Delhi Court July 2007 Judgments

Shri Gopal Meena S/O Shri Tej Ram Vs. Union of India (Uoi), Through th ...

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

1. In this second round of litigation, 19 applicants, Inspectors Customs and Central Commissionerate, Delhi who belong to Scheduled Tribe Community, have sought following relief: i) Call for the records and declare, quash and set aside the actions, omissions and orders of the respondents in not providing for separate zone of consideration for SC/ST candidates and more specifically the ST applicants separate from a non-reserved candidates in the matter of promotions and also in refusing to or failing in complying with and implementing the judgment and orders of this Hon'ble Tribunal dated 19.5.2005 in OA No.688 of 2005 as also the determination of law and directions issued by the Hon'ble Supreme Court relating to the said separate zone of consideration as mentioned in the present OA as illegal, malafide, arbitrary, unreasonable and violative of the fundamental rights of the applicants under Article 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India. ii) Declare that the OM dated 6/1/20056, vid...

(India Tv) Independent News Service Pvt Limited Vs. India Broadcast Li ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: LC2007(2)396; 2007(35)PTC177(Del)

Sanjay Kishan Kaul, J.IA. Nos. 651/2007, 1366/2007 & 2611/20071. 'Jurisdiction' as Oliver Wendall Holmes said, 'whatever else or more it may mean, is jurisdictio, in its popular sense of authority to apply the law to the acts of men'. Ordinarily jurisdiction is exercised over defendants residing or carrying on business or personally working for gain within the territorial jurisdiction of the court. With the growth of e-commerce and commercial activity over the world wide web, it has become possible for business to be conducted across the globe without actual presence in every place. The present case, inter alia, involves the question of jurisdiction in such a situation.2. The plaintiff company runs a Hindi news channel 'INDIA TV' which was launched in March 2004. It is stated that the channel is one of the leading Hindi news channels in India having popular programs such as 'Breaking News' and other programs such as India Beats, Jago India, Aap ki Adalat etc. 3. The plaintiff claims to...

Canon Kabushiki Kaisha Vs. B. Mahajan and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2007(97)DRJ140; LC2007(2)375; 2007(35)PTC265(Del)

Vipin Sanghi, J.1. By this order I propose to dispose off is No. 525/2007 under Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 CPC filed by the plaintiff and is No. 1632/2007 under Order 39 Rule 4 CPC filed by the defendant. Counsel for both the parties have addressed their arguments and have relied upon the record and various judicial pronouncements. 2. The plaintiff, Canon Inc., is a Japanese company manufacturing professional and consumer Imaging Equipment and Information Systems. The plaintiff company has filed the instant suit for seeking the relief of a perpetual injunction restraining infringement of trademark Canon and infringement of their copyright in the stylised manner in which the said mark is used, and for passing of, delivery up and rendition of accounts. Plaintiff's contentions:3. The plaintiff company, under the trademark Canon, started its operations around 70 years ago and has, over the years, earned itself the reputation of manufacturing and selling cameras and multimedia machines which are ...

Raseel G. Ansal Vs. Satya Sheel

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2007(97)DRJ112

Sanjiv Khanna, J.1. The respondent Mr. Satya Sheel had filed a suit for perpetual injunction in respect of 9 bids was of land located in revenue estate of village Sultanpur, Tehsil Haus Khas, New Delhi. The suit was filed against Mr. Ashwani Agnimitra, who it is admitted in the plaint was owner of land adjacent to the land owned by the respondent. The land made subject matter of the suit and the dispute is a passage or 'raasta'.2. The suit was filed on 5th May, 2003 and written statement to the said suit was filed by Mr. Ashwani Agnimitra on 4th August, 2003 to which a replication was filed on 30th April, 2004. A local commissioner was also appointed by the Court and his report is on record. The documents stand filed by both the respondent and Mr. Ashwani Agnimitra. 3. The suit was fixed for framing of issues and arguments on interim application before the learned Single Judge on 5th May, 2006. On the said date, request for adjournment was made on the ground that there was change in th...

Northern Coalfields Ltd. Vs. Heavy Engineering Corpn. Ltd. and anr.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2007(3)ARBLR442(Delhi); 146(2008)DLT650

Badar Durrez Ahmed, J.1. This order shall dispose of two applications: (i) is 9250/2000 filed by the defendant No. 1 (Heavy Engineering Corporation Ltd) (HEC) under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as the CPC) for rejection of the plaint; (ii) is 11013/2000 filed by the defendant No. 2 (M/s Rampur Engineering Company Limited) (REC) for the similar relief of rejection of the plaint under Order VII Rule 11 CPC. 2. Both the defendants contend that the suit is essentially a challenge to arbitral awards and the same is not permissible under law. It is also contended on behalf of the applicants that the plaintiff (Northern Coalfields Ltd.) (NCL) is a Public Sector Undertaking. The awards were passed pursuant to their submitting themselves to arbitration under the permanent machinery of arbitration set up by the government. There is a prescribed procedure for challenging the award which does not include the filing of a suit. It was also contended...

