Delhi Court May 2006 Judgments

Secretary, Home (Police) Vs. Jagmohan, Joint Deputy Director,

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

1. Through this application respondents in the OA have sought review of Tribunals orders dated 7.3.2006 in OA No. 2206/2004. It has been stated on behalf of review applicant that the matter was heard ex parte in terms of rule 16 of the CAT (Procedure) Rules, 1987 as none had appeared on behalf of respondents. It has been explained that the counsel of respondent No. 2 State was to come from Patna to attend the Court on 7.3.2006 but he was prevented to appear before the Court as the train reached late at New Delhi Station. It has been contended that when the counsel of respondent No. 2 reached the Tribunal, the matter had been decided ex parte against respondents in terms of rule 16 ibid.2. It is further stated that the review applicant had to establish that the letter dated 9.2.1960 relied upon by the applicant in the OA had been superseded and amended by letter dated 5.1.1999, but the Tribunal had told the counsel on the date before 7.3.2006 that such a letter could be produced on the...

Smt. Shanti Devi W/O Shri Kishan Vs. Nct of Delhi Through the Chief

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

1. Applicant through this OA has sought preparation of seniority list of part time workers and consideration of regularization under 50% quota stipulated in the recruitment rules for regularization of Group D with all consequential benefits.2. Applicant No. 4 had been working since 1980-85 in Rehabilitation Services, Training-cum-Production Centre, Govt. of NCT Department. Not being treated on regular basis, OA-1064/2001 filed seeking grant of temporary status, which was disposed of on 6.3.2002 for consideration of grant of temporary status by the respondents. Respondents filed writ petition before the High Court of Delhi, which was dismissed on 18.11.2002. On 9.9.1985, respondents had promulgated recruitment rules of class-IV posts whereby Office Memorandum clearly shows that 50% of the post in direct recruitment be utilized by part time employees. When the order was not complied with and the respondents had turned down the request led to filing of the CP. On liberty therein, the pre...

Hindustan Pencils Ltd. Vs. Aparna Enamel Industries

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 131(2006)DLT65

Sanjay Kishan Kaul, J.1. The plaintiff has filed the suit for permanent injunction, infringement of trademark, copyright, passing off, rendition of accounts against the defendants in respect of its trademark NATARAJ and APSARA and the device of NATARAJ and APSARA.2. The plaintiff claims to be a well established manufacturer of pencils and other items of stationery, carrying on business since 1957. The plaintiff is a registered proprietor of various trademarks NATARAJ and devices of NATARAJ, the details of which have been set out in Para 3 of the plaint. The said registration is in respect of pencils, sharpeners, pens, erasers, pins, clips, stationery and artistic material. The plaintiff is also the registered proprietor of the trademark APSARA in respect of stationery goods and other items as set out in Para 4 of the plaint.3. The cartons of NATARAJ with the device of NATARAJ have also been registered under the Copyright Act, 1957.4. The plaintiff has set out the sales figures for the ...

Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited Vs. Bwl Ltd. (Formerly Known as Bhilai Wi ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2006(2)ARBLR212(Delhi); 129(2006)DLT622

Sanjay Kishan Kaul, J. 1. The petitioner floated a tender on 16.04.1999 for supply of 6F Armoured Optical Fibre Cables (hereinafter to be referred to as, 'the cables') along with required accessories in proportional quantities for Indian Manufacturer of Optical Fibre Cables. The tender submitted by the respondent and four other companies was accepted and advance purchase order was issued by the petitioner on 11.08.1999 for supply of 871 kms. of the cables. The total value of contract awarded to the respondent was Rs. 5,56,61,562.17. 2. In terms of the tender notice, the respondent gave a performance security of Rs. 23,14,000/-. The respondent was issued a purchase order on 16.09.1999 for the said quantity of 871 kms. of cables along with accessories. The contract stipulated that the respondent was required to secure a Type Approval ensuring technical quality and specification from Tele-Communication Engineering Centre (for short, 'TEC'), Department of Tele-Communication within 3 months...

Pepsico India Holdings Pvt. Ltd. Vs. the Bureau of Indian Standards an ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 129(2006)DLT522

Vikramajit Sen, J.1. Arguments have been addressed in great detail, justifying the final disposal of the writ petition. The Petitioner has challenged the decision of the Bureau of Indian Standards, Respondent No. 1 (`Bureau' for brevity) inter alias calling upon the Petitioner to discontinue the use of the label reproduced below. It has been clarified on behalf of the Respondents that whilst the Bureau has no objection to the use of brand names which have been registered with the Trade Marks Registry, the use of words 'PURITY GUARANTEED' and the depiction of mountains on top of the trade-mark `Aquafina' on labels of Packaged Drinking Water is deliberately misleading and should be removed. The contention of the Bureau is that it is entitled to withdraw its license i.e. permission to use the ISI logo or Standard Mark as defined in Section 2(t) of the Bureau of Indian Standards Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as the bids Act) thereby depicting compliance with standards laid down by Bur...

