Delhi Court October 2009 Judgments
Home Cases Delhi 2009 Page 4 of about 89 results (0.021 seconds)Jaipur Golden Gas Victims Association Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors ...
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 164(2009)DLT346
Manmohan, J.1. Present writ petition has been filed by petitioner-Association in public interest under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of an appropriate writ, direction or order inter alia directing respondents to pay victims of Jaipur Golden fire tragedy suitable amount of compensation for loss of lives and injuries suffered. Petitioner-Association has also prayed for identification and prosecution of erring officials who were responsible for Jaipur Golden fire tragedy as well as for implementation of recommendations of earlier committees to prevent future tragedies in Delhi like the Jaipur Golden fire tragedy.Case of Petitioner2. Ms. Aruna Mehta, learned Counsel for petitioner-Association stated that on 4th April, 2004 at about 10.30 p.m. there was a huge fire in the godown of respondent No. 5 at Mitra Wali Gali, Roshnara Road, Delhi. She stated that in the said godown, respondent No. 5 had stored a consignment of rodent killing pesticides which contained Alumin...
Tag this Judgment!Rhizome Distilleries P. Ltd. and ors. Vs. Pernod Ricard S.A. France an ...
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 166(2010)DLT12
Vikramajit Sen, J.1. On October 14, 2009, Learned Counsel for the Appellant in FAO(OS) 497/2008 had concluded arguments by making a statement to the effect that she has instructions to adopt the arguments addressed by Mr Rajiv Nayyar, Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Appellant in FAO(OS) 484/2008. This Appeal has been filed by the Defendants who the learned Single Judge had restrained from manufacturing, selling, offering for sale, advertising, directly or indirectly dealing in whisky or any other alcoholic beverages under the trademark Imperial Gold or the impugned label/trade dress pertaining thereto or any other trademark/label/trade dress as may be deceptively similar to the trademark of the Plaintiff/Respondent viz. IMPERIAL BLUE, IMPERIAL RED or ROYAL STAG.2. The competing or offending products are whiskies belonging to the rival parties, which are bottled in the following styles, first front and second back:3. The Plaint describes the action as a suit for permanent injun...
Tag this Judgment!Capt. Suresh Gulati Vs. Shri Rajiv Chawla and ors.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 165(2009)DLT108
S. Ravindra Bhat, J.1. The plaintiff, in this suit - which seeks decree for specific performance, seeks to implead a third party, (by I.A. No. 7566/2009) who, the defendant claims, is owner of the suit property; he also seeks amendment to the suit, to incorporate the claim for cancellation of the sale deed, executed in favour of the said third party respondents (hereafter called 'proposed defendant'). The plaintiff also seeks confirmation of the injunction granted earlier, (in I.A. No. 13084/2008) and for an order restraining the proposed defendants from transferring the suit property, or altering the status quo. (I.A. No. 7906/2009). The defendant also seeks vacation of the injunction granted in favour of the plaintiff by order dated 24-10-2008, (by I.A. No. 9657/2009).2. The facts, to the extent they are not disputed, are stated as follows. The plaintiff entered into an agreement to purchase property, from Defendant No. 1 (hereafter 'the builder') on 23-2-2005. The said defendant was...
Tag this Judgment!The Commissioner Income Tax Vs. Mmtc of India
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 163(2009)DLT625; 2010[17]STR341
Rajiv Shakdher, J.1. The upshot of the present application is to seek a review of our order dated 14.07.2008, on the sole ground that the applicant/ assessee is a public sector undertaking and hence, no order could have been passed in the reference, preferred by the department, as the prior approval of the 'Committee on Disputes' was not taken, apropos the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Oil & Natural Gas Commission v. Collector of Central Excise : (2004) 6 SCC 437.2. We are of the view that the application is without merit, for more than one reason: First, the right to file a reference is conferred by the statute, the judgment of the Supreme Court does not seek to take away this right. A careful analysis of Oil & Natural Gas Commission (supra) and those which preceded and followed it, would show that they injunct the prosecution of an action where two entities of the State are involved. If a reference is filed without an approval it cannot be held, as not being maintainab...
Tag this Judgment!Horlicks Ltd. and anr. Vs. Heinz India (Pvt.) Limited
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 164(2009)DLT539
Sanjay Kishan Kaul, J.1. The principle of forum non convenience emerged as a concept primarily applicable to a foreign forum. The important question whether it will apply to domestic forum in India governed by Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as the 'said Code') has given rise to the present appeals since the appellants have been non suited by the learned Single Judge applying the said principle.2. The doctrine of forum non convenience which originated in Scotland and thereafter brought to England and United State of America simply put means that if legal proceedings are initiated in a particular forum and that forum is of the opinion that there is a more convenient forum where such lis should be tried, it desists from trying the particular lis. The meaning to be given to 'convenience', and as to whether other parameters also come into play, is another aspect which has developed in respect of this doctrine over a period of time making its application more stringen...
Tag this Judgment!Glaxo Smithkline Pharmaceuticals India Limited Vs. Union of India (Uoi ...
