Delhi Court September 2006 Judgments

Md. Abrar Alam Vs. Jamia Hamdard and anr.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 134(2006)DLT306

Anil Kumar, J. 1. The petitioner has sought a writ against the respondents directing them to give admission to the petitioner in the course of Master of Pharmacy (M. Pharma) for the year 2006-07 as per the preferences given by the petitioner in his admission form bearing No. 55664.2. The relevant facts for adjudication of controversies between the parties are that the petitioner completed his B. Pharm from respondent No. 1, Jamia Hamdard (a deemed University) and also qualified GATE 2006 and scored 421 (95.02%).3. The score card of the GATE qualified by the petitioner scoring 95.02% was issued by and on behalf of Ministry of Human Resource Development, Government of India, dated 15th March, 2006 and the GATE score of the petitioner is valid up to 31st March, 2008. 4. The petitioner applied for admission to the course of M. Pharm for the year 2006 and he was given an admission form bearing No. 55664. According to the averment of the petitioner, on account of bonafide confusion and mista...

Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Bhan Textiles P. Ltd.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: [2006]287ITR370(Delhi)

1. This appeal was admitted on the following substantial question of law:Whether the actual service of a notice under Section 143(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 as it stood before amendment, after the date prescribed in the said provision would relate back to the date of issue of the notice?2. So far as the factual matrix of the case is concerned, the Revenue is in a worse position than that which obtained in CIT v. Lunar Diamonds Ltd. : [2006]281ITR1(Delhi) . Ms. Prem Lata Bansal, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant, seeks to point out that there was some doubt in CIT v. Lunar Diamonds Ltd. whether the notices had at all been sent or not. In the present case, however, it is the admitted case that the notice under Section 143(2) of the Income-tax Act though issued on November 27, 1997, and dispatched on November 28, 1997, was actually received by the assessed only on December 1, 1997. The assessed had filed the return on November 20, 1996, and, thereforee, the time sti...

Amar Jyoti Packers Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2007(207)ELT345(Del); 2007[5]STR10

ORDER1. On holistic reading of the impugned Order we are unable to agree with learned counsel for the Petitioner that the Petitioner's financial hardship had not been considered. The Tribunal as well as the Commissioner had come to the conclusion that the Petitioner was actually in the control of Devi Dass Garg, Rakesh Kumar Garg and Santosh Kumar Garg. In the Order dated 7-7-2006 of this Court in WP (C) Nos. 9243/2006, 9341/2006 and 9325/2006 filed by Devi Dass Garg and the two others, there is an observation, with which we are in respectful agreement, that it is incredible that seasoned businessmen had allowed their 'Pujari' to run their business. Mr. Chandhiok submits that if the Petitioner is considered as a Pujari, and not the manufacturer, then his financial hardship would become obvious. We are unable to agree. If the corporate veil is lifted the persons who are in actual control of Amar Jyoti Packers will have to pay the impugned demand. No grounds to interfere under Article 22...

Dev Pharmacy Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Ozone Pharmaceuticals Ltd.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2006(33)PTC681(Del)

Gita Mittal, J.1. This suit has been filed by the plaintiff who has asserted that its using the trade mark 'PERFECT' in respect of goods Manufactured by it and for which it has achieved a good reputation in the market. Alleging dishonest adoption of this trade mark by the defendant, who was stated to be trading under the trade mark 'PERFEKT', the plaintiff filed the present suit seeking the following prayers:(a) For a decree of permanent injunction restraining the defendants by themselves as also through their directors, principal officers, agents, representatives, distributors, assigns, stockists and all other acting for and on behalf of the defendant from using, displaying, selling, advertising or by any other mode or manner dealing in the impugned goods and business of Medicinal Formulations and Medicinal and Pharmaceutical Preparations and other allied and cognate goods and business under the impugned trade mark PERFEKT or any other trade mark or label bearing the same or identical...

Castrol Limited and anr. Vs. Manoj Duggal and anr.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2007(34)PTC95(Del)

Pradeep Nandrajog, J.1. Defendants failed to file a written statement and after causing appearance to be made through counsel have disappeared from the scene.2. On 17.7.2006, plaintiff was called upon to lead evidence noting that since damages have been claimed, same have to be established.3. Affidavit by way of evidence has been filed. 8 documents have been proved as Exhibits P-1, P-2, P-3, P-4, P-5, P-6, P-7 and P-8.4. Before I deal with the evidence, a brief resume of the case may be set out.5. Plaintiff No. 1 claims to be a company incorporated in England. Plaintiff No. 2 claims to be a company incorporated in India.6. It is stated that plaintiff No. 1 was originally incorporated in 1990 as C.C. Wakefield & Co. Ltd. Name was changed to Castrol Ltd. in the year 1960. That since 1960 first plaintiff has been carrying on business under the trade mark/trade name 'Castrol'. In India, plaintiff No. 1 has obtained registration pertaining to petroleum products under class 4. It is stated t...

