Delhi Court July 2008 Judgments

J.K. Synthetics Limited and anr. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) Through the ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2008(131)ECC57; 2008(157)LC57(Delhi); 2009(234)ELT417(Del)

Badar Durrez Ahmed, J.1. This matter was passed-over once. It has been taken up on second call. Nobody appears on behalf of the respondents. Consequently, this writ petition has been heard in the absence of the respondents as this Court is left with no other alternative. The matter has been pending since 1981 and no further indulgence can be granted to any of the parties.2. The petitioner has challenged the order dated 16.10.1980 passed by the revisional authority (Government of India). The revision was preferred by the petitioner against the order dated 28.01.1978 passed by the Appellate Collector, which, in turn, arose out of the order-in-original dated 03.07.1973 passed by the Assistant Collector.3. The issue involved in the present proceedings is with regard to the availability of exemption in respect of clearances of alleged waste of nylon tow and nylon staple fibre cleared by the petitioner during the period December, 1971 to February, 1972 claiming classification under Tariff It...

Gurmeet Singh Vs. Director, Enforcement Directorate

Court: Appellate Tribunal for foreign Exchange New Delhi

1. The following order is delivered by Km. Vijay Laxmi, Member, Appellate Tribunal for Foreign Exchange : 2. This appeal is filed against Adjudication Order No. ADJ/42/99/DD/US/1065, dated 30-12-1999 passed by the Deputy Director, Enforcement Directorate, New Delhi imposing a penalty of Rs. 1,50,000 (Rupees one lakh fifty thousand only) against the appellant, Gurmeet Singh for contravention of provisions of section 8(1) and 8(2) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 for having purchased and sold foreign exchange equivalent to Rs. 14.5 lakhs. This appeal was filed along with application for dispensation from pre-deposit of penalty amount where the application was disposed of vide order of this Tribunal dated 3-3-2008 and the appellant was directed to deposit whole amount of penalty within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order. The appellant has not complied that order till date. He was not even present today to apprise this Tribunal about the compliance of the said order...

Sharmanand Tyagi S/O Shri Chand Vs. Union of India (Uoi) Through the

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

1. Applicant, a retiree from Delhi Police, impugns respondents order dated 19.9.2007, whereby his claim for medical reimbursement incurred on his treatment has been denied on the ground that applicant was not a member of CGHS when the treatment was undertaken.2. Applicant, who retired on superannuation on 31.1.2004 from Delhi Police in emergency got a heart-attack and was admitted in Metro Hospital & Heart Institute, Noida, a recognized hospital, where the total medical expenses incurred were Rs. 2,17,000/-, which were denied to him on the ground that whereas the treatment in Metro Hospital was administered to the applicant from 26.2.2007 to 1.3.2007, he had become a member of the CGHS only on 20.3.2007.3. None appeared for the applicant, even on the second call. We, therefore, proceed with the matter in terms of Rule 15 of the Central Administrative Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1987.4. Ms. Harvinder Oberoi, learned Counsel appearing for respondents No.1 & 2 vehemently opposed ...

The State of Punjab Through Its Vs. Sarbdeep Singh Virk, Ips S/O Shri

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

1. Sarbdeep Singh Virk, 1970 Batch IPS, the respondent in this transfer application filed by State of Punjab, was allocated to Maharashtra State Cadre. He was one of the officers all over the country chosen to combat terrorism when the State of Punjab came in its severe grip in late 1970 and early 1980. He served the State of Punjab from 1984 till 2007 on deputation, even though the period of his inter-State deputation was initially fixed for three years. The service graph of the respondent, like gallantry awards and Padmashri with which he was decorated, may not require elaboration in the context of limited controversy involved in this Application seeking transfer of OA No.157/2008 (Sarbdeep Singh Virk v. Union of India and Ors.) pending in Mumbai Bench of this Tribunal to the Principal Bench at New Delhi. On formation of new Government in Punjab in the year 2007, a request through proper channel for premature repatriation of the respondent to his parent State was made. The responden...

S.P. Sharma, Section Officer, Vs. Union of India (Uoi) Through

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

1. Applicant a non-Central Secretariat Service (CSS) Section Officer (SO), by virtue of this OA while holding an ex-cadre post, seeks grant of pay scale of Rs. 8000-13500 from 1.6.2004 by seeking extension of benefit of the decision in OA-377/2006 S.C. Karmakar and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors., decided on 1.5.2007.2. Learned Counsel of applicant states that the principle of equal pay for equal work, when applicant has been performing same duties and responsibilities of SO of CSS and in the light of the recommendations of the Committee constituted with the approval of the Secretary, Shipping, wherein the aforesaid pay scale has been directed to be granted to the applicant w.e.f. 1.6.2004, non-grant, is an invidious discrimination, violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.3. Learned Counsel has further alleged discrimination and stated that SOs of Ministry of External Affairs, Railway Board, Central Vigilance Commission, Union Public Service Commission and Department of I...

