Delhi Court May 2006 Judgments

Shyam Lal College Vs. Vice Chancellor, Delhi University

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2006(89)DRJ667

Mukul Mudgal, J.1. This writ petition filed by the Shyam Lal College which is a constituent college of the Delhi University challenges the constitutional validity of Clause 7(2) of the Ordinance xviii made under the Delhi University Act, 1922(hereinafter referred to as `the Act') in exercise of the powers under Section 30 of the said Act read with the amendment approved by Executive Council (E.C.) of the Delhi University, respondent No. 1 dated 10th February, 2004 and Statute 30(1)(D) set out in the Schedule under Section 29(1) of the Act and also seeks to quash the communications dated 10th February, 2004; 11th February, 2004; 9th July, 2004; 20th July, 2004 and 17th August, 2004 issued by the respondents.2. The learned Counsel for the petitioner in the first instance was heard first on the question of validity of Clause 7(2) of the Ordinance xviii issued by the Delhi University and the validity of Statute 30(1)(D). The said Clause 7 reads as follows:7. (1) The appointment of the Prin...

Astrazeneca Uk Ltd. and anr. Vs. Orchid Chemicals and Pharmaceuticals ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2006(32)PTC733(Del)

Anil Kumar, J.1. This order shall dispose of plaintiffs' application under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 of Code of Civil Procedure seeking restraint against the defendant from using his registered trade mark 'MEROMER' alleged to be deceptively similar to the plaintiffs' trade mark 'MERONEM' and defendant's application under Order XXXIX Rule 4 read with Section 151 of Code of Civil Procedure to vacate the interim order dated 6th October, 2005 whereby defendant was restrained from selling, marketing or in any manner dealing with pharmaceutical product under the name 'MEROMER'.2. Brief facts to comprehend the disputes between the parties are that plaintiffs filed the suit for permanent injunction seeking restraint of infringement of their trade mark and passing off of his products by the defendant as that of plaintiff contending that plaintiff No. 1, Astrazeneca U.K. Limited, is a company constituted under the laws of England having its registered office at London which...

Dharam Chand Gupta Vs. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 130(2006)DLT102

S. Ravindra Bhat, J.1. The Petitioner, claiming to be a reputed dealer, distributor and stockist of petroleum products, has approached this Court in writ proceedings; it seeks directions to quash two orders dated 5-5-2003 and 19.5.2003 issued by the respondent Indian Oil Corporation Ltd, (hereafter called the IOC), terminating two agreements entered into with it.2. Petitioner's proprietorship firm M/s. Nav Bharat Trading Co. was registered with Sales Tax Authorities in 1971. It is claimed that in 1994, IOC was impressed with the name and ability of petitioner, appointed it as marketing agent for its Servo branch lubricants. On 7.11.1996 IOC appointed petitioner as Distributor by agreement dated 7.11.96 (hereafter called 'the distributor agreement'). Apart from other stipulations, this agreement contained an arbitration clause, and also the following condition:28. The Distributorship granted by the corporation to the distributor under this agreement may be terminated without assigning a...

State Vs. Vireshwar Tyagi and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2006(89)DRJ233

Badar Durrez Ahmed, J.1. Delay condoned.2. The State has preferred this appeal against the judgment dated 22.9.2005 and the order of sentence of the same date passed by the Additional Sessions Judge in his capacity as the Special Judge (Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985). The learned Additional Sessions Judge relying upon the decision of this Court in the Dule Hassan v State, which was decided on 2.9.2005, concluded as under:24. In the present case, 600 gram Heroin was recovered from accused Vireshwar Tyagi, 200 grams Heroin was recovered from accused Jitender and 200 grams Heroin was recovered from accused Yogesh Tyagi and a sample mark A (from the recovery of accused Jitender) Sample mark D (from the recovery of accused Yogesh) and sample mark G (from the recovery of accused Vireshwar) were got analyzed from FSL and FSL report Ex. PW11/E was obtained wherein the presence of diacetylmorphine in the said parcels was found to be 1.12%, 1.2% and 1.24% respectively. The...

Sagar Singh Vs. the State (Govt. of Nct)

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 130(2006)DLT380; 2006(89)DRJ425

Badar Durrez Ahmed, J.1. This is an appeal against the judgment dated 31.3.2005 and the order on sentence dated 8.4.2005. By virtue of the impugned judgment and order on sentence, the appellant has been convicted under Section 21(c) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as 'the NDPS Act') and has been sentenced to undergo imprisonment for 10 years with a fine of Rs.1 lac.2. At this stage, the learned Counsel for the appellant confined his arguments to the question of the appropriate provision under which the appellant could be convicted and consequently the sentence that could be imposed. However, he submitted that he has a good case on merits also but he is not going into that aspect of the matter because the petitioner would be entitled to be released even on the basis of the factual findings of the trial court. The learned Counsel for the appellant pointed out that the appellant has been convicted for the possession of 350 grams of a br...

