Delhi Court March 2008 Judgments

Harish Saxena [Cdr.] and ors. Vs. State (Nct of Delhi) and anr.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: II(2008)DMC637

Sanjay Kishan Kaul, J.Cr.MA. 3413/2008Allowed, subject to just exceptions.Application stands disposed of.Crl. M.A. 3414/2008The delay of ten days in re-filing the petition is condoned and the application is allowed.Crl M.C. 903/20081. Notice, which is accepted by learned Counsel for the respondents.2. A marriage was solemnized between petitioner No. 1 and respondent No. 2 on 23.1.1999. There is no child born out of the wedlock between the parties. In view of matrimonial disputes, the parties separated in December, 2003. Subsequently, respondent No. 2 made a complaint against the petitioners which resulted in registration of FIR No. 1085 dated 21.12.2005 under Sections 498A/406/34 of IPC against the petitioners. The challan is stated not to have been filed as yet.3. The parties have settled their disputes vide a Memorandum of Understanding executed between the parties on 15.9.2008 in terms whereof they agreed to get their marriage terminated by mutual consent and petitioner No. 1 agreed...

Dinesh Chandra Mahendra Prop. Globe Enterprises Vs. Adarsh Priya Sriva ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2008(102)DRJ482

Pradeep Nandrajog, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.2. Vide impugned order dated 4.6.2005, appellant's application under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC has been dismissed on account of the same being barred by limitation and benefit of Section 5 of the Limitation Act being denied.3. The appellants had sought recall of an ex-parte decree dated 3.8.2002 alleging that the appellant got knowledge of the decree only on 26.9.2004 when in an arbitration proceedings relating to another firm of the appellant, namely Swati Exports, reference was made to the instant decree.4. It was stated in the application that the appellant was not served with summons in the suit.5. Respondent's response was that not only was the appellant served with the summons in the suit by registered post AD and that AD card was on the file of the court but additionally it was stated that the appellant had sought appointment of an Arbitrator vide Arbitration Petition No. 16/2002 pertaining to a jural relationship between t...

Cce Vs. Parle Agro Pvt. Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. The Revenue filed this appeal against the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) whereby Commissioner (Appeals) held that product Appy Fizz is classifiable under sub heading No. 22029020 of Central Excise Tariff on the ground that the product is fruit juice based drink.2. The Revenue challenged the order on the ground that the same is classifiable under sub-heading No. 22021010 of Central Excise Tariff as aerated water.3. The contention of the Revenue is that the Commissioner (Appeals) has ignored the chemical examiner's report and Ministry of Food and Processing Industries opinion and which was on record and held in favour of the respondents. The contention of the Revenue is that since the product in question is aerated, therefore, is classifiable as flavoured aerated water. The Revenue also relied upon the HSN Explanatory notes in support of their claim.4. The contention of the respondent is that as per the certificate given by Ministry of Food and Processing Industries, New ...

Mahabir Singh S/O Shri Mangat Ram Vs. Union of India (Uoi) (Through th ...

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

1. Mahabir Singh, applicant herein, has filed present Original Application under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 seeking to set aside and quash letter dated 17.12.2007 Annexure-A fixing his seniority at serial No. 60 and in consequence of setting aside the letter fixing his seniority, he also seeks all consequential benefits including notional promotion to higher grade of Rs. 4500-7000 as E.L.F.-I.2. In view of the contention raised by Mr. Bhandari, counsel for applicant seeking to set aside seniority list Annexure A-1 on some technical grounds, there would be no need to give facts in detail. What appears from records, as we have gone through with the assistance of learned Counsel for applicant, is that earlier in point of time, the applicant filed OA bearing No. 511/2004 which was disposed of by this Tribunal vide order dated 27.02.2004. The short order passed by this Tribunal at the very initial stage without issuing notice to the respondents reads as follows: T...

Ex. Ct. Pawan Kumar S/O Sh. Jai Lal Vs. Govt. of National Capital

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

1. Vide order dated 02.01.2008, Original Application was dismissed in default. The applicant has now filed Misc. Application No. 526/2008 seeking to recall the order aforesaid, along with another Misc.Application No. 527/2008 seeking condonation of delay in filing the Application seeking restoration of the Original Application. For the reasons mentioned in both the applications, the same are allowed and, Original Application is restored to its original number and taken up for disposal.2. Sequel to regular departmental enquiry, the applicant has since been dismissed from service vide order dated 31.03.2005. The appeal, preferred by the applicant against the order aforesaid, has been dismissed by the appellate authority vide order dated 10.08.2006. It is against these two orders and the report of enquiry officer holding him guilty of the charges framed against him that present Original Application has been filed by the applicant under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985...

