Delhi Court September 2009 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
Aman Medical Products Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-16-2009
Reported in: 2009(170)LC233(Delhi); 2010(250)ELT30(Del)
Valmiki J. Mehta, J.1. The only issue which arises for consideration in this present appeal is whether an assessee who is entitled for concessional rate of duty pays the higher duty by inadvertence is not entitled to grant of refund of the excess duty paid unless he had filed an appeal against the 'order' by which he had deposited the duty on filing of the bill of entry. In other words, the assessee contends that in the present case no 'order' has been passed because the assessee simply filed the bill of entry and paid the customs duty in mistake without taking the benefit of the notification No. 6/2002 dated 1.3.2002 due to ignorance. The Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has passed an order holding that 'in pursuance to an order of assessment' necessarily implies that a payment of duty must be pursuant to an assessment order before a refund in appeal can be asked for under Section 27 of the Customs Act, 1962 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act')2. We have th...
Sterling Machine Tools Vs. the Central Government and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-16-2009
Reported in: 2009(41)PTC481(Del)
ORDERSanjiv Khanna, J.1. The petitioner, M/s Sterling Machine Tools, has impugned the certificate dated 28th July, 1995 issued by the Joint Registrar of Trade Marks to the respondent No. 7, M/s A.K. Enterprises, certifying that upon search, no trade mark identical or deceptively similar to the trade mark 'Bharat Marshal' was found to be registered or applied for.2. The respondent No. 7 had applied for the said certificate under TM Form No. 60 for registration under the Copyright Act, 1957. The said certificate is required under the proviso to 45(1) of the Copyright Act, 1957.3. Counsel for the petitioner, has drawn my attention to similar requests made by the petitioner under Rule 24(1) of the Trade and Merchandise Marks Rules, 1959 in Form TM-54 dated 18th March, 1993 and dated 18th February, 1994 in respect of the trade marks 'Bharat' and 'Bharat Marshal'. In Addition, the petitioner had also made search under Form TM-60 dated 18th March, 1973 for the mark 'Bharat'. The Registrar of ...
Agi Logistics Inc and anr. Vs. Mr. Sher Jang Bhadhur and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-16-2009
Reported in: 163(2009)DLT137
ORDERS. Muralidhar, J.IA No. 9768/20091. This is an application filed by Defendants 2 to 5 and 7 (hereinafter applicants./defendants. under Order XXXIX Rules 3 and 4 CPC seeking vacation of an ex parte ad interim injunction granted by this Court by an order dated 22nd July 2009 in IA No. 9150/2009 in the above suit.2. Notice in this application was directed to issue by this Court on 3rd August 2009. Replies have been filed by the Plaintiffs and a rejoinder thereto has been filed by the applicants.3. This Court has heard the submissions of Mr. Samdarshi Sanjay, the learned Advocate for the Plaintiffs and Ms. Vibha Mahajan Seth, the learned Advocate for the Applicants/Defendants 2 to 5 and 7.4. It is stated in the application that despite this Court in its order dated 22nd July, 2009 directing that the Plaintiffs should comply with the requirements of Order XXXIX Rule 3 CPC within one week, the Plaintiffs did not serve upon the Applicants within one week a copy of the plaint, the applica...
Social Jurist, a Civil Rights Group Vs. Govt. of N.C.T. of Delhi and a ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-16-2009
Reported in: 163(2009)DLT489
1. On 19th February, 2009, this Court had directed respondents to file an Action Taken Report with regard to mapping, improvement of Infrastructure and upgradation of Human Resources and Management so as to facilitate good quality education to disabled children.2. The Department of Education, Government of NCT of Delhi has filed an action taken report outlining the measures that it has undertaken and that it proposes to take in the future.3. The Delhi Commission for Protection of Child Rights has filed its response to the aforesaid action taken report. In the said response, it has been stated that the training provided to teachers during the SCERT orientation is not adequate and further that there is non co-operation between PWD and DSIIDC in consideration of infrastructure facilities. In the said response, it has been highlighted that neither the number of special educators and teachers to teach the disabled are adequate nor good quality of teachers are available. The Commission has e...
Shri Mangat Ram and ors. Vs. Shri Ram Niwas and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-16-2009
Reported in: 168(2009)DLT199
P.K. Bhasin, J.1. This appeal has been filed under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 against the order dated 22/10/2008 passed by the Court of Additional District Judge, Delhi in Suit No. 619/06/05 filed by the appellants herein whereby their suit for declaration and permanent injunction was dismissed as time barred.2. The relevant facts for the purpose of present appeal may first be noticed. The appellants (hereinafter to be referred to as 'the plaintiffs') claiming themselves as joint owners of certain pieces of land in village Burari and village Badarpur Majra (hereinafter to be referred to as the 'suit property') filed a suit for declaration and injunction against the respondents herein(who shall hereinafter be referred to as 'the defendants'). It was claimed by the plaintiffs that the suit property belonged to Shri Chajju who was the uncle of plaintiffs No. 1 and 2(brother of their father late Shri Khacheru) and brother of the grand-father of plaintiffs No. 3 to 7. S...
