Delhi Court March 2008 Judgments

Kerala Automobiles Ltd. Vs. Mrs. Naveetha P.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: (2008)IIILLJ530Del

Sudershan Kumar Misra, J.1. The respondent had filed applications Under Section 20(2) of the Minimum Wages Act before the designated authority under the Minimum Wages Act. Pursuant to the said applications, the Authority under the Minimum Wages Act passed the impugned order dated 15th December 2005. By this order, five applications moved by the respondent under the Minimum Wages Act, 1948, were disposed of. In those applications, the respondent had claimed the difference in the payment actually made to her and the amount that ought to have been paid to her under the Minimum Wages Act. The respondent had moved separate applications because varying amounts were being paid to the respondent for each month. In this way, keeping in mind the minimum wages payable to her, she claimed a sum of Rs. 12,480/- for the period, 1st February 2001 to 31st March 2002. For the period, 1st March 2002 to 31st August 2002, she claimed a sum of Rs. 4,860/-. For the period, 19th December 2002 to 19th May 200...

Nishi Kant and anr. Vs. Archaeological Survey of India and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 151(2008)DLT572; 2008(105)DRJ260

Siddharth Mridul, J.1. The present petition has been filed in the public interest. The petitioners pray for a mandamus directing the respondents, to ensure protection to all old man-made monuments, declared and undeclared, of National or local importance, and for their restoration.2. The petitioners are both residents of Delhi, and aver that out of respect and affection for old monuments, that represent the entire history and culture of the city, and out of concern for the dilapidated state of monuments existing in Badarpur, they approached the respondents in the month of April, 2005. The petitioners state that to their utter surprise and shock, they learnt that there was no legislation for protection of monuments within Delhi, as under the provision of the Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Sites and Remains Act, 1958 the Archaeological Survey of India - respondent No. 1, is the Authority, for the protection of monuments of National importance only. thereforee, they were constrained...

Mrs. Rama Devi Vs. Mr. Punam Chand Aggarwal

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 151(2008)DLT230; 2008(104)DRJ302

J.M. Malik, J.1. The plaintiff/respondent filed an application under Order 12 Rule 6 CPC before the trial judge. The said application was allowed to the extent that the decree for possession of the suit property in favor of the plaintiff/respondent and against the defendant/appellant was passed. It was further ordered that the suit shall continue with respect to the recovery of rent and the quantum of mense profits towards use and occupational charges of the said property by the defendant/appellant. Aggrieved by that order, the appeal was preferred before the First Appellate Court which, too, was dismissed vide order dated 22nd December, 2006, hence this second appeal. Let us now turn to the facts of this case.2. Lekh Raj was the owner/landlord of house No. RZ-20Q Palam Road, East Sagar Pur, New Delhi. Punam Chand Aggarwal, the respondent/plaintiff in this case claimed that he become the owner of the above-said property by virtue of GPA dated 23rd July, 1996. The appellant, Smt.Rama De...

Cce Vs. Lakhanpal National Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. Heard both sides. Revenue filed these appeals against the impugned orders, whereby refund claim filed by the respondent were allowed.Brief facts of the case are that the respondents were clearing goods under the provisional assessment orders and the assessments were finalized in the year December 1997. The respondents filed refund claims as consequential relief after finalization of the assessment.Commissioner (Appeals) in the impugned order held that respondents are entitled for the refund and provisions of unjust enrichment are not applicable as the assessment was finalized in the month of December 1997 and the provisions of unjust enrichment under Rule 9B of Central Excise Rules were introduced w.e.f. 25/06/99.2. The contention of revenue is that refund claims are subject to the principle of unjust enrichment and Commissioner (Appeals) has wrongly held that the same is not applicable in the present case.3. We find that the goods were cleared under provisional assessment orders a...

Cce Vs. Roshan Lal Ravi Decorators

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. This is an appeal filed by the Department against the order dated 27.09.2007 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) by which the Commissioner (Appeals) has held that the respondent was eligible for the benefit of Notification No. 12/2003-ST dated 20.6.2003 and remanded the matter to the original authority for computing the taxable value and service tax liability of the respondent.2. We do not find this to be a fit case for grant of stay. As only a short point is involved we proceed to hear and dispose the appeal itself.3. Learned DR submits that the Commissioner (Appeals) has accepted the certificate from the Chartered Accountant and the purchase bills as evidence for use of material in rendering the service and accordingly allowed abatement of the value of such materials. Acceptance of these documents is against the spirit of the guidelines dated 7.4.2004 issued by the Board.4. We have carefully considered the submissions. The notification "exempts so much of the value of all the ta...

