Delhi Court May 2008 Judgments

Xerox Corporation and anr. Vs. Sailash Patel and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2008(103)DRJ608

Badar Durrez Ahmed, J.1. In this suit, the defendants can be categorised into three categories:(i) Importers;(ii) Resellers; and(iii) Jobbers / Photocopying Shops.Some of the importers also engage in the activity of reselling. The plaintiffs have not claimed any reliefs against the defendants who are jobbers/photocopying shops.2. In this suit, the case of the plaintiffs is that the importers are unlawfully importing second hand office automation equipments which include photocopiers under the brand name of 'Xerox' which are subsequently .refurbished in India and sold to resellers, who, in turn, sell the machines to jobbers/photocopying shops. On some occasions, the importers sell directly to the jobbers/photocopying shops. The plaintiffs alleged that the defendants' said activity is unlawful and amounts to infringement of the plaintiffs' trademark 'Xerox'. Apart from this, it was alleged that each of the machines has an inbuilt software for operating the hardware. When the machines are...

Sapna Garg Vs. Punjab National Bank

Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi

J.D. Kapoor, President (Oral): 1. The impugned order dated 30.1.2008 passed by the District Forum suffers from inherent infirmity inasmuch as that the District Forum has not given any reason for rejecting the application seeking restoration of the complaint which was dismissed in default with observations that there was no sufficient ground for restoring the complaint. 2. The plea of the appellant that he has a right to know the grounds specifying the reasons for rejection of the application for restoration of his complaint, which was dismissed in default is justified. 3. We allow the appeal at the outset, set aside the impugned order and send back the matter to District Forum for deciding the application afresh after discussing the reasons given by the appellant for non-appearance on the date when the complaint was dismissed in default. Endeavour should always be to decide the matter on merits and compensate the respondent by imposing cost and not to make the proceedings shuttle cock....

Classic Motor Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Tata Aig General Insurance Co. Ltd. and An ...

Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi

Mr. Justice J.D. Kapoor, President (Oral): 1. The complaint is being taken up at the admission stage. 2. The complainant insured his properties, namey, plant, machinery, tools etc. for insurance amount of 50,78,961 and building and structures including plinth and foundation for a total sum of Rs. 33,92,495. This policy covered risk of losses/damages from heavy rain/water logging/flood. During the validity of the policy the insured properties of the complainant suffered complete damages/loss on account of heavy rain causing flood/water logging in the mid night of 17th and 18th July, 2006 . Complainant lodged claim with the OP. OP appointed Mr. Atul Kapoor as Surveyor. OP closed the claim of the complainant because of having failed to furnish the documents required by Surveyor in spite of as many as 15 reminders. Complainant case is that it had furnished all the documents to Surveyor and sent replies to all the reminders sent by the OP. 3. As is apparent from the communication vide which...

Shri Kantoo S/O Shri Ram Pershad, Vs. Union of India (Uoi) Through the

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

1. As these OAs are founded on common facts with an identical question of law are being disposed of by this common order.2. Admittedly, applicants who were initially engaged on casual basis under Railways have been accorded temporary status and were absorbed against permanent Group 'D' posts in the year 1980-81. By virtue of these OAs, applicants have sought re-fixation of pay, which they would have drawn in regular scale of pay on attaining temporary status, including arrears of pay.3. The factual matrix transpires that a reference to the Full Bench as to grant of arrears of pay on implication of grant of temporary status on completion of certain period has been answered on 22.4.2008 in OA No. 2476/2006 with other OAs that the claim is beyond limitation and also beyond the purview of Section 21 (2) of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985.4. Learned Counsel of the applicants states that as the Full Bench has dealt with only issue of arrears, the present claim is for re-fixation of p...

Jagbir Singh Yadav S/O Late Shri Vs. Government of N.C.T. of Delhi

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

1. The applicant, a re-deployed LDC, seeks through this OA a direction for grant of the pre-revised pay scale of Rs. 1400-2300 w.e.f.14.07.1989 and the pay scale of Rs. 5,000-8000/- w.e.f. 01.01.1996 with all consequential benefits.2. Briefly, the applicant was appointed in the year 1989 as a Master Craftsman in the pay scale of Rs. 900-1500 in the Delhi Energy Development Agency (in short DEDA), an autonomous body under the Government of NCT of Delhi. Initially on ad-hoc basis, he was later on regularized w.e.f. 15.07.1989. In the year 2000, the applicant, along with several other employees, was declared surplus by the DEDA on account of reduced work. Their cases for redeployment were brought under the purview of the CCS (Redeployment of Surplus Staff) Rules, 1990. After an intervening stint from 31.07.2001 to 31.03.2002, during which period his services were placed with the Delhi Financial Commission in a 'diverted capacity', orders of redeployment were issued by the Government of N...

