Delhi Court February 2008 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
Micolube India Ltd. Vs. Maggon Auto Centre and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-07-2008
Reported in: 150(2008)DLT458; LC2008(1)294; 2008(36)PTC231(Del)
Badar Durrez Ahmed, J.1. This order shall dispose of IA. No. 11702/2007 filed under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 on behalf of the plaintiff as well as IA. No. 12433/2007 which has been filed on behalf of the defendant No. 2 under Order 39 Rule 4 CPC. The question involved in the present suit is with regard to the use of the mark MICO in relation to petroleum products including oils, greases and lubricants for automotive vehicles and automobiles, including engine oils, gear oils, tractor oils, 2T oils, transmission and hydraulic fluids and coolants.2. On 09.10.2007, when the suit had come up for admission and the plaintiff's application for ex parte injunction was taken up by this Court, it was contended by the learned Counsel for the plaintiff that the mark MICO has been used by the plaintiff since 1960 in respect of the said petroleum products and that the same stands registered in the plaintiff's name as of 12.02.1985. The plaintiff has two registration...
Mr. Mahesh Bhatt and Kasturi and Sons Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and anr ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-07-2008
Reported in: 2008BusLR366(Del); 147(2008)DLT561
Sanjiv Khanna, J1. At the very outset, we begin with the Caveat, which is almost universal whenever constitutional validity of a legislation is challenged, while deciding the question of constitutional validity, we do not pronounce judgment on whether the impugned legislation is desirable and should have been enacted. A legislation may be constitutional, yet it may not be desirable [Denis v. U.S. reported in (1950) 341 U.S. 492.2. The present Writ Petitions challenge the legality and validity of some of the provisions of the the Cigarette and Other Tobacco Products (Prohibition of Advertisement and Regulation of Trade and Commerce, Production, Supply and Distribution) Act, 2003 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act', for short) and the amended Cigarettes and Other Tobacco Products Prevention of Advertisements and Regulation of Trade and Commerce, Production, Supply and Distribution) Rules, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules', for short). It may be noted that Writ Petition (Civi...
Rudra Pratap Singh Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-07-2008
Reported in: 148(2008)DLT757; 2008(101)DRJ568
Vikramajit Sen, J.1. This Writ Petition prays for the issuance of a writ of Habeas Corpus or any other writ, order or direction to quash the impugned Detention Order dated 11.4.2002. There is also a prayer for setting the Petitioner at liberty, which has been rendered infructuous as the Detention Order has already run its course. The challenge is predicated on three grounds- (a) delay in passing the Detention Order, (b) delay in execution of the Detention Order and (c) non-supply of documents.2. Almost four decades ago it had been observed in Moti Lal Jain v. State of Bihar : 1969CriLJ33 that the interest of society are no less important than that of an individual and that when these two rights collide with each other, a balance must be maintained between them by the Courts. A score years later, in T.A. Abdul Rahman v. State of Kerala : 1990CriLJ578 the Supreme Court opined that 'when there is unsatisfactory and unexplained delay between the date of detention and the date of securing a...
Vijaypower Generators Ltd. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-07-2008
Reported in: 2008(1)ARBLR475(Delhi); 2008(101)DRJ561
S. Ravindra Bhat, J.1. In these proceedings, the plaintiff seeks filing of an arbitration award dated 10.9.1995; the defendants have filed objections to the award being I.A. 1026/1999. Initially, there was a controversy as to whether the respondents had filed objections within the stipulated time; however, that was set at rest by the order of this Court dated 13th November, 2007 whereby their application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act was accepted on condition of their paying Rs. 10,000/- as costs.2. The facts as emerging from the pleadings are that the petitioner was awarded a contract towards 'supply and errection of 2x100 KVA D.G. Set for 50 KW SW (Short Wave) AIR Transmitter' at Srinagar, in Jammu and Kashmir. A condition in the contract i.e. Clause 25 stipulated that disputes between the parties would be adjudicated by an Arbitrator. The contract was awarded on 29.8.2007. It required completion of the supply and errection of agreed equipments within five months. 3. The peti...
Fair Deal Agencies and anr. Vs. Inner Mongolia Muwang Animal By-produc ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-07-2008
Reported in: 2008(1)CTLJ169(Del); 150(2008)DLT623; 2008(101)DRJ306
Badar Durrez Ahmed, J.1. By the order dated 23.07.2007, the following issues were framed:1. Whether the letters of credit are not liable to be honoured on account of any fraud OPP2. Whether this Court has no territorial jurisdiction to try and determine the present suit OPD3. ReliefIssue No.2:2. Since issue No. 2 pertains to the jurisdiction of this Court to try and determine the present suit, it would be appropriate to take up consideration of that issue first. The objection as to jurisdiction had been taken by the defendant No. 3. The entire case as set out in the plaint concerns two Letters of Credit. The plaintiff had filed this suit seeking an injunction against the defendant No. 3 (the issuing bank of the two letters of credit) restraining it from making payments. The letters of credit were issued at the request of the plaintiff because the plaintiff had ordered certain goods from the defendant No. 1 through the defendant No. 2. It is the case of the plaintiff that the documents ...
