Delhi Court August 2007 Judgments

Una Co-operative Group Housing Society Ltd. Vs. Ravindra Brother

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 142(2007)DLT774; (2008)149PLR67

ORDERT.S. Thakur, J.CM 1485/20061. There is a delay of 12 days in the filing of this appeal under Section 39 of the Arbitration Act, 1940. The present application has been filed by the appellant seeking condensation of that delay. The application is accompanied by an affidavit. Mr. Sharma, counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent does not seriously oppose the prayer for condensation. Even otherwise, the appellant has, in our opinion, made out a case for condoning the delay in presentation of the appeal. We accordingly allow CM 1485/2006 and condone the delay of 12 days.FAO(OS) 51/2006 and CM 1484/2006The appeal arises out of an order passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court whereby an application/objection under Sections 30/33 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 has been dismissed in the absence of the applicant/appellant herein and the award made a Rule of the Court. The appellant has assailed the correctness of the said order primarily on the ground that since the appellant was...

Jaipal Singh Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 146(2008)DLT337; 2009(1)SLJ440(Delhi)

ORDER1. The Petitioners have invoked the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a writ of mandamus or certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order, direction, thereby quashing the Order of Termination/Dismissal passed by their Commandant vide Orders dated 6.8.1997 passed under Rule 13(3)(iii)(v) of the Army Rules, 1954 (Rules for short). It has further been prayed that the Respondents be directed to reinstate the Petitioners into the Indian Army with effect from the date of their discharge with all consequential benefits.2. The incident which led to the Discharge of the Petitioners occurred on the night of 3/4th July, 1997, in respect of which a Court of Inquiry assembled on 5th July, 1997 presided over by Lt. Col. V.K. Gautam, accompanied by Capt. M.K. Naidu and Nb Sub Baljit Singh. The first witness to be examined was Sub B.S. Rawat, who has deposed that the Petitioners were detailed to man No. 3 Sentry P...

Abdul Majid and Brothers Vs. Omega Shipping Pvt. Ltd. and Others

Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi

J.D. Kapoor, President (Oral): 1. On account of delivering of cargo to its buyer M/s. Unicorn, (Ophasselt) Belgium without receiving the payment the complainant firm has claimed compensation of Rs. 14,96,160 equivalent to US $ 41,560 along with interest @ 18% w.e.f. 21.5.1996 alleging deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps. 2. Case of the complainant, in brief, is that complainant is a partnership firm, dealing in business of exports of handicrafts. O.P. No. 2 are carriers who have their agents O.P. No. 3 at Belgium and O.P. No. 1 in India having offices at Bombay and Delhi. O.P. No. 4 is the Cargo agent of complainant. Complainant availed services of O.P. No. 4 who acted as Cargo agent of complainant and delivered the consignment consisting of 127 packages of the value of US $ 18,001 to O.P. No. 1 agents of O.P. No. 2 in India. O.P. No. 1 after receiving goods for shipping from Bombay to Antwepen (Belgium) issued Shipped-on-Board Bill of lading dated 14.11.1995. The complainant...

Gaitri Exports and ors. Vs. Cc

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2007)(123)ECC50

1. Common issue is involved in these appeals, therefore, are being taken up together. The appellant filed appeals against the impugned orders passed by the Commissioner of Customs. The appellant made import of PC sheets and declared as were manufactured out of recycled poly carbonate resin/waste. The appellant declared the value of the goods @ US $ 600 PMT to $ 640 PMT.2. The Revenue increased the value to US $ 1040 MTs on the basis that another importer of M/s Sidhartha Polymers Ltd. who imported the same goods by declaring the value @ US $ 1040 MTs. The appellant accepted this enhanced value and goods were cleared on payment of appropriate duty. Thereafter show-cause notices were issued to the present appellant, as well as to M/s Sidhartha Polymers Ltd. on the ground that the goods in question were not manufactured out of recycled poly carbonate resin and in fact the goods were of prime quality and made from virgin polymer The Revenue collected evidence by way of a sample from Dubai...

Dwarikesh Sugar Industries Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2008)9STR27

1. After hearing both the sides and going through the record and the impugned order, it appears that Cenvat credit was denied to the appellant on the ground that the goods receipt was not a cenvatable document. It, however, appears from the record shown by the learned Authorized Representative for the appellant, which according to him, already forms a part of the record before the authorities below, that challans were produced. It was pointed out that the document was TR-6 as well as challan. It, prima facie, appears that though in Clause (e) of the explanation to Rule 9(1), the amendment incorporating "Clause (v) of Clause (d) of Sub-rule (1) of Rule 2 of the Service Tax Rules, 1994", was added with effect from 16-6-2005, there was already a provision in Clause (f) of the explanation to Rule 9(1), under which it was clarified that cenvatable invoice includes an invoice, a bill or challan issued by a provider of input service on or after the 10th day of September, 2004. The challans e...

