Delhi Court July 2006 Judgments

Steel Tubes of India Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. During the course of arguments, the learned Advocate for the appellant relied upon the ratio of the two decisions of this Tribunal relating to penalty imposable under Rule 209A of Central Excise Rules, 1944. Rule 209A reads as follows: Any person who acquires possession of, or is in any way concerned in transporting, removing, depositing, keeping, concealing, selling or purchasing, or in any other manner deals with, any excisable goods which he knows or has reason to believe are liable to confiscation under the Act or these rules, shall be liable to a penalty not exceeding three times the value of such goods or five thousand rupees, whichever is greater.2. In the case of Shaper Chemicals Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Mumbai-VII , the West Zonal Bench happened to consider a situation wherein no goods were actually moved but Modvat credit was availed only on the basis of documents without actual receipt of any goods. This Tribunal observed that since it was the case of Reve...

Meenakshi Vashist, Information Vs. Union of India (Uoi) Through Shri

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

1. As these two OAs are founded on similar facts and identical question of law, in order to avoid multiplicity and wastage of public exchequer, both the OAs are disposed of by this common order.2. It is no more res integra that similarly circumstanced Information Assistants, namely, Ms. Elizabeth Varte and Smt. Laxmi Thakur having failed to get 1st ACP benefit filed OA-2199/2004, which was contested by the respondents on the grounds that after restructuring there has been an intermediatory scale. Accordingly, the ACP scheme envisages grant of financial benefits from the higher hierarchy of the scale.Accordingly, the contest was to deprive the applicants the benefit of scale of ACP in the scale of Rs.6500-10500/-.3. The Tribunal by its order dated 7.3.2005 holding that the next higher promotional post for Information Assistant is the Assistant Director in the pay scale of Rs.6500-10200/- and the respondents having promoted the applicants therein themselves on the post on ad hoc basis, ...

Ram Lal, Dy. Government Counsel Vs. Union of India (Uoi) Through Law

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

Ram Lal v. Union of India and Ors. (Annexure A-B) whereby respondents were directed to dispose of applicant's representation dated 30.9.2003 by passing a detailed and speaking order within a period of two months; (2) Respondents' orders dated 7.6.2005 (Annexure A-C) whereby in pursuance of Tribunal's aforesaid judgment dated 24.3.2005 applicant's representation dated 30.9.2003 was considered and rejected by respondents; (3) Annexure A-D dated 27.1.2000 which is provisional seniority list of the officers of the Indian Legal Service as on 1.1.2000; (4) Annexures A-1, A-2, A-3, A-4and A-5 issued between August, 1999 and August, 2003 relating to promotion of respondents 3 to 9.2. We have heard applicant who was present in person. Applicant is stated to have been initially appointed as Assistant Legal Adviser - redesignated as Assistant Government Counsel (Grade IV of ILS) - on 23.4.1992 on basis of recruitment through UPSC. He was confirmed in the said post on 23.4.1999 (Annexure A-7). App...

Shri K.B. Hariharan Son of Late Vs. Union of India (Uoi) (Through

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

1. Applicant appointed as Sr. Technical Assistant w.e.f. 23.3.1988 in this OA seeks direction to respondents to re-fix his pay scale w.e.f.1.1.1986 instead of 11.9.1989 extending the benefit of various judgments of this Tribunal including the Full Bench judgment of Principal Bench of this Tribunal in OA 2639/1999 dated 31.7.2000 [Babu Lal and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors.].2. The contention raised is that it is well settled that if the relief is granted to a particular group, it should be applied equally to all other similarly placed. It is not in dispute that the applicant is similarly situated to officials in whose favour this Tribunal passed orders on 16.2.2004 in batch of cases i.e. OAs 1963, 2484 and 2486 of 2003. Shri P.K. Sharma, learned Counsel contended that the applicant had submitted a representation seeking extension of benefit of orders pronounced by this Tribunal in afore-mentioned cases which has not been agreed to solely on the ground that since no general order had ...

Miss Versha Kalra Vs. Union of India (Uoi) Through

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

1. By virtue of this OA, applicant has sought quashment of orders dated 28.1.2005 and 13.6.2005 whereby respondents have not treated the period of applicant's service from 29.4.1975 to 31.3.1980 as regular and as such applicant was not able to enjoy the benefit of second financial upgradation under the ACP Scheme. Admittedly, applicant was appointed as Hindi Lecturer in a purely temporary capacity on 13.5.1975 for a fixed period i.e. from 29.4.1975 to 28.7.1975, which was continued from time to time till 19.3.1980. It has been contended that while the applicant's services were regularized vide Annexure A-9 dated 19.3.1980 w.e.f. 19.3.1980, various other similarly situated persons were regularized from the date of their initial appointment vide Annexure A-10 dated 19.3.1980. It is thus alleged that applicant has been discriminated against.2. Obviously, the relief of reckoning the period of adhoc service from 29.4.1975 to 31.3.1980 as regular period is based on the foundation of applica...

Shri Krishan Gopal Chopra S/O Late Vs. Union of India (Uoi) Through th ...