Govt. of Nct of Delhi and anr. Vs. Poonam Chauhan

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 152(2008)DLT224

Veena Birbal, J.1. Petitioner assails the order dated 29.11.2007, by which the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi in O.A. No. 449/2007 has set aside order dated 19.10.2006, passed by the Government of NCT of Delhi, whereby the candidature of respondent for post of 'Domestic Science teacher' was cancelled. The ground of cancellation was that OBC certificate dated 05.02.2005 submitted by her had been issued by the SDM, Seelampur after the closure of date of submission of application form. 2. The facts as alleged in the petition are as under:On 30.04.2004, petitioner, i.e. Government of NCT of Delhi had advertised certain vacancies for Group 'B' posts through Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board, hereinafter referred to as DSSSB. Respondent applied for the post of 'Domestic Teacher' under the category of OBC candidate on 18.05.2004. The last date of receipt of application forms was 24.05.2004. On 28.11.2004, the examination for the said post was held. Petiti...

Cadila Healthcare Limited Vs. Diat Foods (India)

Court: Delhi

Reported in: LC2008(3)152

Badar Durrez Ahmed, J.1. By ay of his application, he plaintiff seeks an interim injunction restraining he defendant from using he expression 'Sugar Free' on any of he defendant's products. It is he contention of he plaintiff hat by using he expression 'Sugar Free' on its products, he defendant is passing off its goods as hose of he plaintiff. he plaintiff seeks o restrain such alleged passing off on he part of he defendant by ay of a permanent injunction in he suit.2. he plaintiff claims o be he owner of he rademark 'SUGAR FREE' Along with its variants 'SUGAR FREE NATURA', 'SUGAR FREE GOLD' and 'SUGAR FREE D'LITE'. According o he plaintiff, he mark 'SUGAR FREE' as originally coined and adopted by its predecessor (Cadila Chemicals Limited) in respect of its sugar substitute. he product hich as originally marketed under he mark 'SUGAR FREE' contained aspartame - an artificial sweetener. Subsequently, he plaintiff developed another sugar substitute using sucralose and hat product as mark...

Cadila Healthcare Limited Vs. Dabur India Limited

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 152(2008)DLT734; LC2008(3)162; 2008(38)PTC130(Del)

Badar Durrez Ahmed, J.1. By way of this application, the plaintiff seeks an interim injunction restraining the defendant from using the expression 'Sugar Free' on any of the defendant's products. It is the contention of the plaintiff that by using the expression 'Sugar Free' on its products, the defendant is passing off its goods as those of the plaintiff. The plaintiff seeks to restrain such alleged passing off on the part of the defendant by way of a permanent injunction in the suit.2. The plaintiff claims to be the owner of the trademark 'SUGAR FREE' Along with its variants 'SUGAR FREE NATURA', 'SUGAR FREE GOLD' and 'SUGAR FREE D'LITE'. According to the plaintiff, the mark 'SUGAR FREE' was originally coined and adopted by its predecessor (Cadila Chemicals Limited) in respect of its sugar substitute. The product which was originally marketed under the mark 'SUGAR FREE' contained aspartame - an artificial sweetener. Subsequently, the plaintiff developed another sugar substitute using ...

Sohan Lal JaIn Thru. Lrs. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 153(2008)DLT139; 2008(105)DRJ704

A.K. Sikri, J.1. This is the first appeal from the judgment and decree dated 20.12.1971 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in Suit No. 257/1969, which was filed by the appellants herein. The learned Single Judge has dismissed the suit deciding the preliminary issue in favor of the respondents herein, namely, the said suit was barred under Sections 27 and 36 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1954 {hereinafter referred to as the '1954 Act'}. In order to appreciate the controversy, we may first state, in brief, the facts as stated in the plaint on the basis of which the suit came to be filed.2. Premises known as Shafiq Manzil situated at No. 2, Doctors Lane, New Delhi (for short, 'the suit property') was acquired by the Government as evacuate property and was made part of the compensation pool constituted under the 1954 Act. This property was put to auction on two occasions with reserve price of Rs.2,50,000/-. However, these attempts were not su...

Sarvesh Chopra Builders Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2008(3)ARBLR154(Delhi)

Veena Birbal, J.1. The appellant, by the present appeal, has assailed order dated 06.04.2007 of the learned Single Judge by which petition of the appellant under Sections 11(6) and 14(1) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 for appointment of independent sole arbitrator has been dismissed. The appellant has further prayed that an independent sole arbitrator be appointed to decide the disputes raised by the appellant.2. Briefly the facts giving rise to the present appeal are that the parties entered into a contract by which the appellant was awarded earthwork in filling and cutting in embankment, strengthening, extension of bridges, etc. vide award letter dated 21.11.1995. Subsequently, Agreement No. 74-W/Acceptance/DLI-RE/IInd Line/8/WA dated 12.01.1996 was executed between the parties which was to be governed by the general conditions of the contract, inter alia providing settlement of disputes by way of arbitration under Clause 64 of General Conditions of Contract. Certain d...