Ashok Sikka Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-07-2008
Reported in: [2008]143CompCas573(Delhi); 147(2008)DLT552; 2008(101)DRJ370
ORDERS. Muralidhar, J.1. These petitions under Sections 482 Cr.P.C. seek the quashing of FIR No. 972 of 1998 registered at Police Station Connaught Place under Sections 406/409/420/120B IPC and the criminal proceedings emanating there from.2. The FIR in question narrates that a complaint was received from one Dr. Rakesh Oberoi seeking appropriate action against K.M. Capital Limited ('the Company') and its Managing Director Shri Kuldeep Mansukhani. The complaint was that the Company had failed to repay fixed deposits made by the complainant and others with it on maturity. The cheques issued by the said company for repayment of the deposits were dishonoured upon presentation to the bank for payment.3. The investigation by the police resulted in the filing of a chargesheet on 20th April 2000. The specific averments in the chargesheet relevant for the present petitions, filed by three of the persons who are stated to have been Directors of the Company, read as under:During the course of in...
Rajan Bagaria Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-07-2008
Reported in: 2008(101)DRJ385
ORDERS. Muralidhar, J.1. This is a petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 ('CrPC') seeking the quashing of Criminal Complaint titled Chief Enforcement Officer v. Ratan Exports & Industries and Ors. pending in the court of the learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate ('ACMM'), New Delhi insofar as it concerns the Petitioner.2. The complaint in question was filed by the Enforcement Directorate under Section 56 of Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 ('FERA') read with Sections 49(3) and 49(4) of the Foreign Exchange Management Act, 1999 ('Act') against the company M/s. Ratan Exports & Industries Limited ('REIL') and six other persons. The Petitioner Mr. Rajan Bagaria was arrayed as accused No. 5, in the complaint.3. The complaint stated that by a letter dated 26th May, 1997 Reserve Bank of India ('RBI') had informed the Enforcement Directorate that export proceeds to the tune of Rs. 22.95 crores were pending realization in the account of REIL. Earlier...
K. Suresh Vs. Lloyds Finance Ltd. and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-07-2008
Reported in: III(2008)BC401
ORDERS. Muralidhar, J.1. The Petitioner in this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (`CrPC') seeks the quashing of Criminal Complaint No. 2234 of 2001 titled Lloyds Finance Ltd. v. Madhya Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation and Ors. pending in the Court of the Metropolitan Magistrate (`MM'), New Delhi. The complaint was filed by the Respondent No. 1 against the Madhya Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation (`MPSRTC') as well as three others including the Petitioner here who is its Managing Director and two others being the Chief Accounts Officer and the Accounts Officer of MPSRTC. The complaint was for offences under Sections 138 and 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (`NI Act') in respect of the dishonor of eleven cheques issued on behalf of the MPSRTC in favor of the complainant company.2. Mr. Siddharth Luthra, the learned Senior Counsel, appearing for the Petitioner urged two grounds in support of the prayer for quashing of the criminal...
Alfa Graphics Vs. Arjun Kohli
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-07-2008
Reported in: II(2008)BC559; 148(2008)DLT373; 2008(101)DRJ301
ORDERS. Muralidhar, J.1. This is a petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 ('CrPC') seeking the quashing of the proceedings arising out of the complaint case No. 877/1/2006 titled Arjun Kohli v. Alfa Graphics pending in the court of the learned Metropolitan Magistrate ('MM'), Delhi. The complaint has been filed by the Respondent against the Petitioner for the offence under Section 138 read with Section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 ('NI Act') and Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code 1860 ('IPC'). 2. The only accused person shown in the complaint is as under:M/s Alfa Graphics7, Neelkanth Apartment,Gokuldas Pasta Road,Dadar, East Mumbai(Through its Partner).3. Para 3 of the complaint lists out 20 cheques drawn by the Petitioner M/s. Alfa Graphics in favor of the complainant Respondent in the aggregate sum of Rs. 2,26,240.00. It is stated that each of the cheques when presented by the complainant to the bank for payment was returned dishonoured on ...
Kedia Castle Delleon Industries Vs. Cce
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Feb-06-2008
Reported in: (2008)13STJ38CESTATNew(Delhi)
1. These appeals were taken up for hearing on the point of stay. The appellants have filed application for waiver of the requirement of pre-deposit. It is submitted that the issue involved in these appeals is whether the activities carried on by the appellants are covered by the manufacturing process so as to stay out of the ambit of the service tax. Learned Counsel has placed strong reliance on a judgment of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in the case of Som Distilleries Pvt. Ltd., reported in 1997 (2) MPLJ 376.2. On behalf of the Revenue, on the other hand, it was submitted that the activity involved in the case of M/s Som Distilleries Pvt. Limited was bottling of country liquor whereas in the instant case, the appellants are also engaged in packaging and labelling activities and, therefore, that part of the activity is covered by the definition of 'taxable service' in the Finance Act, 1994. In support of the contention, reliance is placed on the another decision of the Madhya Pradesh...
- ‹ Prev
- 16
- 17
- 18
- 19
- 20
- 21
- 23
- 24
- 25
- 26
- Next ›
- Last »