Deep Public School Thr. Its Chairman Vs. Central Information Commissio ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-15-2009
Reported in: 163(2009)DLT134
ORDERSanjiv Khanna, J.1. Deep Public School has filed the present writ petition impugning order of the Information Commissioner dated 7th November, 2008. By the said order, Director of Education, Government of NCT of Delhi has been directed to collect information from the petitioner and furnish the same to the information seeker, Ms. Sobha Upadhayay, respondent No. 4 herein. Ms. Sobha Upadhayay is a teacher in the petitioner school, who is presently under suspension and is facing enquiry proceedings.2. The impugned order dated 7th November, 2008 suffers from two infirmities. Firstly, it is a non-speaking order and secondly the impugned order was passed without notice to the third parties, i.e. the petitioner and Ms. Sangeeta Paul, Principal of the petitioner school about whom certain information was sought by the respondent No. 4. On these two grounds, the impugned order cannot be sustained and has to be set aside. Reference in this regard can be made to Sections 11 and 19(4) of the Ri...
Panchshila Co-operative House Building Society Ltd. Vs. Govt. of Nct o ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-15-2009
Reported in: 168(2009)DLT205
Badar Durrez Ahmed, J.1. With the consent of the parties, this writ petition is taken up for final disposal. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 28.08.2009 passed by the Deputy Registrar (South) in the Office of the Registrar of Cooperative Societies, Delhi. The order purports to be one passed under Section 61(1) of the Delhi Cooperative Societies Act, 2003 (hereinafter referred as the 'said Act.'). A plain reading of the order indicates that the Office of the Registrar of Cooperative Societies received representations from several members vide letters dated 29.06.2009, 03.07.2009, 12.07.2009 and 14.07.2009 complaining about the management of the society. Several allegations have been outlined in the order dated 28.08.2009. Ultimately, the Deputy Registrar (South) passed the following order:Now therefore the Registrar, Cooperative Societies after satisfying himself is pleased to appoint Shri CR Garg, DIG, Central Prison, New Delhi to inspect the relevant record of Panchshila...
Alkem Laboratories Ltd. Vs. Mega International (P) Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-14-2009
Reported in: LC2010(1)61; 2009(41)PTC302(Del)
V.K. Shali, J.1. This is a Regular First Appeal filed by the appellant against the judgment dated 08.2.2007 passed by the learned Single Judge in Civil Suit bearing No. 1926/2003 titled Alkem Laboratories Ltd. v. Mega International (P) Ltd. By virtue of the impugned judgment, the suit of the appellant for permanent injunction, passing off, rendition of accounts, in respect of trademark 'GEMCAL' in relation to medicinal preparations was dismissed by the learned Single Judge.2. Briefly stated the case of the appellant/plaintiff (hereinafter referred to as the appellant) is that it is company incorporated under the Companies Act and is carrying business inter alia as a manufacturer, seller and dealer of pharmaceutical and medicinal preparations. It was alleged, in the plaint that it had adopted a trademark 'GEMCAL' in August, 1999 and applied for registration of the said trademark in respect of medicinal and pharmaceutical preparations and substances on 17.4.2000. In the month of July, 20...
Anurena Tristar Vs. I.T.O.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-14-2009
Reported in: [2010]186TAXMAN205(Delhi)
Valmiki J. Mehta, J.1. The issue which arises for determination in the present appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) is whether the appellant-assessee is entitled to additional depreciation of 15% (in addition to the depreciation of 25% permissible under Section 32(1) of the Act). In order to get the benefit of additional depreciation, it is necessary for the assessee to show that he has installed in his unit a new machinery as per Section 32(1)(iia). All the three authorities below, namely, the Assessing Officer, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) and the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal have held that the appellant-assessee is not entitled to the benefit of additional depreciation as the machinery in question is not new.2. The stand of the assessee is best reflected in the relevant portion of the written submissions dated 2nd December, 2006 filed by it before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) and which is as under:The mai...
Sarvjit Singh Sareen Vs. Mrs. Ritu Menon and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-14-2009
Reported in: 166(2010)DLT242
S. Ravindra Bhat, J.1. The plaintiff in this Suit seeks declaration as to Will dated 06.09.1995, which he disputes, as not legal and binding and that it contravenes Section 114 of the Indian Succession Act; he also claims that in the event of declaration not being granted, the Court should hold that the said Will is void and not binding on him. He further seeks a decree for partition in respect of the estate of Mrs. Lajja Sareen (hereafter called 'the testatrix') regarding the property No. N-84, Panchsheel Park (hereafter referred to as 'suit property'), movable/immovable assets fully described in the Suit, for the appointment of a Local Commissioner to suggest the mode of partition and take consequential steps towards drawing a final decree.2. The undisputed facts that may be gathered from the pleadings are that the plaintiff (hereafter referred to as 'Sarvjeet'), Defendant No. 1 (hereafter referred to as 'Ritu') and defendant No. 2 (hereafter referred to as 'Beena') are brother and s...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- Next ›
- Last »