Delhi Court April 2009 Judgments

P.C. JaIn Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and anr.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 159(2009)DLT326

Rajiv Shakdher, J.1. It is often said that the law acts ex-post facto. In the instant case, the legislature has acted in pursuance of what is perceived as undesirable - which is the right of a member/president/vice-president of the Customs Excise Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as the 'CESTAT') to appear, act and/or plead on their demitting office before the very same Tribunal. The legislature has sought to debar all such like persons, by insertion of Sub-section (6) to Section 129 of the Customs Act, 1962 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Custom Act'). The said provision was introduced by Section 110 of the Finance Act, 2007 w.e.f. 11.05.2007.1.1 The petitioners being aggrieved, have laid a challenge to the said provision, broadly on two grounds. The first being, that Section 129(6) of the Customs Act is ultravires Articles 14, 19(1)(g) and 21 of the Constitution of India. The second, that, in any event, Section 129(6) of the Act has no applicability to the peti...

State Vs. Bhupinder Singh @ Putli

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2009CriLJ4248

Mool Chand Garg, J.1. This is a revision petition filed by the State who are aggrieved with an order passed by the learned ASJ in case FIR No.173/2006 under Sections 302/365/376/34 IPC registered at P.S. Maurice Nagar against respondent and one Sh. Ajay Luthra on the allegations that one Ms. Lucy Kashung was brought to Hindu Rao Hospital by two persons including Ajay Luthra on 16.12.2006 at around 8:30 am, who was declared brought dead by the doctors. She was brought by accused Ajay Luthra and his neighbor/friend Sh. Anand Thukral. An FIR was registered in respect of this incident after a complaint was made by the brother of the deceased, Lucy Kashung.2. It is the case of the petitioner that on investigation it came out that the deceased was friendly with accused Ajay Luthra and that:i) On the intervening night of 15/16.12.2006 accused Ajay Luthra along with his friend Bhupinder Singh had planned to go out for a drive in his Car No. HR-06B-6499 to take some drinks and meat etc. and mak...

Pawan Jaggi Vs. Cbi and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2009CriLJ4569

Reva Khetrapal, J.1. By way of this petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the petitioner seeks quashing of criminal proceedings bearing No. RC S15 2001 S0007 dated 12.11.2001 entitled State v. Pawan Jaggi and Ors. pending in the court of Shri A.S.Aggarwal, Metropolitan Magistrate, Karkardooma Court, New Delhi.2. The relevant facts leading to the filing of the present petition are as under:3. The petitioner herein is the Chairman-cum-Director of M/s. Seasons Creation (Pvt.) Ltd., a garment exporting company. The respondent No. 2 (the Allahabad Bank) is the complainant in the aforesaid FIR, the respondent No. 3 is a former Director of M/s. Seasons Creation (Pvt.) Ltd. and the respondent No. 4 was its accountant at the relevant time. M/s. Seasons Creation Pvt. Ltd. had availed of certain credit facilities from the respondent No. 2-Bank from time to time and in order to secure the outstanding due to the respondent No. 2, M/s. Seasons Creation Pvt. Ltd. had hypothecated its machineries, stock...

Col. S.S. Chaudhary Vs. State and anr.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 158(2009)DLT685

Mool Chand Garg, J.1. On a complaint C.C. 343/1 filed under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act by Col. S.S. Choudhary (complainant) petitioner in Crl.Rev.P.666/2007, the Magistrate vide order dated 15.05.2005 held the accused Avtar Singh (petitioner in Crl.Rev.P.596/2007) guilty and directed him to undergo SI for one year and to pay double the amount of cheque towards compensation i.e. Rs. 6,95,000/-, as the dishonoured cheque was for Rs. 3,50,000/-. This order was challenged before the learned Additional Sessions Judge who while upholding the conviction modified the sentence by converting the SI to RI for one year but also ordered that no compensation shall be paid by the accused. The precise reason given for the same was that during the pendency of these proceedings the parties entered into a settlement by which, the accused paid a cheque of Rs. 5 lakhs to the complainant as a compromise but the said cheque was also dishonoured. The complainant also filed a civil suit for ...

Dr. D.K. Attery Vs. Mr. Kanwal Singh Mehra

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 159(2009)DLT764

V.K. Shali, J.1. This order shall dispose of the contempt petition filed by the petitioner against the respondent Nos. 1 to 4 under Sections 11 and 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 read with Article 215 of the Constitution of India against the respondents for having willfully and deliberately violated of the order dated 7th November, 2008 passed in WP(C) No. 7879/2008.2. That briefly stated the facts, as alleged in the contempt petition, are that the petitioner vide office order dated 6th October, 2008, the petitioner who was working as CMO, AVH Haiderpur, was transferred and posted as Resident Medical Superintendent, Ayurvedic Panchkarma Hospital, Kalu Sarai in place of Dr. Raj Mann with immediate effect. In this order, it was mentioned that Dr. Raj Mann will continue to work as CMO in the same hospital. Another office order dated 23rd October, 2008 was passed by the respondents wherein it was directed that the status quo shall be maintained in respect of the earlier office orde...