Municipal Corporation of Delhi Vs. Nirupama JaIn and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 142(2007)DLT675; 2007(97)DRJ292

Mukundakam Sharma, C.J.1. These Letter Patent Appeals have been filed by the Municipal Corporation of Delhi against the judgments dated 13th September, 2005, 20th September ,2005 and 29th September, 2005 passed by the learned Single Judge allowing the writ petitions filed by the respondents herein. The respondents in LPA Nos. 1029-31, 1034-35, 1039-40 and 1043/2006 are original allotted/members of the Co-operative society, namely Eastend Co-operative Group Housing Society and the respondent in LPA No. 1036/2006 is a subsequent purchaser of the flat originally allotted to Ms. Meena Kumari, a member of the Co-operative society and thereafter transferred to Sh. Prem Kumar. In the said appeal, the original allottees who have sold their rights to the respondents-purchasers are also parties.2. As common questions and issues arise for consideration and similar arguments were addressed, we intend to dispose of the present appeals by this common judgment. For the sake of convenience, we have ta...

Cit Vs. G.E. Capital Services Ltd.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: (2008)214CTR(Del)551; [2008]300ITR420(Delhi)

ORDERCM No. 8353 of 2007 (Exemption)1. Allowed, subject to all just exceptions. CM stands disposed of.IT Appeal No. 560 of 20072. The revenue is aggrieved by an order dated 25-8-2006 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench 'C in ITA Nos. 2038,2528 and 2529/Delhi/2002 relevant for the assessment years 1995-96 to 1997-98.3. The only question that has arisen in this case pertaining to the assessment year 1997-98 is that expenditure incurred by the assessed on software was treated by the assessing officer as capital expenditure. The Tribunal was of the view that due to technological changes and the need to upgrade the software on a regular basis it cannot be said that the software was of an enduring nature.4. We are informed that the software for which the expenditure was incurred was MS Office, which is not a custom built software for the assessed and it is common knowledge that this software requires regular up gradation.5. We can understand that where customised softwar...

M.P. Consultancy Organisation Vs. Commr. of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. It is stated by the learned Counsel Mr. Abhishek Jaju that, Advocate Mr. N.K. Bajpai, whose appearance was filed in this appeal, will not now appear in view of the amended provisions of Section 129(6) of the Customs Act, 1962, which provides that: "On ceasing to hold office the President, Vice-President or other Members shall not be entitled to appear, act or plead before the Appellate Tribunal". The learned Counsel, who appears today, wants to place on record the Vakalatnama of Mr. L.P. Ashthana, for the appellant. The word "Appellate Tribunal" is defined in Section 2(1)(b) of the Customs Act, 1962, so as to mean, the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, constituted under Section 129 of the Act. It is, therefore, obvious that, on ceasing to hold office no President, Vice-President or any other Member can appear, act or plead before the Appellate Tribunal anywhere in India where the Benches of the Appellate Tribunal function, since the provisions do not distinguish b...

Rana Security Services Vs. Cce

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2008)10STR14

1. The learned authorized representative for the applicant states that the applicant has already paid up the amount of Rs. 1,31,289/- as against the confirmed demand of Rs. 1,41,670/-. Admittedly, the applicant is widow of the sole proprietor of Rana Security Services, the service provider who passed away on 29^th May 2005. The adjudication order was made on 18.8.2006. Still however, the applicant widow has paid up the substantial amount of service tax. Therefore, this is a fit case for granting waiver of pre-deposit of remaining amount of service tax and penalty during the pendency of the appeal.This application stands disposed of accordingly. The appeal will come up for final hearing in its due course...

Commissioner of C. Ex. Vs. Lafarge India Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. As sufficient cause is made out, delay in filing of the appeal is condoned. The authorized representative for the respondent states that he has spent Rs. 10,000/- for attending the hearing of this application and that this is an extra burden on the respondent and therefore costs may be awarded. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, we direct that costs quantified at Rs. 1,000/- will be paid by the applicant to the respondent. This application stands disposed of accordingly, with a direction to pay the costs of Rs. 1,000/- to the respondent....