Supercassette Industries Vs. Nirulas Corner House (P) Ltd.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 148(2008)DLT487; LC2008(3)171; 2008(37)PTC237(Del)

S. Ravindra Bhat, J.1. This order shall dispose off I.A. No. 10742/2007 preferred under Order VII Rule 11 by the applicant defendant seeking the rejection of the plaint and also I.A. No. 6882/2007 under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.2. According to the plaint averments, he plaintiff is copyright holder of a variety of literary and musical works, sound recordings, music videos and cinematographic videos. It plaintiff manufactures and sells VCDs, DVDs and Cassettes containing these works and also licenses the right to exploit its works. The defendants are engaged in the business of hotels/restaurants in New Delhi.3. The plaintiff avers that after coming to know about alleged infringement of its copyright in variety of works it asked an investigator to visit the premises of the defendant in order to ascertain the extent of viewing of those works. The said investigator visited the said premises of the defendant in May 2007 and found that few audio clippings of s...

Brahma Prakash Kalra Vs. National thermal Power Corporation and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2008(102)DRJ223

Mukundakam Sharma, C.J. 1. The issue that arises for consideration in this appeal is whether the departmental proceeding which is initiated against the appellant should continue to remain stayed pending final disposal of the criminal trial, which is also pending against the appellant. 2. The allegation against the appellant was that he demanded/received bribe and was caught red-handed by the raiding party of the CBI. Consequent thereupon a criminal case was registered against him which is at the trial stage. Departmental proceeding has also been initiated against the appellant pursuant to which a charge sheet has been issued containing statement of articles of charge as annexed to the memorandum of charges dated 6th August, 2001.3. Contending, inter alia, that both the criminal case and the departmental proceeding are based on identical and similar facts and that witnesses for both the proceedings would also be the same, the writ petition was filed by the appellant praying that the dep...

Union of India (Uoi) Vs. Hardeep Engineers P. Ltd.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 148(2008)DLT562

Pradeep Nandrajog, J.1. At the outset learned Counsel for the parties state that except for the date of the impugned orders, being order dated 11.8.2006 passed by Ms. Shalinder Kaur, ADJ, Delhi disposing of S. No. 96/2005 'Union if India v. Hardeep Engineers' challenged in FAO No. 317/2006 and order dated 26.7.2006 passed by Mr. Babu Lal, ADJ, Delhi disposing of S. No. 129/2005 challenged in FAO No. 319/2006 'Union of India v. Hardeep Engineers Pvt. Ltd.', all other facts are identical and hence for the purposes of noting the facts reference may be made to FAO No. 317/2006.2. A short point arises for consideration in both the appeals and hence both have been heard together and are being disposed of by a common order.3. The respondents in the 2 appeals were the successful tenderers and managed to obtain acceptance of their offer in respect of manufacture and supply of Elastic Rail Clips to the Railway authorities. Different quantities of item pertaining to the same commodity were offere...

Microsoft Corporation and anr. Vs. Mitesh JaIn and anr.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: LC2008(2)302

Badar Durrez Ahmed, J.IA No. 3337/2008 (Under Order 23 Rule 3 Read with Section 151 of CPC)1. The plaintiffs had filed this suit against the defendants alleging infringement of their copyright in the software programme developed by the plaintiffs and in particular 'Microsoft Windows XP Professional Version 2002' and 'Microsoft Office 2002'. During the pendency of the suit, the plaintiffs and the defendants have arrived at an amicable settlement. The defendants have acknowledged the plaintiffs to be the proprietors and owners of the copyrights in the aforesaid software programmes and have apologised for the infringement on their part. The defendants have undertaken that they will not, in future, sell, offer for sale, distribute, issue to the public, any counterfeit/pirated/unlicensed versions of the plaintiffs' software or do any other act which would in any other manner amount to infringement of the plaintiffs' intellectual property rights. The defendants have also undertaken to pay to...

Asha Pant Vs. State and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2008(102)DRJ216

S. Muralidhar, J.1. These petitions under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 ('CrPC') challenge two Kalandaras arising out of the same set of events. The first is titled State v. Asha Pant And Anr. and the other is titled State v. Kanwal Chaudhri and Anr. both pending in the court of Special Executive Magistrate ('SEM'), New Delhi and the notices issued to the petitioners in each of the petitions under Sections 107 and 111 CrPC.2. The events leading to the filing of the present case, as stated in the petition Crl.M.C. No. 2077 of 2006, is that the property at 10A Kasturba Gandhi Marg, New Delhi (hereinafter 'the property') was owned by Mrs. Kanwal Chaudhri, the Petitioner No. 1 in Crl. M.C. 2416-17 of 2006. Mr. Ranjan Pant , the husband of Mrs. Asha Pant, the petitioner in Crl.M.C. No. 2077 of 2006, purchased a portion of the said property from Mrs. Kanwal Chaudhri on 8th July, 2002. It is stated that Mrs. Asha Pant and her husband stay out of Delhi most of the time as...