Delhi Court July 2006 Judgments

intas Pharmaceuticals Limited Vs. Allergan Inc.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: AIR2007Delhi108; 132(2006)DLT641; 2006(32)PTC272(Del)

Mukundakam Sharma, J. 1. The issue that arises for consideration in this appeal is whether this Court has the territorial jurisdiction to try and entertain the suit, which was filed by the respondent herein. 2.The respondent as plaintiff filed a suit on the Original Side of this Court, praying inter alias for a decree of mandatory injunction and damages, as also for infringement of trade mark, passing off and unfair competition against the appellant/defendant in the suit. In the said suit, the respondent / plaintiff claimed that the plaintiff No. 1 is a registered proprietor of the trademarks BOTOX and BTX-A in India. It was also stated by the respondent/plaintiff that this Court has the territorial jurisdiction to try and entertain the suit as the offending product of the appellant/defendant is sold by the appellant/defendant in and around Delhi, within the jurisdiction of this Court. 3. The appellant, however, filed an application dated 23rd January, 2006, under Order VII Rule 11 of ...

Bajaj Hindustan Ltd. Vs. C.C.E.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2006)(111)ECC443

1. The appellant is a manufacturer of sugar. Sale and distribution of sugar has been under Central Government control for the last several decades. Part of sugar produced by a mill is allowed to be sold as "Free-Sale" sugar. The remaining is required to be sold ("Levy Sugar") at control price for public distribution. The statutorily fixed price for levy sugar is required to form assessable value for the purpose of central excise duty.2. The appellant was disposing of sugar produced by it in the above terms. In regard to levy sugar, the appellant was discharging duty on the statutorily fixed price. However, since the price fixed for levy sugar was uneconomical, it moved the High Court and obtained interim order for charging a higher price. Similar relief was obtained from High Courts by some other sugar manufacturers also. However, excise duty was paid only at the statutorily fixed price. The litigation concluded with the 22.9.93 judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Mal...

Relaxo Rubber Ltd. and Relaxo Vs. Commissioner of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2006)(111)ECC385

1. There are two appeals filed by the appellants M/s. Relaxo Rubber Ltd. and Relaxo Footwear Ltd. challenging the Commissioner (Appeals) order made on 31.8.04. The appellants imported styrene butadiene co-polymer resin KOSYN HKS-68 under thee Bills of entry from Korea. In the year 2000 they were classified under Heading No. 39.03 after ascertaining from the Central Revenue Control Laboratory that the imported material was not a synthetic rubber falling under Heading No.4002.19.2. In the impugned order, the Commisioner (Appeals) has concluded that the product imported by the appellants and classified under Heading 3903.90 is a SBR of 1900 series falling within the ambit of notification No. 73/2000 dated 22.5.2000 for the purpose of charging of Anti-dumping duty.3. Notification No. 73/2000 issued in supersession of Notification No.107/99-Cus dated 24.8.99 seeks to levy antidumping duty on SBR originating in or exported from Korea and other countries.4. The learned Counsel for the appell...

Haryana Coach Body Builders Vs. Ito

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi

1. This appeal by assessee is directed against order of revision under Section 263 of learned CIT, Rohtak dated 29-3-2005. The learned Commissioner held that the assessing officer has passed the order without proper consideration of facts and without making proper, requisite and desired enquiries. As such the order of assessing officer is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue.Thus, the assessment order was set aside and the assessing officer was directed to frame a fresh assessment after making proper enquiries.2. As the name suggests, the assessee is engaged in the business of building body on the chassis. The assessee, during the year built body of the buses on the chassis supplied by two State Government undertaking, namely, Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation (APSRTC) and Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation (GSRTC).3. The learned Commissioner found that the assessing officer selected the case for scrutiny assessment under Section 143(3) on the follo...

Honda Siel Cars India Ltd. Vs. Asstt. Commr. of Income-tax

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi

Reported in: (2007)109ITD1(Delhi)

1. These two appeals have been filed by the assessee against two orders dated 24.08.2005 of CIT(A), Ghaziabad, for the assessment years 2001-2002 & 2002-2003 respectively. Since the issues involved in both the appeals are common, these were heard together and are being disposed of by this consolidated order for the sake of convenience.2. At the outset, the assessee has raised following common additional ground for both the assessment years: 1. That the CIT(A) erred on facts and in law in enhancing the assessed income of the appellant alleging that the payment made on account of lump sum fee and royalty was neither revenue expenditure (as claimed by the appellant), nor capital expenditure(as treated by the assessing officer), without providing reasonable opportunity of being heard as provided in Section 251(2) of the Act.The assessee has submitted that it had filed returns of income for both the assessment years declaring therein loss of Rs. 68,14,22,302/- and Rs. 93,03,99,726/- fo...

