Delhi Court January 2010 Judgments

Kobe Suspension Co. Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise Delhi ...

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Per M. Veeraiyan: These two appeals by the same appellant relates to proceeding initiated on seizures made on 29.6.2000 from M/s. Kripal Motors and M/s. Hemkund Motors. Both the parties admitted having received goods without payment of duty and without documents from the appellants. Goods seized from these two parties were confiscated but allowed to be redeemed on payment of redemption fine and penalties were also imposed on them. It is submitted that these two parties have not filed the appeals. In connection with goods seized from Kripal Motors, the appellant has been imposed with a penalty of Rs.20,000/- by the original authority which has been sustained by the Commissioner (Appeals). In respect of goods seized from Hemkund Motors, the appellant has been imposed with a penalty of Rs.5,000/-. 2. Learned Advocate submits that there was proceedings relating to alleged clandestine removal of Kobe Suspension Co. Pvt. Ltd. and others which included the quantities seized from Kripal Motors...

B.S.Dahiya Versus Union of India Through Its Secretary Ministry of Def ...

Court: Armed forces Tribunal AFT Principal Bench New Delhi

1. Challenge is made against the order dated 01.05.2009, whereby the applicant was discharged from service with effect from 15.05.2009 and the order dated 23.04.2009 passed by the Air Marshal declining interference with the order of discharge. Relief also has been sought to reinstate him in service with all consequential benefits. 2. The contentions of the applicant, in brief, are : He was enrolled in the Indian Air Force on 30.07.1996 as Airman in the Trade- Telest-RTO. After completion of the requisite training, he became Air Craftsman and by re-classification/promotion, he became Corporal by dint of his hard work, devotion to duty and sincerity. Due to compelling circumstances, the applicant had to over stay on leave and he was awarded punishment for that cause. The respondents issued show cause notice dated 14.11.2008 stating that he was punished on four occasions and awarded red ink entries in his conduct roll. The applicant gave a reply to the show cause notice explaning the com...

Shri Subhash Seth S/O Late Dr. D.D. Seth, Vs. New Delhi Hotels Limited ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 166(2010)DLT624

V.B. Gupta, J.1. Present appeal has been filed against order dated 3rd June, 2008, passed by Additional District Judge, Delhi, vide which appellants application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of Section 151 of Code of Civil Procedure (for short as 'Code') was dismissed.2. Appellants case is that one Smt. Kailash Rani, wife of Sh. Amarnath Gupta, booked a flat bearing No. 803, 8th Floor, Mercantile House, 15 Kasturba Gandhi Marg, New Delhi and deposited the required amount for the same with respondent company. Smt. Kailash Rani, nominated Sh. D. D. Grover, son of Sh. I. D. Grover and accordingly, the said flat was transferred in the name of Sh. D. D. Grover, vide letter dt. NDHL/CR-105/Dated 22.09.1985.3. During his lifetime, Sh. D.D. Grover paid to the respondent a sum of Rs. 4,56,865/- with respect to the said flat, which was under construction at the relevant time. Sh. D.D. Grover was murdered on 15.5.1988. During his lifetime, he had executed a Will dt. 9.11.1986 in respect of his pro...

Alberto Co. Vs. R.K. Vijay and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 166(2010)DLT391

S. Ravindra Bhat, J.IA No. 12828/20091. This order will dispose of an application IA 12828/2009 whereby the defendants seek dismissal of this suit for injunction.2. The plaintiff in this suit seek permanent injunction to restrain the defendants or their representatives from using selling, soliciting, exporting, displaying, or advertising their goods and the sale of various kinds of cosmetics and personal care products under the trademark 'VOV', which the plaintiff owns. It is contended that the plaintiff company honestly coined and conceived and started using the trademark 'VO5' and 'VO5 along with the term ALBERTO', which is its name. The plaintiff company's name is depicted in small letters about the letter V. The plaintiff has produced photographs depicting its trademark. It claims to be using the Mark continuously since 1955 as its proprietor and have built a valuable trade goodwill and reputation in respect of such products under the trademark in question. The suit averments are a...