integral Finvest (P) Ltd. Vs. Securities and Exchange Board of India a ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: (2007)2CompLJ433(Del)

ORDERAnil Kumar, J.1. The petitioner has prayed for a writ against Securities and Exchange Board of India directing it to ensure that no transfer or variation in shareholdings of respondent No. 3, Indo Gulf Industries Ltd. take place until final adjudication of the matter in arbitration. The petitioner has also sought direction against respondent Nos. 1 and 2 to withdraw the publication of public offer relating to respondent No. 3 and a direction to respondent Nos. 1 and 2 not to allow any one to deal with the shares of respondent No. 3 or to allow change in control and management of respondent No. 3, subject matter of disputes between the parties under memorandum of understanding dated 14 August 2005.2. The petitioner claimed that respondent No. 1 failed to implement directions contained in order dated 6 September 2006 passed by this Court in OMP No. 417 of 2006 wherein a learned Single Judge had directed respondent No. 3, Indo Gulf Industries Ltd. and respondent No. 4, Dr. S.K. Garg,...

Guru Nanak Auto Enterprises Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. The issue involved in this case is regarding waiver of pre-deposit of the amount of interest that has been charged from the applicant and confirmed by the Commissioner (Appeals) in the Order-in-Appeal dated 23-3-2006.2. Considered the submissions made at length by both the sides and perused the record. I find that the lower authorities have charged the interest from the appellant on the supplementary invoices, which has been generated by him due to difference in rate. Be that as it may be, provision of Section 35-F empowers me to only grant waiver of pre-deposit of the duty and penalty. The said provision does not empower Tribunal to grant waiver the interest involved. There is no demand of duty nor any penalty is involved in this case. In view of these facts and circumstances mentioned above, the appellant is directed to deposit the entire amount of interest within six weeks from today and report compliance on 22nd November, 2006. Subject to such compliance being reported, the app...

Ast Paper Mills Ltd., Shri Vs. Cce

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2007)(114)ECC325

2. The appellant filed these appeals against the adjudication order passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise whereby demand of Rs. 1,99,25,965/- was confirmed on M/s AST Paper Mills and penalty of the equal amount was imposed on the firm and personal penalties were imposed on the appellant i.e. Shri Kulbir Singh and Sh. Bhupinder Singh.3. The demand was confirmed on the ground that two factories belonging to M/s AST Paper Mills and M/s B.K. Krafts Ltd. are actually one factory and, therefore, both are not entitled separately for the benefit of Notification No. 6/2000-CE.4. The contention of the appellant is that M/s AST Paper Mills Ltd. is engaged in the manufacture of various kinds of paper and paperboard, since 1995. Thereafter the appellant set up another unit for the manufacture of various kinds of paper and plant and machinery was procured for the same. During the period 1998 to 2001 M/s AST Paper Mills Ltd. owned by family consisting of two brothers namely Sh. Kulbir Singh a...

FountaIn Head Design Service Pvt. Vs. Commr. of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2006)(110)ECC494

1. This appeal is directed against the Order-in-Appeal dated 21-3-2006 which upheld the Order-in-Original imposing penalty on the appellant.2. The relevant facts that arise for consideration are that the appellants were registered as service provider under the provision of Finance Act, 1994 as providers of service of architect services. During the period October to February, 2002, the appellant did not deposit the service tax in time and there was a delay in deposit the service tax and filing of service tax returns. Show cause notice was issued to the appellant on 10-3-2003 for recovery of the service tax involved and for imposition of penalty under Sections 76 and 77 of the Act. The adjudicating authority confirmed the demand of service tax and imposed equal amount of penalty under the provision of Section 76 read with Section 77. On an appeal, the Commissioner (Appeals) concurred with the findings of the adjudicating authority and upheld the order. Hence this appeal.3. The learned a...

Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Bsbk P. Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2006)(113)ECC320

1. This is an appeal filed by the Revenue challenging the order of Commissioner (Appeals) made on 28.4.2005, setting aside the order-in-original passed by the Assistant Commissioner on 2.2.2005 under which the Assistant Commissioner had demanded Rs. 12,36,516/- along with interest and penalty.2. The respondent in this case is admittedly an engineering firm engaged not only in the manufacture of fabrication and construction of plants and machines, but also accepting contracts for drawing, designing, engineering, erection, commission and testing of plants and machines. The respondent's contention that they were not qualified professionals was held by the Assistant Commissioner as illogical and incorrect and that they fulfilled the first criteria of the statutory definition of consulting engineering. In paragraphs 13, 14 and 15 of the order-in-original, the learned Assistant Commissioner had an occasion to observe that the services rendered by the respondent, namely, designing and engine...