Rajesh Vs. State

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2006(92)DRJ589

R.S. Sodhi, J.1. Criminal Appeal No. 274 of 2002 challenges the judgment of conviction dated 17.8.2001 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Karkardooma, Delhi, in Sessions Case No. 42/2000 holding the appellant guilty for an offence punishable under Section 302 IPC, and order of sentence dated 24.8.2001 imposing a sentence of imprisonment for life on the appellant as also a fine of Rs. 100/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo simple imprisonment for five days.2. Brief facts of the case, as noted by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, are as follows:The deceased Smt. Chanchal was the wife of the deceased. The marriage between the two took place about 9 years prior to the occurrence. At the time of the occurrence, they had two sons aged about 4 and a half years and 6 years. The family had shifted in the tenanted premises consisting of one room, on the first floor of the house of PW 10 Khajan Singh only about 708 days before the occurrence which took place on 36.4...

Raj Kapoor @ Raj Dahiya and ors. Vs. State of Delhi Through (Cbi)

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2006(91)DRJ707

R.S. Sodhi, J.1. Criminal Appeals No. 181/2002, 186/2002 and 109/2002 seek to challenge the judgment dated 22.12.2001 and order of sentence dated 15.01.2002 passed by the Special Judge in Sessions Cases No. 1/1999 and 2/1999, arising out of RC No. 2(S)/97-SIU-I under Section 120-B read with Sections 302, 307, 394, 452 and 316 of the Indian Penal Code whereby the learned Special Judge has held the appellants, Raj Kapoor @ Raj Dahiya, Sanjay Singh and Anindo Ghosh, guilty of offence punishable under Section 120-B read with Sections 302, 307, 394, 452 and 316 of the Indian Penal Code. The appellants were also held guilty for the commission of substantive offences punishable under Sections 452, 394, 307, 316 and 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. Appellants, Raj Dahiya, Sanjay Singh and Anindo Ghosh were individually held guilty for the offence punishable under Sections 302/316 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act, 1969 as amended. Appellant, Raj Dahiya, ...

Raj Kappor @ Raj Dahiya Vs. State of Delhi Through (Cbi)

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2007(94)DRJ218

R.S. Sodhi, J.1. Criminal Appeals No. 181/2002, 186/2002 and 109/2002 seek to challenge the judgment dated 22.12.2001 and order of sentence dated 15.01.2002 passed by the Special Judge in Sessions Cases No. 1/1999 and 2/1999, arising out of RC No. 2(S)/97-SIU-I under Section 120-B read with Sections 302, 307, 394, 452 and 316 of the Indian Penal Code whereby the learned Special Judge has held the appellants, Raj Kapoor @ Raj Dahiya, Sanjay Singh and Anindo Ghosh, guilty of offence punishable under Section 120-B read with Sections 302, 307, 394, 452 and 316 of the Indian Penal Code. The appellants were also held guilty for the commission of substantive offences punishable under Sections 452, 394, 307, 316 and 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. Appellants, Raj Dahiya, Sanjay Singh. and Anindo Ghosh were individually held guilty for the offence punishable under Sections 302/316 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act, 1969 as amended. Appellant, Raj Dahiya,...

Maj Gen (Dr) B.C. Roy Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2006(90)DRJ739

S. Muralidhar J.1. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 10.01.2002 of the learned Single Judge dismissing the appellant's writ petition CW 7013 of 2001. The writ petition challenged an Office Memorandum dated 6.06.2001 issued by the Government of India, Department of Science and Technology, inviting applications for appointment to the post of Surveyor General of India, Dehradun on deputation or on transfer basis. The petitioner also challenged the interview/selection that took place on 29.10.2001 for appointment to the said post and for a direction that the said post should be filled by promotion. Further the writ petition sought a declaration that the appellant was a substantive Senior Administrative Grade (SAG) Officer in regular post of Additional Surveyor General with equivalent regular army rank of Major General since 26.10.1995 (in supernumerary post for the periods 26.10.1995 to 6.07.1998) to date.2. During the pendency of the writ petition, respondent No. 5 Dr. Pr...

State Vs. Brij Kishore

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2007CriLJ401; 2006(92)DRJ720

R.S. Sodhi, J.1. The death sentence reference as also the appeal against the judgment of conviction dated 29-8-2004 and order of sentence dated 10-9-2004, passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Delhi in Sessions Case No. 107/2000, arising out of F.I.R. No. 45/2000 under Section 302, I.P.C. registered at Police Station New Friends Colony, are being decided by this judgment.2. Facts of the case as have been narrated in the judgment of the Additional Sessions Judge are as follows:The accused - Brij Kishore alias Bitto has been facing trial before this Court for a case registered at Police Station New Friends Colony vide FIR No. 45/2000 dated 31-1-2000 Under Section 302 of I.P.C. for committing murder of Sh Madan Mohan Lal Verma by stabbing with knife on 31-1-2000 at about 7.30 p.m. On the road opposite Dr. Jain Clinic, Church compound Masih Garh within the jurisdiction of Police Station New Friends Colony, New Delhi.As per the prosecution case, on 31-1-2000 at 8.15 p.m. DD No. 18A dated...