Parivar Seva Sanstha Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 166(2010)DLT457

Sanjay Kishan Kaul, J.1. Rule D.B.2. Learned Counsel for the respondents accept notice. At the request of learned Counsel for the parties, petition is taken up for final disposal.3. The National Aids Control Organization - respondent No. 2 issued an Expression of Interest (EOI) on 18.11.2007 for implementation of the Targeted Condom and Social Marketing Programmes under NACP-III. The EOI stated that the Ministry of Health and Family Planning and the NACO were keen on engaging social marketing organizations and private marketing companies in expanding the access/demand and use of condoms. Under the public-private partnership, the social marketing programme was to be launched in different parts of the country in various stages. The implementing organization was required to have an effective corporate marketing structure. The EOI was to be sent along with the capability statement including a profile of the implementing organization.4. In pursuance to the receipt of the EOI's, a Request Fo...

Chander Bhan S/O Shri Chhotey Lal Vs. Union of India (Uoi) (Through Se ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 166(2010)DLT649

Madan B. Lokur, J.1. The challenge in this writ petition is to notification No. F- 10(30)/96/L&D;/L.A/13417 dated 13th December, 2000 issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short the Act) in respect of the land owned by the Petitioner comprising of Khasra No. 55/5 (4-11) situated in Village Dhul Siras, New Delhi. 2. In terms of Section 4 of the Act, the notification was published in the Official Gazette on 13th December, 2000 and in two newspapers circulated in the locality on 21st December, 2000. The Petitioner has annexed with the writ petition a photocopy of the Official Gazette and the publication made in the Hindustan Times of 21st December, 2000. A perusal of the Official Gazette shows that the notification was issued in respect of the land of the Petitioner, that is, Khasra No. 55/5 (4-11). However, the newspaper publication shows that the notification was issued, inter alia, in respect of land bearing Khasra No. 55/4 (4-11). In other words, according to t...

Ms. Sadhna Payal and ors. Vs. Director of Education and anr.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 167(2010)DLT111

Kailash Gambhir, J.1. By this writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India the petitioners seek directions to respondent No. 2 for the implementation of the recommendations of the 5th Pay Commission and for the payment of their revised salaries and other benefits w.e.f. 1.1.1996.2. Brief facts relevant for deciding the present petition are that the petitioners are teachers in respondent No. 2 school which is affiliated to C.B.S.E. The Director of Education, GNCT issued order dated 21.10.1997 stating that the Government of India has implemented the recommendations of the 5th Pay Commission notifying the revised pay scales of various categories of teachers in Part-B, hereby endorsing the same and instructing all the concerned to fix the same and the same be effective from 1.1.1996. Earlier C.B.S.E had already issued a circular dated 22.07.1997 to the same effect. Therefore, as per the above mentioned two circulars read with Section 10 of the Delhi School Education A...

M/S Hindustan Petroleum Corpn Ltd. Vs. Cce, Rohtak

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

In view of the compliance of the stay order, which fact is not disputed by the respondent, the appeals to be listed for final hearing in due course of time....

M/S Nandan Auto Tech Ltd. and Another Vs. Cce, Ludhiana

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

None present for the appellants. Shri K.P. Singh, DR, present for the respondent. The appellants have neither complied with the order regarding pre-deposit nor have they shown any cause for non-dismissal of the appeal. However, issue, as to whether on account of non-deposit of the amount in terms of the stay order would warrant dismissal of the appeal or not, being fixed for hearing on 28th January, 2010, both these matters to be listed for hearing on the said issue on 28.01.2010....

Dr. V.J.A. Ellyn Vs. Cc, New Delhi

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

In view of compliance of the stay order, which fact is not disputed by the respondent, the appeal to be listed for final hearing in due course of time....