Goetze (India) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: (2007)209CTR(Del)295

ORDER1. Issue rule. With consent the petition has been heard for final disposal.2. Section 245 of the IT Act, 1961 provides for set off of a refund due to the assessed against his tax liability. The petitioner's grievance in the present writ petition is that it had in terms of an application dt. 17th April, 2006, prayed for set off of refund due to it for the asst. yrs. 1987-88 to 1988-89 and 1993-94 to 1997-98 against tax liability for the asst. yr. 2003-04. No orders have, according to the petitioner, been passed in the said application by the CIT before whom the same was made. The petitioner has, in that view, prayed for a mandamus directing the respondents to grant the refund with interest or to adjust/set off the said amount against demand raised against the petitioner for the asst. yr. 2003-04.3. When the matter came up before us for admission yesterday, Mr. Sabharwal was asked to take instructions and to make his submissions. Mr. Jolly, learned Counsel appearing for the responde...

Commissioner of Service Tax Vs. Gec Avery Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. The Revenue has challenged the order of Commissioner (Appeals) setting aside the order-in-original in which demand of service tax amounting to Rs. 5,80,174/- [Service Tax Appeal No. 103 of 2006] Rs. 5,16,020/- [Service Tax Appeal No. 104 of 2006] was confirmed and penalty @ Rs. 200/- per day imposed subject to the maximum of the duty demand as well as further penalties were also imposed under Sections 77 and 78 of the Act.2. The Commissioner (Appeals) came to a finding that the transfer of Technical know-how to be used in relation to the productions under the 'Technical assistance and License agreement' was classifiable as 'intellectual property services' and that the classification of such services as services of 'Consulting Engineer' was not sustainable. The Commissioner relied upon the decisions of the Tribunal referred to in para 4 of the impugned order in support of his finding.3. The learned authorized representative for the department submitted that there were several terms ...

Berger Paints India Ltd. Vs. Commr. of Income Tax

Court: Delhi

Reported in: [2007]292ITR658(Delhi)

T.S. Thakur, J.1. The short question that falls for consideration in this appeal is whether premium collected by the appellant assessed on its subscribed share capital is 'capital employed in the business of the company' within the meaning of Section 35D of the Income Tax Act. It arises in the following circumstances:2. For the assessment year 1996-97, the assessed company declared an income of Rs. 3,64,64,527/- which was subsequently revised to Rs. 3,58,92,771/- and then to Rs. 3,57,26,644/-. The return was eventually processed under Section 143(1B) of the Act at an amount of Rs. 3,63,03,128/-. A notice under Section 143(2) was then issued to the assessed in response to which the assessed appeared to justify its claim for a preliminary expense of Rs. 7,03,306/- under Section 35D of the Act being 2.5% of the 'capital employed in the business of the company'. It was inter alias argued by the assessed that it had issued shares on a premium which premium was according to the assessed, a p...

Shri Nagendu Bhattacharya and ors. Vs. Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited an ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 131(2006)DLT1; 2007(2)SLJ242(Delhi)

T.S. Thakur, J.1. These Letters Patent Appeals arise out of a common order passed by a learned single Judge of this Court whereby a batch of petitions filed by the appellants challenging the validity of Rule 5 of the Recruitment Rules framed by the Respondent BSNL have been dismissed and the notifications issued by the latter proposing to hold a limited internal competitive examination (LICE), upheld.2. The appellants were employees of the Department of Telecommunications (DoT). With the formation of the respondent BSNL in the year 2000, they were placed on deputation with BSNL, pursuant to a broad understanding regarding protection of the terms and conditions of their service, as employees of the BSNL. One of the conditions to which the parties had agreed, was incorporated at Seriall No. 11 of the agreement arrived at between the office bearers of the employees and the officers of the DoT and read as under : Channels of promotion would be maintained for those employees who get absorbe...

The Bombay Metal Works (P) Ltd. Vs. Tara Singh and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 131(2006)DLT327

Vijender Jain, J.1. The order challenged by the appellant in this appeal has been passed by a learned Single Judge on 29.03.2006 in CCP No. 122/2005. Vide impugned order the learned Single Judge has not only discharged the respondents from notice of contempt but has virtually reviewed the injunction order dated 12.02.2002.2. Vide impugned order dated 12.02.2002, the respondents were restrained from manufacturing, selling, offering for sale, advertising, directly or indirectly dealing in cycle parts under the impugned Ball Head Racers and Screw Head Racer or any other packaging which could be deceptively similar with or substantial reproduction of Ball Head Racers and Screw Head Racer of the appellant till the disposal of the suit being suit No. 127/2002. Despite said injunction order, respondent No. 1 continued manufacturing and selling goods packaged in injuncted cartons from 2002 onwards in flagrant violation of order dated 12.02.2002 as well as the orders dated 20.12.2002 and 21.03....