Punjab Color Lab Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2008)9STR460

1. The applicant filed this application for waiver of pre-deposit of amount of Service Tax and penalty. The applicants are providing the photographic service and Revenue is of the opinion that Service tax is to be paid on the gross amount received by the applicant whereas applicants were paying only after taking into consideration 30% of the amount excluding the value of material. The applicants are situated in Madhya Pradesh and Hon'ble Madhya Pradesh in writ petition No.7178/2006 in the case of Agrawal Colour Photo Inds. v. CCE vide order dated 14-8-06 2007 (8) S.T.R. 3 M.P) granted stay of recovery in respect of the Service tax which was confirmed on the same grounds. In view of the above order passed by the Hon'ble High Court, the pre-deposit of amount of Service tax and penalties are waived for hearing of the appeal. The stay petition allowed....

Constable Gopal S/O Sh. Mange Lal Vs. Govt. of N.C.T.D., Through

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

1. Constable Gopal has filed this Application under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 calling in question the order dated 21.7.2006 (Annexure A-2) vide which pursuant to a show cause notice, his absence from duty for 71 days has been directed to be treated as period "not spent on duty" and the same was not to be regularized in any manner. There is no dispute that the applicant did not attend to his duties for about 71 days from 6.6.2005 to 16.8.2005 but to a show cause notice issued to him for having violated Standing Order No. 111, he gave a reply which reads as follows: With reference to Letter No. 6152/SIP/SD(AC) dated New Delhi the 26.4.06, it is respectfully submitted that on 6.6.05, due to serious illness of the applicant during the duty, the applicant went to CGHS Dispensary, Sewa Nagar for taking medicines where after the examination, Doctor diagnosed the disease as jaundice and advised medicines and 7 days medical rest vide prescription slip No. 15669/05. T...

Sumitra Purkayastha W/O Shri Vs. Union of India (Uoi) Through

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

1. In this OA the applicant has sought quashing of the impugned order dated 11.03.2005 (Annexure A-1) and has prayed that her ACRs for the reporting periods 2002-03 and 2003-04 may be declared as non est in the eyes of law and the respondents may be directed to remove them from the ACR dossier of the applicant, with consequential benefits.2. The brief facts of the case are that the applicant is a member of the Indian Postal and Telegraph (Accounts & Finance) Service, Group-A and was appointed to the Service in 1983. While the applicant was on deputation to MTNL as General Manager (Investor Relations), vide letter dated 12.07.2004 (Annexure A-2), she was informed that her ACRs for the years 2002-03 and 2003-04 had not been completed. Thereupon, vide her letter dated 31.01.2005 (Annexure A-4), she submitted a representation to respondent No. 2 stating that there has been a willful delay by the Reporting Officer in completing the ACRs of the applicant for the periods aforementioned a...

Data Ram S/O Shri Peer Diya Vs. Union of India (Uoi) Through

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

1. Applicant impugns order dated 18.10.1996 whereby he was imposed a penalty under Rule 18 of Railway Servants (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1968 for causing loss of Rs. 61143.50 to the Railways while working as Divisional Cashier. By filing the present OA, he has prayed for the following reliefs: (i) return of amount Rs. 40,325.00 that has been illegally deducted from the gratuity payments of the applicant including an excess amount of Rs. 9,917 deposited in Railway revenue account. (ii) examination of the relevant record to trace out the mistakes committed by clerical staff, which resulted in alleged shortage of Rs. 19,505.20p. (iii) an amount of Rs. 4,186/- recovered from the applicant on account of alleged non-recoupment be released, as it was recouped correctly. (iv) the recovery of Rs. 6,717/- made from the applicant is correct, as the work was assigned to clerical staff officially. (v) an amount of Rs. 9,919/- be refunded to the applicant as this amount was deposited twice in ...

Pepsico Inc. and ors. Vs. Sunrise Beverages

Court: Delhi

Reported in: LC2007(3)173; 2007(35)PTC687(Del)

Sanjay Kishan Kaul, J. 1. The plaintiff No. 1 is a Corporation existing under the laws of North Carolina, USA while plaintiff No. 2 is a subsidiary of plaintiff No. 1 Plaintiff No. 3 is a Company incorporated and registered under the Indian laws.2. The plaintiffs have filed the present suit against the defendant on account of infringement of their trademark 7UP/SEVEN-UP for the aerated drinks. The plaintiffs are selling aerated drinks under different brand names and 7UP/SEVEN- UP is one such trademark which is stated to be in existence for soft drinks since 1929. 3. It is the case of the plaintiffs that except for a period between 1962-1986, when there were restrictions on sale of such beverages, there has been continuous use of the trademark. In any case since 1990, there is no dispute about the use of the trademark. The sales figures have been set out in para 10 of the plaint and the particulars of registrations of the mark are in para 11.4. It is the case of the plaintiffs that the ...