Rolex Sa Vs. Alex Jewellery Pvt. Ltd. and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2009(41)PTC284(Del)

Rajiv Sahai Endlaw, J.1. The application of the plaintiff for interim relief restraining the defendants from dealing in artificial jewellery or in any other product bearing the trademark/trade name ROLEX or any deceptive variation thereof is for consideration.2. The plaintiff is a company incorporated under the laws of Switzerland and is engaged in the business of manufacture and distribution of premium quality watches, horological and chronometric instruments, atomic clocks, chronographs, watch bands, watch cases, watch chains, watch glasses etc. The plaintiff is aggrieved by the action of the defendant No. 1 carrying on business at Mumbai of manufacturing, selling, distributing and trading in artificial jewellery under the mark ROLEX and the actions of the defendants 2 and 3 carrying on business at Delhi of retailing of the said artificial jewellery; of these the defendant No. 2 is carrying on business in the name and style of ROLEX Jewellery House.3. The plaintiff claims adoption of...

Clinique Laboratories Llc and anr. Vs. Gufic Limited and anr.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2009(41)PTC41(Del)

Rajiv Sahai Endlaw, J.1. The applications of the plaintiff for interim relief, of the defendant for vacation of the ex-parte order dated 16th December, 2008 and of the plaintiff under Section 124(1)(ii) of the Trademark Act, 1999 are for consideration. The plaintiff has sued for injunction restraining infringement of its registered trademark CLINIQUE and for restraining defendants from passing off its goods as that of the plaintiff. It is the case in the plaint itself that the defendant is the registered proprietor of the trademark CLINIQ; that the plaintiff prior to the institution of the suit has initiated rectification action before the Registrar. According to the plaintiff, the plaintiff from the pleadings of the defendant in this suit learnt of other registrations including DERMA CLINIQ in the name of the defendant and which the plaintiff contends it was not aware of at the time of institution of the suit. The plaintiff has thus applied for permission to file an application for re...

National Highways Authority of India Vs. Mr. K.K. SarIn and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 159(2009)DLT314

Rajiv Sahai Endlaw, J.1. The petition is filed under Section 14 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 for the relief of terminating the mandate of the arbitral tribunal comprising of the nominees of the petitioner and respondent No. 4 and the presiding arbitrator appointed by the said two nominees and for appointment of a sole arbitrator by this Court. The members of the arbitral tribunal are impleaded as the respondents 1 to 3 and though served with the notice, did not appear. The respondent No. 4 contested the petition.2. The petition has been preferred on two grounds. Firstly, that the arbitral tribunal has failed to abide by the agreement between the petitioner and the respondent No. 4 of the fee to be paid to the arbitral tribunal and ordered the parties to pay fee much in excess thereto and Secondly on the ground of bias of the arbitral tribunal against the petitioner, originating from the petitioner objecting to the payment of fee at rates higher than agreed upon with th...

Renu Sharma Vs. Aggarwal Packers and Movers Drs Transport (P) Ltd.

Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi

J.D. Kapoor, President (Oral): 1. Feeling dissatisfied with the amount of compensation of Rs. 25,000 awarded by the District Forum vide its order dated 19.2.2008 towards the loss in respect of goods transported, the appellant has preferred this appeal. 2. The relevant facts, in brief, are that the appellant hired the services of respondent for transportation of complete household goods from Bangalore to Gurgaon. As per terms and conditions of agreement, respondent was to pack all goods in Bangalore and unpack of goods at Gurgaon at the time of delivery. The appellant paid the amount of transportation charges by two cheque No. 325918 dated 29.10.2006 for Rs. 62,150 and another cheque No. 325917 dated 29.10.2006 for Rs. 10,450. The consignment was also insured, after payment of additional sum of 3%. Respondent delivered the goods to appellant at Gurgaon on 4.11.2006 but the appellant was shocked to notice that many of the articles were horribly damaged and some items were missing. The ap...

Cit Vs. K.J. Business Centre

Court: Delhi

Reported in: [2009]180TAXMAN42(Delhi)

Vikramajit Sen, J.1. Heard. 2. Admit. 3. On behalf of the Revenue the following questions of law, stated in the Appeal to be of substantial nature, have been proposed for the Assessment Year 1994-1995(ITA 90/2007):(a) Whether ITAT was correct in law in confirming the order passed by CIT(A) and thereby deleting the addition of Rs. 19,84,000/- made by the Assessing Officer on account of commission paid by M/s G E International to M/s Arora & Associates? (b) Whether ITAT was correct in law in confirming the order passed by CIT(A) and thereby deleting the addition of Rs. 1,07,50,000/- made by the Assessing Officer on account of commission paid by M/s AIFACS to M/s Manik Enterprises? (c) Whether ITAT was correct in law in allowing the assessee to spread the entire commission of Rs. 62,05,375/- over the period of 06 years and thus charging only 1/6th of the commission in the present year? (d) Whether order passed by ITAT is perverse in law i) when it ignored the relevant material found by th...