R.P. Gupta Vs. Sunil Kumar Dey

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 129(2006)DLT617

R.S. Sodhi, J.1. CM(M) 616/2005 seeks to challenge the order dated 19.07.2004 of the Additional Rent Controller in Suit No. E-119/03/01 whereby the Additional Rent Controller has decreed the suit Under Section 14(1)(e) read with Section 25(B) as also Under Section 14(1)(h) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, in respect of property No. P-37, NDSE ' II, New Delhi.2. Brief facts of the case as noted by the Additional Rent Controller, Delhi are as follows:the petitions No. 119/03 and 120/03 moved by the petitioners against the respondent on the ground of bonafide requirement Under Section 14(1)(e) read with Section 25-B and Under Section 14(1)(h) of DRC Act. The evidence led by the petitioners and respondents are the same and both cases have been consolidated by Ld.Predecessor vide order dated 30.1.03. As per the petitioner first floor of property No. P-37 N.D.S.E.-II, New Delhi was let out to the respondent on 1.6.76 at a monthly rent of Rs. 700/- for residential purposes only as shown in red ...

Mr. Diljeet Titus, Advocate Vs. Mr. Alfred A. Adebare and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 130(2006)DLT330; 2006(32)PTC609(Del)

Sanjay Kishan Kaul, J.IA No. 6695/2004 (under Order 39 R 1 and 2 CPC) in CS (OS) No. 1109/2004 is No. 7477/2004 (under Order 39 R 1 and 2 CPC) in CS (OS) No. 1257/20041. The nature of legal practice has changed especially over the last few years. The traditional concept of learning law at the feet of your senior has given way to an environment of more cutthroat competition where everyone is looking to their self-interest. Such change is naturally at the cost of the traditional norms. There has been a growth of law firms where advocates specializing in different fields are under one roof. This requires a greater degree of understanding in the definition of relationships between the advocates.2. The present dispute is a saga of broken relationships which was started with all good intentions. Since the matter was one between advocates and their associates every endeavor was made to find an amicable settlement to the dispute but to no avail. The order sheet itself bears a testimony to such...

Ranbir Singh and ors. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 129(2006)DLT819

Pradeep Nandrajog, J.1. OA. No. /1826/91 was filed by the petitioners directing that the Ministry of Information & Broadcasting, Government of India should regularize their services. Petitioners were working as casual Group 'D' employees. OA was disposed of vide order dated 7.4.1992 directing that against future vacancies to Group 'D' posts, regularisation of petitioners shall be effected. Challenge to the decision of the Central Administrative Tribunal by and under WP(C) No. 3201/98 was rejected by this Court when on 11.10.1999 the said writ petition was dismissed.2. Issue thereafter arose as to how should regularisation be effected against future vacancies. There were various departments under the Ministry of Information & Broadcasting, besides work places scattered all over India. Another OA No. 756/2000 was filed. Same was disposed of by the Tribunal vide order dated 23.2.2001. Claim projected by the petitioners in the said OA for regularisation was rejected. Another petition follo...

Chanderpur Works Vs. Cc

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2006)(111)ECC283

1. On behalf of appellants it was stated that the appellants are manufacturer/exporter of complete cement plants, paper plants, sugar plants and fertilizers plant machineries, etc. On 13.3.2003, they entered into a contract with M/s. Dynasty Industries Nepal Private Limited for supply of cement plant of capacity of 200 tones per day to be set up at Krishna Nagar. The plant was sent in parts for assembling the machinery at the site to make it a complete plant. The mode of payment agreed with the buyer was through letter of credit in US$. The appellants manufactured the cement plant for export to Nepal and it was fabricated from M.S/H.R. Plates/sheets and other items. They started the export of their consignments through Land Customs Station, Sonauli from June 2003. The first two consignments were cleared under free shipping bills. For the consignments for the export in August, 2003, they claimed DEPB benefit. However, the certificate issued by the Chartered Accountant that the machiner...

Rakesh Kapoor Vs. Commissioner of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. The appellants, M/s. Rakesh Kapoor, Cargo Helpers are Customs House Agent. Show cause notice was issued to them along with others for revocation of their Customs House Agent Licence and part forfeiture of bank guarantee and security given by them and imposition of penalty.Under the impugned order, the Commissioner ordered for forfeiture of security of Rs. 60,000/-under Regulation 20(1) of the Customs House Agent Licensing Regulations, 2004 and he dropped rest of the charges.2. It was argued for the appellants that without the knowledge of the proprietor of M/s. Rakesh Kapoor, Cargo Helpers, their employee Shri B.N. Jha has filed bill of entry in the name of M/s. Sameera Apparels and this was done in his personal capacity. Therefore, action should not be taken against the Customs House Agent. It was also pleaded that the penalty upto Rs. 10,000/- can be imposed under Section 117 of the Customs Act, therefore, the forfeiture of security should be limited to Rs. 10,000/-.3. It was arg...