Const. Satish Kumar S/O Nepal Vs. Government of Nct of Delhi Through

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

1. Pursuant to a departmental enquiry, Satish Kumar, a constable in Delhi Police, the applicant herein, has been inflicted punishment of forfeiture of one year's approved service temporarily for a period of one year entailing reduction in his pay from Rs. 4560/- p.m. to Rs. 4475/- p.m. The enquiry officer after recording the statements of HC Suraj Singh (PW-1), W/HC Adesh Kumari (PW-2), ASI Harpal singh (PW-3), SI Jasvinder Singh (PW-4), Krishan Singh (PW-5), Const. Syambir Singh (PW-6) and Inspr. Ishwar Singh (PW-7), framed the following charge against the applicant: You Const. Satish Kumar No. 2149/SD is hereby charged that while you were posted in P.S. Hauz Khas, on 16/07/99 at about 2.35 A.M. you const. Satish Kumar illegally trespassed in the flat No. F-4 Police Colony, P.S. Hauz Khas of Inspector Ishwar Singh while you were under the influence of liquor and was wearing only underwear. Shri Krishan Singh brother of Inspector Ishwar Singh was sleeping in the room who awakened and ...

Shri N.P. Kaushik Vs. Smt. Suman Kaushik

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 148(2008)DLT569; I(2008)DMC605; 2008(102)DRJ159

Pradeep Nandrajog, J.1. Present petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India lays a challenge to the order dated 28.7.2007 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Delhi whereby w.e.f. 08.03.2007 interim monthly maintenance granted to Ms. Ms. Geetika was enhanced from Rs. 3500/- to Rs. 11,000/-.2. Back drop facts leading to the filing of the present petition are that on 06.03.1987 the marriage between the petitioner Shri N.P. Kaushik and the respondent Smt. Suman Kaushik was solemnized as per Hindu rites and ceremonies. On 15.1.1988 a daughter Ms. Geetika was born out of the said wedlock.3. Unfortunately, the marriage turned sour and the parties started living separately. Their daughter Ms. Geetika started residing with her mother i.e. the respondent.4. In the year 1995 Ms. Geetika filed a civil suit under Section 33 CPC and Section 20 of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956 against her father i.e. the petitioner claiming a maintenance of Rs. 2,000/- per mont...

Societe Des Produits Nestle, S.A. and anr. Vs. Gopal Bakers and Confec ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 148(2008)DLT538; LC2008(2)413

Badar Durrez Ahmed, J.IA No. 3346/2008 (Under Order 23 Rule 3 Read with Section 151 of CPC)1. During the pendency of the suit, the plaintiffs and the defendants have arrived at a settlement/compromise. The plaintiffs had filed this suit for permanent injunction restraining the infringement of their registered trade marks 'NESTLE MILKYBAR', 'MILKYBAR', 'POP CHOC' and 'HEART AND MOUTH' device. The plaintiffs had also instituted this suit for infringement of copyright, dilution and unfair competition as well as passing off.2. By way of the settlement / compromise arrived at between the parties, the defendants have acknowledged the plaintiffs to be the proprietors of the aforesaid trade marks and the 'SPLASH OF MILK' device. The defendants have also acknowledged the plaintiffs to be the owners of the copyright in 'MILKYBAR' and 'POP CHOC' packaging, including their get-up, layout, colour combination and arrangement of features. The defendants have undertaken not to manufacture, sell, offer...

Government of Nct of Delhi Through Commissioner of Industries Vs. Bhus ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 151(2008)DLT158

Mukundakam Sharma, C.J.1. Since the issues raised in all these appeals are similar, we propose to dispose of the same by this common judgment and order. 2. Three writ petitions having similar issues, filed before the learned Single Judge, were referred to us for consideration and disposal along with the present appeals. Accordingly these three writ petitions are also disposed of by this judgment and order. 3. Judgment and order dated 8th December, 2005 passed by the learned Single Judge, whereby the writ petitions filed by the respondents herein were allowed, is under challenge in these appeals. As LPA No. 168-69/2006 has been taken as the lead case, facts of the said appeal are taken as illustrative. 4. Pursuant to the directions issued by the Supreme Court in a Public Interest Litigation being WP(C) No. 4677/85 (PIL) titled M.C. Mehta v. Union of India for shifting of industries from non-conforming areas, in 1996, the Department of Industries, Government of NCT of Delhi, the appellan...

Delhi Transport Corporation Vs. Balwant Rai Ex. Cond.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 150(2008)DLT117; [2008(118)FLR347]; (2008)IIILLJ283Del; 2009(3)SLJ258(Delhi)

Sudershan Kumar Misra, J.CM No. 50/20061. This is an application Under Section 17-B of the Industrial Dispute Act. The background of the matter is as that on 3.08.2004, the impugned award came to be passed by Labour Court-VII, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi in ID No. 166/98. In terms of this award, it was directed that the removal of the respondent/workman was illegal. The Labour Court also directed the DTC to reinstate the workman within one month from the date of the award along with 50% of back wages. The Delhi Transport Corporation preferred a writ petition against the said award and the operation of the award was stayed by this Court on 25.7.2005 with a direction to the petitioner to deposit a sum of Rs. 7500/- as litigation expenses in this Court. The respondent had preferred this application under Section 17-B of the Industrial Disputes Act. Notice in this application came to be issued by this Court on 4.01.2006 and the same has been pending disposal ever since. In his application, t...