the 30th April, 1983, published in the Gazette of India, Part-II, Section 3, Sub-section (ii) for appointment of Shri R.N. Prasad as Food Inspector for the local area for the territories to which said Act applies.5. The...

Enbee Express Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. This appeal is directed against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) made on 28-2-05, upholding the order-in-original, by which penalty of Rs. 35,425/- was imposed on the appellant under Section 76 of Chapter V of the Finance Act, 1994 and penalty of Rs. 1,000/- under Section 77 of the said Act.2. There is no dispute over the fact the appellant was engaged in courier service which was taxable service. Admittedly, the assessee had contravened the provisions of Section 68 of the Act, on as many as 40 occasions up to March, 2000. It had also contravened the provisions of Section 70 by filing the ST 3 returns late. Therefore, show cause notice dated 9-10-2000 was issued to the assessee in respect of penalties imposable under Sections 76 and 77 of the Act, for contravention of the provisions of Sections 68 and 70, respectively.3. The appellant in their reply dated 7-11-2000 to the show cause notice contended that they were rendering the courier service on a small scale and the contra...

Sneh Silicate Industries Vs. C.C.E.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2006)(108)ECC631

2. Applicant filed this application for waiver of pre-deposit of duty of Rs. 49,06,425/- and equal amount of penalty. The applicants were undertaking a job work for which some raw materials were supplied by M/s Hindustan Lever Ltd. (HLL) to the applicant and thereafter, returned the goods after processing to M/s HLL and availed the benefit of Notification No. 214/86-CE dated 25.3.86. The benefit of this Notification was denied to the applicant on the ground that in addition to the raw materials supplied by M/s HLL, the applicants were also procuring bleaching powder and silicate sent from their own account and using in the processing of the goods.3. Revenue has relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case Prestige Engineering Ltd. v. C.C.E. . In this case, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that job worker contributes their own material to the article supplied by the customer and manufacturers different goods, it does not amount to job work. However, addition of minor i...