Delhi Court March 2008 Judgments

Marc Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Five Star Electricals (India) and anr.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: LC2008(2)384

ORDERShiv Narayan Dhingra, J.IA No. 5911/2005 in CS(OS) No. 1059/2005 and is No. 1193/2006 in Counter Claim No. 1349/20051. The plaintiff filed the instant suit under Sections 134 and 135 of Trademark Act, 1999 as well as under Section 51 of Indian Copyrights Act seeking permanent injunction against the defendant alleging therein that the defendant was infringing the trademark and logo of the plaintiff viz 'Marc'.2. It is submitted by the plaintiff that the plaintiff conceived and coined word 'Marc' and started using it as its trademark as well as logo since 1981 and developed the goodwill and reputation under the above trademark and logo. The plaintiff had become the owner of the trademark and logo because of exclusive use and the goods of the plaintiff bearing this trademark were distributed in major parts of the country. The plaintiff's trademark/logo 'Marc' was duly registered under the Trademark Act under No. 420735B in Class '9' and under No. 420736 in Class '1' and 420737B in Cl...

Delhi Milk Scheme Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax and Deputy Commission ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: (2008)218CTR(Del)630; [2008]301ITR373(Delhi)

Madan B. Lokur, J.1. The assessed is aggrieved by an order dated 20th January, 2006 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench 'C' in ITA (TDS) No. 102 and 103/Del/2003 relevant for the assessment years 2002-2003 and 2003-2004 respectively.2. The issue that arises in this case is whether the assessed was liable to deduct tax at source on milk and milk products sold by it through `concessionaires' appointed by it.3. A survey operation under Section 133A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) was carried out on 12th June, 2002 on the basis of information that the assessed was not deducting tax at source on the commission paid by it to its agents (called concessionaires) who sell milk on behalf of the assessed. During the course of survey, it was found that the information was correct and it was also found that the assessed has appointed a large number of agents all over Delhi to sell milk and milk products from booths which are owned by the assessed. The assessed appoints it...

Magma Leasing Limited Vs. Hcl Infosystems Limited

Court: Delhi

Reported in: [2008]143CompCas267(Delhi); (2008)3CompLJ299(Del); 2008(102)DRJ269; [2008]87SCL196(Delhi)

Mukundakam Sharma, C.J.1. By filing this appeal the appellant challenges legality of the order dated 10th July, 2006 passed by the learned Company Judge in C.P. No.105/2005, holding that some of the claims of the appellant for payment of interest would be barred by limitation and some other claims would be within limitation. The direction issued by the learned Company Judge to the parties to carry out fresh calculations and to file a chart calculating interest payable under Clause 4 of the Agreement dated 11/12th November, 1998 is also under challenge in this appeal.2. In order to appreciate the contentions of the parties it is necessary to place on record a few facts leading to the filing of the present appeal.3. The appellant herein filed a Company Petition under Section 433 read with Section 434 of the Companies Act, 1956 for winding up of the respondent company on the ground that the respondent had failed to make payment of lease rentals and also interest accrued thereon. On 25th S...

Mr. V.K. Sayal Vs. Bharat Heavy Electrical Ltd. (Bhel) and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2008(102)DRJ286

Vipin Sanghi, J.1. The defendant has filed this application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC for rejection of the plaint primarily on two grounds. The first is that the suit is barred by law of limitation and the second is that the suit is barred by the principles of res-judicata. The reliefs prayed in the suit are as follows:(a) Pass a decree of declaration declaring:(i) the impugned orders dated 6.7.2001 and 18.9.2001 passed by the disciplinary authority and the appellate authority respectively of the defendant No. 1, as also the related inquiry proceedings relating to memo dated 28.9.2000 regarding dismissal of the plaintiff from service as illegal, arbitrary, mala fide, void, invalid and nonest abinitio being motivated and actuated by mala fides only to deprive and reject the voluntary retirement application of the plaintiff and that the plaintiff should be deemed to be in service of the defendant No. 1 till the date of his superannuation.(ii) the order dated 28.8.2000 passed by the defen...

irshad Wali, S/O Shri Md. Abdul Vs. Union of India Through (Uoi), the

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

1. Applicant, an IPS Probationer, by virtue of this OA, has impugned respondents' order dated 5.9.2006, whereby under Rule 10 of All India Services (Discipline & Appeal) Rules, 1969, a minor penalty of withholding of one increment of pay for a period of three years without cumulative effect in consultation with the Union Public Service Commission (UPSC) has been imposed upon him. Quashing of the aforesaid order with consequential benefits has been sought.2. Applicant, who belongs to 2004 batch of IPS, while undergoing probationer training in Police Academy at Hyderabad, was served with a memorandum dated 10.8.2005 under Rule 10 of the All India Services (Discipline & Appeal) Rules, 1969, on the ground that he abused and pounced upon the Constable, which is unbecoming of a member of the Service. Applicant submitted his representation and thereafter without holding any inquiry and in consultation with the UPSC a minor penalty was imposed upon applicant, in agreement with the adv...