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

1. By virtue of this OA applicant seeks setting aside of chargesheet dated 7.6.1992, imposing upon him major punishment dated 3.6.2000 as well as appellate order dated 7.6.2002, affirming the punishment.2. Applicant, who superannuated on 31.5.2002, while holding the post of Assistant Engineer (Cable), has been charged with the following alleged misconduct in disciplinary proceedings, instituted under Rule 14 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965: Statement of article of charges framed against Sh. K.G. Chopra, AE (Cables), Jor Bagh, (GO-10532) now working as AE FRS & Record) Shakti Nagar Exchange, Delhi. That the said Sh. K.G.Chopra while working as AE (Cable), Jor Bagh in the year 1989-90 committed an act of gross negligence and misconduct in as much as he allotted the work of estimate No. 18515 D(b)/88-89 and 20265 D(b)/89-90 for replacement of under ground cable to M/s Geeta Construction Co. on 6.9.89 and again allotted the work of the same estimate to M/s Vichitra Construction Co. on 3....

Prakash Dajiba Meshram and ors. Vs. Union of India (Uoi), (Through the

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

i) set-aside and quash the impugned orders dated 26.06.2003, Annexure A-1, whereby the grades and scales of the categories of Lab. Supdt. Gr.I, Gr.II and Gr.III have been reduced to the lower scales and the applicants have been practically reverted from the posts held by them prior to the issue of the impugned orders. direct/command the Respondents to restore the grades and scales of the Cadre of Lab. Supdts. in terms of Railway Board's orders R.B.E. No. 187/98 dated 17.08.1998, Annexure A-5, after implementing and enforcing the standardization of designations orders dated 19.06.1985, Annexure A-2, and further grant the benefits of restructuring orders of the Railway Board, R.B.E. No. 177/03 dated 09.10.2003, Annex.A-9, with all consequential benefits of arrears of pay, allowances with 24% p.a. interest from the date of reduction to the date of actual payment. any other relief deemed fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case, may also be granted in addition to the heav...

Remidex Pharma Private Limited Vs. Savita Pharmaceuticals P. Ltd. and ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 131(2006)DLT350; 2006(90)DRJ415; 2006(33)PTC157(Del)

Badar Durrez Ahmed, J.1. The question that arises for consideration in the present application under Order 39 Rules 1 & 2, CPC is whether the plaintiff is entitled to an interim order of injunction, inter alia, restraining the defendant from using the mark 'EVIT' in respect of its pharmaceutical products. The plaintiff's case is that the defendant's trademark 'EVIT' is deceptively similar to the plaintiff's registered trademark 'ZEVIT'.2. The plaintiff's trademark 'ZEVIT' is registered under Registration No. 452526 on 16.04.1986 in respect of pharmaceuticals, veterinary and sanitary preparations and substances. The original registration was in the name of Eskayef Ltd. The name of that company was changed to Smithkline Beecham Pharmaceuticals (India) Ltd in the year 1994. By a Deed of Assignment dated 19.01.1998, the said registered trademark was assigned by the said Smithkline Beecham Pharmaceuticals (India) Ltd in favor of the plaintiff. It is the plaintiff's case that the trademark '...

Ess Vee Traders and ors. Vs. Ambuja Cement Rajasthan Limited

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2006(3)ARBLR152(Delhi); IV(2006)BC289; 131(2006)DLT341; 2006(90)DRJ293

Badar Durrez Ahmed, J.1. This is an application for appointment of an Arbitral Tribunal to adjudicate the purported disputes between the petitioner No. 1 (firm) and the respondent. This application is styled as an application under Section 11(4) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as 'the said Act'). However, it is being treated as an application under Section 11(6) of the said Act inasmuch as there purports to be an arbitration agreement between the parties and a procedure for appointing the arbitrator has been provided for. thereforee, Section 11(4) of the said Act would not apply and this application has to be dealt with in terms of the provisions of Section 11(6) thereof.2. The respondent has raised a preliminary issue with regard to the maintainability of this petition. It is the contention of the learned Counsel appearing for the respondent that the petitioner No. 1 is a partnership firm which was not registered on the date of institution of the...

Sterlite Industries (India) Limited Vs. Department of Telecommunicatio ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2006(3)ARBLR24(Delhi)

ORDER1. Subject: Appointment of Arbitrator for determination of disputes between M/s. Sterlite Industries India Ltd. and Department of Telecommunications for Supply of 1.74 LCKM PIJF-3/U/G Cables under deferred payment agreement No. SP/PIJF/3/DFP/96-97/16 dated 17-12-96 to Calcutta Telephone Distt. - Reg. levy of liquidated damages against the supply of cables during extended period.Whereas, in OMP No. 298/99 in the High Court New Delhi, the Hon'ble Justice Mr. S.N. Kapoor has passed an order on 03-11-1999 to take steps for referring the dispute to the Arbitrator for determination regarding levy of liquidated damage charges for the cables supplied during the extended period of delivery.2. The undersigned, in exercise of powers under Clause-25 to deferred payment agreement No. SP/PIJF/3/DFP/96-97/16 dated 17-12-1996, hereby nominate and appoints Shri H.C. Goyal, Chief General Manager, Telecom Factory, Calcutta for determination and adjudication of the said dispute so far arbitrable.3. T...