Delhi Court December 2007 Judgments

Galaxy Data Processing Centre Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2008)10STR407

1. Applicant filed this application for waiver of pre-deposit of penalty under Section 76 of the Finance Act, 1994. Learned Advocate on behalf of the applicant submits that the original authority imposed penalty under Section 78 and confirmed the demand of tax. Applicant preferred an appeal against the adjudication order before the Commissioner (Appeals), and the appeal of the applicant was allowed with consequential reliefs. Thereafter, the Commissioner of Central Excise by the impugned order revised the adjudication order and imposed penalty under Section 76, which is not permissible under the law. He cited several case laws on this issue.2. Learned DR on behalf of the Revenue submits that under Sub-section (5) of Section 84 of Finance Act the Commissioner of Central Excise may revise the order of the adjudicating authority on the basis of the issue. She submits that in this case the Commissioner (Appeals) has not decided the imposition of penalty under Section 76 and therefore, the...

Dr. A.K. Rai, Consultant and Vs. Union of India (Uoi) Through the

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

1. By this OA, applicant has challenged order dated 10.9.2007 whereby respondent No. 4 has been asked to act as Head of Department (HOD) of ENT in supersession of previous orders. He has also sought that applicant should be allowed to continue as HOD of ENT Department.2. The brief facts as stated by the applicant are that applicant and respondent No. 4 both belong to Non-Teaching Specialist Sub-Cadre of CHS. As per the seniority list issued on 1.1.2005 (page 13-23), applicant is shown at Sl. No. 77 while respondent No. 4 is shown at Sl.No. 78 in the said seniority list. The seniority list has never been challenged by respondent No. 4. Therefore, it is admitted fact that applicant was senior to him in the Non-Teaching Specialist Sub-Cadre of ENT. It is stated by the applicant that it was only on 12.9.2000 that applicant was posted at Sardarjung Hospital. Earlier since respondent No. 4 was senior most in Safdarjung Hospital in the ENT Department, he was made HOD w.e.f. 8.9.2000 but afte...

Mahant Surinder Nath Thru His Attorney Shri Satish Kumar Vs. Union of ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 146(2008)DLT438; 2008(100)DRJ195

Sanjay Kishan Kaul, J. 1. The plaintiff, claiming to be a Mahant of Kalkaji Mandir, has filed the present suit for declaration, possession and injunction through his attorney Mr.Satish Kumar. The attorney is the natural born brother of the Mahant.2. The case of the plaintiff is that the plaintiff is the lawful owner of 50% share of Khasra No. 629 measuring 4 bigha 2 biswa, Khasra No. 630 measuring 18 bigha 9 biswa, Khasra No. 633, 633/1, 633/2 and 633/2/1 measuring 185 bigha and 1 biswa in Village Bahapur. Out of this total land, certain portions of the land were acquired by different awards by the Government of India in all the six khasra numbers. The remaining land after acquisition is stated to be 45 bigha and 10 biswa out of which the share of the plaintiff is stated to be 22 bigha and 15 biswa.3. The plaintiff claims that after demarcation of the land which resulted in Suit No. 342/1991, the plaintiff approached the Director (Lands) DDA and asked him to restore the land occupied a...

Old Navy (itm) Inc. and ors. Vs. Deepa Surekha and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: LC2008(1)213

T.S. Thakur, J.1. In an infringement and passing off action, the plaintiffs-appellants filed an application for an ad interim injunction which was granted ex parte. That order has been partly modified by another order dated 6th November, 2007. The plaintiffs-appellants has assailed the modification to the extent it has vacated the order in part and imposed costs.2. It is, in our view, unnecessary to set out the factual backdrop in which the controversy arises. We say so because learned Counsel for the defendants-respondents submits that although the order passed by the learned Single Judge permits the defendants-respondents to use trade mark 'GAPPLE', the defendants-respondents do not intend to use the said trademark either in the same writing style or colour combination or otherwise. He submits that with the statement made by him the controversy in the appeal whether the modification made by the learned Single Judge and the permission granted to the defendants to use 'GAPPLE' as trade...

Shri G.L. Didwania Vs. Minoo K. Bhagwagar

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2008(100)DRJ569

Pradeep Nandrajog, J.1. Appellant has suffered a dismissal of the suit as well as the first appeal. This is notwithstanding the fact that the respondent was ex-parte at the trial. In the second appeal I am to answer the following question of law:Whether merely because the testimony of PW-1 remained unchallenged is appellant entitled to a decree in light of Ex.PW-1/1, PW-1/2 and PW-1/3?2. The courts below have held against the appellant/plaintiff with reference to the three documents proved by the plaintiff himself being Ex.Pw-1/1, PW-1/2 and PW-1/3.3. Appellant sued to recover Rs. 2,81,386/- alleging that he had advanced Rs. 11 lacs to the respondent and that pertaining to Rs. 10 lacs advanced by cheques and a bank draft he i.e. the respondent had executed promissory notes. That in respect of Rs. 1 lac advanced in cash no promissory note was issued. That he had filed a suit under Order xxxvII for recovery of Rs. 10 lacs together with interest in respect whereof promissory notes were ex...