Shri Raghubir Singh S/O Shri Dani Vs. Union of India Through (Uoi)

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

1. A retired disabled railway employee seeks to challenge the order dated 19.1.2007 by virtue of which, request of the applicant for grant of financial upgradation under Assured Career Progression Scheme has been turned down on the ground that the Circular issued as Clarification by the DoPT in 2001 has no applicability.2. Learned Counsel of the applicant would draw our attention to the observations made by the Tribunal earlier, where following has been recorded: 7. On careful consideration of the rival contentions of the parties in welfare legislation regarding disable who have been medically decategorised the Apex Court in various pronouncement have gone to the extent that one who is medically decategories for want of equivalent post a supernumory post be created to carry the incumbent till the attainment of age of superannuation for retirement. It is also trite as per the rules and instructions formulated by the Railway Board one who is medically decategorised would be on the alter...

All India Federation of Central Vs. Shri A.C. Buck Chief Commissioner

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

1. In this OA Shri D.K. Chopra, who is Superintendent in Customs Preventive is the President of the All India Federation of Central Excise Gazetted Executive Officers, Delhi and has filed this application on behalf of the said association. The relief sought by the applicants including Shri D.K. Chopra, in his personal capacity, revolve around reconsideration of the current transfer policy vis-`-vis the previous policy of 2004 which remained in force for three years and to direct the administration to take appropriate action against the officers who have misused their office to manipulate transfer orders.Besides this OA, two MAs were also filed by him, i.e., 1903 and 1904 of 2007 on the question who was the correct person to represent the All India Federation of Central Excise Gazetted Officers.2. At present, the limited issue which needs to be addressed in this order is the preliminary objection raised by the respondents that the present application has not been signed and verified by...

Shri J.C. Bansal, Executive Vs. Delhi Development Authority

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

1. J.C. Bansal, applicant herein, who is presently holding the post of Executive Engineer (Civil) with the respondents - Delhi Development Authority (hereinafter referred to as DDA), has filed this Application under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 seeking a writ in the nature of certiorari to quash orders dated 17.03.2006, 26.04.2006, 25.09.2006 as also 27.09.2007 and in consequence of setting aside of orders aforesaid, the applicant prays that the respondents be directed to inform him as to why notional seniority could not be given to him.2. The facts, as projected in the Application, reveal that the applicant was appointed as Work Assistant with the respondents on work charged muster roll basis on 27.05.1969. The respondents had invited applications for the posts of Sectional Officer (Civil) (hereinafter referred to as SO) in the pay scale of Rs. 180-380 on 24.10.1969. The applicant applied for the post of SO and was called for interview but ultimately, he was a...

Rohtas Singh Vs. Jaswant Singh and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 150(2008)DLT122

Pradeep Nandrajog, J.1. The question involved in the present appeal is whether the will dated 6.10.1989 is the last legal and valid testament executed by late Sh. Than Singh.2. Late Sh. Than Singh (hereinafter referred to as the testator) who died on 15.1.1991 was survived by his widow Smt. Birina Devi, 3 sons namely, Sh. Rohtas Singh, Sri Bhagwan and Jaswant Singh and 1 daughter Smt. Sham Devi.3. On 19.4.19991 Rohtas Singh filed a petition under Section 276 of the Indian Succession Act 1925 seeking probate of the will purported to have been executed by Than Singh on 6.10.1989. He was the principal beneficiary under the will.4. The will dated 6.10.1989, Ex. P-1, is a computer typed document and consists of 6 sheets. It has been typed in English language. It bears the thumb impression of the testator on each page. It is a registered document.5. The will, Ex. P-1, has been witnessed by one Sh. Devender Kumar Sharma, Advocate and one Sh. Naresh Kumar Verma, Advocate.6. In the will it has ...

Smt. Raj Roshini Vs. Shri Surinder Kumar

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 149(2008)DLT96

Pradeep Nandrajog, J.1. Before hearing learned Counsel for the parties I met the parties in chamber in presence of Master Anish and Master Siddhant.2. The elder son Master Anish has shown extreme hostility towards his father and in presence of his father has given specific incidents of his father having assaulted not only his mother but even him. Details of the assault have been given by Master Anish. After initially denying having assaulted his wife and Master Anish, the respondent attempted to argue out with Master Anish that he was provoked into so doing.3. Master Siddhant has hardly any memories of his father for the reason over 7 years back the parents separated and since then he has been living happily with his mother.4. Master Anish was born on 24.1.1991. He is aged 17 years and 1 month.Issue of his custody would lose all meaning after 11 months. Master Siddhant was born on 24.6.1996. He is aged 11 years and 8 months.5. The issue which concerns me in the instant appeal is the or...