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 164(2009)DLT30
Badar Durrez Ahmed, J1. In this writ petition, the petitioner is aggrieved by the seizure memo dated 23.05.1988 issued by the Drug Inspector, Delhi Administration, in accordance with which stocks of Zinetac tablets (300 mg) and certain documents have been seized from the petitioner's Sales Depot at Mathura Road, New Delhi. The above seizure was purportedly done under the Drugs (Price Control) Order, 1987 (hereinafter referred to as 'DPCO 1987'), which, in turn, is issued under Section 3 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955.2. The petitioner herein, is engaged in the business of manufacturing, selling and distributing a wide range of pharmaceutical products. The formulation in question is Zinetac, which is a formulation of the bulk drug Ranitidine, manufactured by Biotech Pharma. The petitioner is a distributor of the said Zinetac tablets in strengths of 150 mg and 300mg per tablet and has several branches and sales depots all over the country. The distribution chain is such that the ...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Tadashi Murakami
Court: Delhi
Reported in: [2009]319ITR347(Delhi); [2010]187TAXMAN158(Delhi)
A.K. Sikri, J.1. The Assessee herein was an employee of M/s Hongo India Pvt. Ltd. He was paid salary in Indian currency as well as in foreign currency. Tax in the sum of Rs. 1,68,104/- was also paid by his employer.2. While framing the assessment the Assessing Officer (AO) added the aforesaid amount of Rs. 1,68,104/- treating it to be a monetary perk. In this manner, the figure of gross total income was arrived at Rs. 51,56,849/- and after giving standard deduction of Rs. 20,000/- the total income was arrived at Rs. 51,36,849/-. On this, tax was calculated at Rs. 15,15,055/-. After doing this exercise, the AO also grossed up tax liability, applying the provisions of 195A, to Rs. 22,61,276/-. No basis of this grossing up of the tax liability is stated in the order of the AO.3. In the appeal filed by the Assessee herein before the CIT (Appeal) the submission was that the AO has erred in grossing up. While making this submission, the Assessee mentioned that it was on the basis of advance ...
Tag this Judgment!Swadeshi Construction Co. Vs. Executive Engineer, Dttdc Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 164(2009)DLT344
Valmiki J. Mehta, J.I.A. No. 7727/1997 in C.S.(OS) No. 395A/19971. I.A. No. 7727/97 in Suit No395A/97 is the application/objections filed under Sections 30 and 33 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 against the award of the sole Arbitrator dated 27.11.1996.2. The main argument which has been pressed by the counsel appearing for the objector is that the Arbitrator failed to give hearing and did not allow any evidence to be led. This is averred in ground D in the I.A. When I put it to the Counsel that whether an application was moved before the Arbitrator as to whether any evidence is required to be lead or that the Arbitrator is not giving hearing, the Counsel replied in negative. I find that this ground is indeed very expansive and vague. It is not possible for the Arbitrator, who is not present in the proceedings to defend himself with respect to such a ground. I do not find any merit in this ground because if this objection was legitimate, surely, immediately after the award was passed the ...
Tag this Judgment!Star Bazaar Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Trent Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 164(2009)DLT335; 2009(41)PTC668(Del)
ORDERShiv Narayan Dhingra, J.1. Plaintiff is a company having its corporate name as 'Star Bazaar Pvt. Ltd.' an is also carrying on business of retail in the name and style of 'Star Bazaar' in a departmental store at South Delhi area (and at no other place in the country). The plaintiff was incorporated as a company on 12th March, 2003. It is pleaded by the plaintiff that it has been running the departmental store from the date of its incorporation. The plaintiff has laid a claim in the suit of acquiring goodwill on account of efficient sales, marketing policy and competitive rates of goods and has given its sales figures for the financial year from 1st April 2004 onwards till 31st March, 2008 (four financial years). The plaintiff's contention is that in August, 2008 Mr. Naveen Malhotra Director of the plaintiff company was on a business trip to Mumbai when he came across an advertisement in the Daily English Edition of Bombay Times, The Times of India that the defendant was having a re...
Tag this Judgment!Modi Rubber Ltd. Vs. Morgan Securities and Credits Pvt. Ltd. and anr.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 165(2009)DLT113
Shiv Narayan Dhingra, J.1. By this order I shall dispose of above three petitions challenging common award passed by the learned Arbitrator against the petitioner Modi Rubber Ltd. and its two directors.2. Brief facts relevant for purpose of deciding these petitions are that the petitioners approached respondent company for grant of Inter Corporate Deposit. The respondent agreed to grant Rs. 5 crore of amount as Inter Corporate Deposit with interest @ 21% per annum. Both the parties entered into an agreement dated 20.3.2001. On the same date the documents like demand promissory note, letter of continuity and Inter Corporate Deposit receipt were executed in favour of the respondent by the two petitioners namely Mr. V.K.Modi and Mr. B.K. Modi who were Directors of Modi Rubber Ltd. and they also executed deeds of personal guarantee in favour of the respondent. The respondent gave cheque of Rs. 5 crores dated 20th March, 2001 drawn on Housing Development Finance Corporation (HDFC) Bank Ltd....
Tag this Judgment!