Radha Krishna Vs. Govt. of Nct of Delhi Through Chief

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

1. The respondents have by Annexure-2 order on 20.6.2007 informed the applicant that his claim for increments had been duly examined. He had been advised that passing of typewriting test from any other organization excepting Directorate of Training and Technical Education (TTE) was contrary to the instructions stipulated on the subject dated 17.02.1989 and 08.5.2003. Since a person was authorized to draw increments only after passing the test, the applicant would not have been entitled to the increments, and since he had already drawn them, recovery of excess paid was inevitable. Consequently, he was to have received, as of right, only Rs. 3125/- as basic pay, all throughout. By an oversight during the year 2006 he had been drawing Rs. 3500/- having drawn regular increments from 2001. The position was thus being redressed.2. Challenging the orders, OA 1135 of 2007 had been filed. The application had been disposed of directing the respondents to look into the matter de novo and come up...

Bhogi Ram S/O Sh. Ram Barosi Vs. Union of India (Uoi) Through the

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

1. Applicant, an employee of the Railways by virtue of this OA impugns respondents' order dated 28.3.2007 imposing upon him a major penalty of reduction of pay scale by two stages for one year with cumulative effect. Also assailed is an order passed in appeal on 1.6.2007 upholding the punishment.2. Earlier applicant was proceeded against in the proceedings for allegation of demanding and accepting Rs. 100/- allowing a without ticket passenger to go out of the exit gate and keeping the amount inside the register of the office and also not offering any comments during the confrontation in presence of vigilance team. The inquiry officer has partly established the charges on which a penalty imposed when affirmed in appeal, an order passed by the revisional authority on 17.2.2005 recorded as under: I have considered Revision Petition submitted by you in terms of provisions of Rules 25 of R.S. (D&A) rules, 1968 against the order of imposition of penalty by Disciplinary Authority vide le...

H and R Johnson (India) Limited Vs. Union of India (Uoi), Ministry of ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2008(129)ECC70; 2008(155)LC70(Delhi)

Madan B. Lokur, J.1. This is an application filed by the Petitioner for interim relief pending hearing and disposal of the writ petition. The prayer is for staying the operation of the New Shipper Notification No. 15/23/06-DGAD dated 25th January, 2007 issued by Respondent No. 2.2. It is also prayed that there should be a stay of operation of Notification No. 39/07-Cus dated 9th March, 2007 issued by Respondent No. 1 permitting provisional assessment of the goods imported by Respondent Nos. 3 and 4. In our opinion, the second prayer is consequential to the first prayer. 3. The Notification dated 25th January, 2007 concerns itself with the initiation of New Shipper Review under Rule 22 of the Customs Tariff (Identification, Assessment and Collection of Anti-Dumping Duty on Dumped Articles and for Determination of Injury) Rules, 1995 (hereinafter referred to as `the Anti-Dumping Rules'). 4. By Notification No. 73/2003 Customs dated 1st May, 2003, the Central Government in exercise of pow...

Tribhuvan Nath Puri and anr. Vs. State

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2008(104)DRJ233

Hima Kohli, J.1. Before proceeding to deal with the main petition, it needs to be clarified that in the order dated 1.5.2008, while culling out the status of the service of summons on the family members of the deceased testator, insofar as Ms.Savita Puri- respondent No. 5 is concerned, it was recorded that she was shown to have been served vide order dated 7.12.1983. It was further recorded that vide order dated 25.7.1984, it was directed that the matter be listed before the Court for taking ex-parte proceedings against Ms.Savita Puri. However, in the aforesaid order, it was erroneously recorded that no specific order for proceeding ex-parte against Ms.Savita Puri was passed. Today, while perusing the order sheets, it transpires that Ms.Savita Puri -respondent No. 5 and Ms.Vimla Beri -respondent No. 1, were proceeded against ex-parte vide order dated 6.8.1984. Accordingly, the order sheet dated 1.5.2008, stands rectified to the extent that Ms.Savita Puri was proceeded against ex-parte ...

Shambhu Kumar Aggarwal Vs. Ved Prakash

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 151(2008)DLT333; 2008(105)DRJ538

Vipin Sanghi, J.1. These four petitions under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. have been heard together and are being disposed of by this common order since they raise identical issues and the respondent in all the petitions is common. These petitions seek quashing of the summoning order dated 14.9.2005 in complaint case No. 3891/2007 and the aforesaid complaint case, and the summoning order dated 16.5.2005 in complaint case No. 3890/2007 as well as the said complaint case pending in the Court of Metropolitan Magistrate, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi. The aforesaid two complaint cases under Section 138 read with Section 141 and 142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (the Act) have been filed by the same complainant, namely, Shri Ved Prakash, who is the respondent in all these petitions. The petitioner in Crl. M.C. No. 1798/2007 (pertaining to complaint case No. 3891/2007) and Crl. M.C. No. 1799/2007 (pertaining to complaint case No. 3890/2007) is Shri Shambhu Kumar Aggarwal, whereas Crl. M.C. No. 2192...