Roop Singh and Roshama Varghese Vs. Ramesh C. Kapoor

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 146(2008)DLT538; 2008(100)DRJ162; [2008(116)FLR876]; (2008)IILLJ577Del

Hima Kohli, J. 1. The present contempt petitions are preferred by the petitioners/workmen against the respondent/proposed contemnor, petitioner in WP(C) No. 6527/2001, stating inter alias that the latter is in contempt of the order dated 17th March, 2005 passed in the aforesaid writ petition directing him to pay the petitioners/workmen minimum wages from the date of passing of an award dated 5th June, 2000 by the Labour Court, till disposal of the writ petition, and that as the disobedience on the part of the respondent/proposed contemnor is willful, he is liable to be punished for contempt of Court. Notice was issued on the petitions on 8th December, 2005. 2. A perusal of the record shows that on 21st February, 2006, the respondent/proposed contemnor had offered to take the petitioners in employment. Vide order dated 24th August, 2006, the petitioners were given liberty to approach the respondent/proposed contemnor and it was recorded that they shall be given employment at the wages n...

V.K. Dhingra Vs. Shriram Scientific and Industrial Research Foundation

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 146(2008)DLT793

Pradeep Nandrajog, J.1. By and under the impugned order dated 10.10.2007 petitioner's application under Section 10 read with Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure praying for rejection of the plaint has been dismissed.2. At the hearing held on 12.11.2007, learned Counsel for the petitioner stated that he presses the petition treating the application in question as under Section 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure.3. Respondent is the plaintiff of the suit. Petitioner is the defendant. Alleging that when in service Flat No. A-2, Sri Colony, Delhi was licensed to the petitioner as a service benefit and since he has ceased to be in employment the possession was unauthorized the suit seeks to recover past damages @ Rs. 12,000/- per month and future damages @ Rs. 15,000/- per month.4. It is not in dispute that pertaining to the alleged cession of service there is a dispute between the parties. Petitioner alleges that his voluntary resignation was withdrawn by him before it was accept...

Microsoft Corporation and anr. Vs. Mr. Mahendra JaIn and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2008(36)PTC350(Del)

Sanjay Kishan Kaul, J. 1. The petitioners have filed a suit for permanent injunction restraining infringement of copyrights, infringement and dilution of trademarks, damages, delivery up, etc. against the defendants on account of the defendants using counterfeited/duplicate/pirated software of the plaintiffs/petitioners' MICROSOFT WINDOWS XP Professional Versions 2002 or any other software programmes of the plaintiffs. It is the case of the plaintiffs/petitioners that such pirated goods were being sold by the contemnor, who is a defendant in the suit.2. The plaintiffs/petitioners along with the suit filed an application for interim relief and in terms of order dated 24.10.2007 summons were issued in the suit and notice in the interim application. Interim relief was also granted to the plaintiffs, restraining sale, distribution and copying of such counterfeited unlicensed versions of the software of the plaintiffs. A Local Commissioner was also appointed to visit the premises of the def...

Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan and ors. Vs. Gauri Shankar

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2008(100)DRJ174

Vipin Sanghi, J.1. Kendriya Vidyalya Sangathan has filed this writ petition challenging the order dated 10.4.2003 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi in T.A. No. 33/1999 whereby the Tribunal has allowed the aforesaid application of the respondent and quashed the order dated 5/8.5.1995 and 10.5.2002 whereby the Disciplinary Authority terminated the service of the respondent and the Appellate Authority confirmed the said termination respectively.2.The respondent was working as a Group D employee of Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan since October 1984. In August 1994, he was working in Kendriya Vidyalaya, Masjid Moth. On 3.8.1994, after school hours at about 4.30 p.m, two students of Class IX, a girl and a boy approached him to have the classrooms opened for taking out their books. They took the keys from the Chowkidar after they were directed by the respondent to him, and went inside the main School building. It appears that after some time the Head Clerk...

V.C. Anthony, Chairman, Bhageeratha Engineering Ltd., Vs. Citi Financi ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: I(2008)BC430; 2008(102)DRJ40

V.B. Gupta, J.1. Initially the present petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. by the petitioners seeking discharge from five complaint cases pending under Section 138 and 144 of Negotiable Instruments Act at Karkardooma Courts.2. However, on 17th September, 2007, counsel for the petitioner gave a statement that he wants to withdraw the petition with regard to four complaint cases and as such the petition with regard to four complaint cases was dismissed as withdrawn and this petition was ordered to be treated with regard to complaint case No. 2544/07 only.3. Brief facts of this case are that respondent herein had filed complaint case under Section 138 r/w Section 144 of the Act 1881 against the present petitioners and certain other persons. The allegations made in the complaint are that petitioner No. 1 to 4 are the Directors of the company in the name and style of M/s. Bhageeratha Engineering Ltd. The present petitioners besides other persons, are the Directors (signatory o...