Delhi Court January 2010 Judgments

R. Vasudevan Vs. Cbi

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 166(2010)DLT583

V.K. Shali, J.1. This is a bail application filed by the petitioner under Section 439 Cr.P.C. for an offence under Section 120B IPC and Section 7, 8, 12, 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 registered by the respondent vide case No. 03(A)09-ACU-IX.2. Briefly stated the facts of the prosecution case are that CBI had received an information from a reliable source that one Manoj Kumar Banthia was approached by Ankur Chawla, Advocate representing a faction of M/s Amar Ujala Publications who was to get in touch with Sh. R. Vasudevan, present petitioner Member of Company Law Board for getting a favourable judgment in the matter of appointing an independent President of the Amar Ujala Publication. It was allegedly revealed that a case relating to Amar Ujala Publication was pending before Mr. R. Vasudevan, the present petitioner Member of Company Law Board who had allegedly demanded and agreed to accept an illegal gratification of Rs. 7,00,000/- from Mano...

Vardhman Properties Ltd. Ca+ Vs. Vardhman Developers and Infrastructur ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 166(2010)DLT782; LC2010(1)292

S. Ravindra Bhat, J.I.A. Nos. 7674/2006, 8107/2006 & 6319/20081. The plaintiff in the suit, claims permanent injunction to restrain the defendant from using its name and trademark 'VARDHAMAN GROUP' and 'VARDHAMAN'. The plaintiff also seeks other consequential reliefs, such as compensation, decree for accounts, and so on.2. The plaintiff says that its associate companies are known as the VARDHAMAN GROUP, and are real estate developers, engaged in that business, since 1982; it is submitted that the plaintiff company and its associates are involved in building projects; in the Delhi and NCR region, the group is involved in building projects, including malls, plazas, commercial complexes, etc. According to the averments, the projects are about 250 in number. It is also stated that the trademark registration for the VARDHAMAN GROUP and logo under the Trademarks Act (hereafter 'the Act') were applied for by the plaintiff, on 189- 1998 and 2-7-2000; the marks were registered on 21-4-2005 and ...

Satnam Singh and ors. Vs. Pamela Manmohan Singh and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 166(2010)DLT541

Shiv Narayan Dhingra, J.1. By this petition under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners have assailed the order dated 29th September 2008 passed by learned Additional District Judge, Tis Hazari Courts in MCA No. 2 of 2008 whereby he dismissed two applications made by the petitioners, one under Section 5 of the Limitation Act and another under Section 14 of the Limitation Act seeking condonation of delay in preferring an appeal and excluding the period from 18th May, 2007 to 5th May, 2008.2. Brief facts relevant for the purpose of deciding this petition are that the petitioners predecessor in interest Ms. Harnam Kaur had preferred objections in execution No. 3 of 1996 along with two other persons viz. Ms. Mahender Kaur and Mr. Jagjit Singh in March, 2000. These objections were dismissed by the learned Civil Judge by his order dated 30th March, 2006. Ms. Mahender Kaur and Mr. Jagjit Singh filed appeals against the order dated 30th March, 2006. However, the pre...

Micolube India Ltd. Vs. Maggon Auto Centre and anr.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 166(2010)DLT642

Manmohan Singh, J.1. The application under consideration being I.A. No. 3915/2009 has been filed by defendant No. 2 under Section 124(1) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (referred to as the CPC for brevity) for stay of the present suit.2. The present suit has been filed by the plaintiff for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from infringing of trade mark, passing off, rendition of accounts, damages, royalty, delivery up etc. praying, inter alia, for the following reliefs:(a) For a decree of permanent injunction restraining the defendants by itself as also through their individual proprietors, partners, directors, agents, representatives, distributors, assigns, heirs, successors, stockists and all others acting for and on their behalf from using, selling, soliciting, exporting, displaying, advertising by visual, audio, print mode or by any other mode or manner or dealing in or using the impugned trade mark/label 'MICO' ...

Rana Steels Vs. Ran India Steels Pvt. Ltd.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 166(2010)DLT602

Manmohan Singh, J.1. Vide this order I shall dispose of the three applications filed by the plaintiff, the details of which are given as under:a) IA No. 11230/2007 under Order XXXIX Rule 2A read with Section 10 & 12 of the Contempt of Court Act filed by the plaintiff.b) IA No. 13619/2008 under Order XXXIX Rule 2A read with Section 10 & 12 of the Contempt of Court Act filed by the plaintiff.c) IA No. 13618/2008 under Order XXVI Rule 9 and Order XXXIX Rule 7 CPC read with Section 151 CPC filed by the plaintiff.2. The brief facts are that the plaintiff filed the suit for permanent injunction to restrain infringement of trademark, passing off rendition of accounts, damages etc. in respect of trademark RANA registered vide application No. 648697B on 14.12.1994. Along with the suit, the plaintiff filed I.A. No. 9165/2007 under Order XXXIX Rule 1 & 2 read with Section 151 CPC praying for ex-parte ad-interim injunction against the defendant.3. That vide order dated 14.8.2007 an ex-parte order ...

M/S Annavaram Concrete Pvt. Ltd. Vs. C.C.E., Lucknow

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Per M. Veeraiyan: This is an appeal against the order of Commissioner (Appeals) No.142-143-CE/2006 dated 12.6.2006. 2. Heard both sides. 3. The appellant is a manufacturer of P.S.C. Sleepers and one of the principal raw materials is cement. When the officers visited the factory on 27.2.2004 and verified the stock they found only 13183 PSC sleepers as against the stock as per record of 13913 sleepers and thus found shortage of 730; they also found only 7542 bags of cement as against stock, as per record, of 7992 bags thus a shortage of 450 bags. The authorised signatory in his statement given under Section 14 on the very same day stated that he was unable to offer any explanation instantly. The perusal of the subsequent statement dated 1.4.2004 also does not reveal any satisfactory explanation for the shortage of raw materials and finished goods. The original authority held that the goods have been clandestinely removed and confirmed demand of Rs.85,540/- along with interest and imposed...

M/S. Rajasthan Transformer and Switchgears and Another Vs. Commissione ...

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Per M. Veeraiyan: Appeal Nos. E/2085 and 2986/2007 are filed by M/s. Rajasthan Transformer and Switchgears and Appeal No.3145/07 is filed by M/s. Fatehpuria Transformer and Switchgears(P)Ltd. All these appeals involve a common issue and, therefore, they are being dealt with by this common order. 2. Heard both sides. 3. The relevant facts, in brief, are that the appellants supplied excisable goods on the basis of contract containing price escalation clause. Subsequently, due to revision in prices, the appellants paid the differential duty. There is no dispute about the liability of the appellants to pay the differential duty. The original authority ordered recovery of interest with reference to date of clearance of the consignment and the due date by which the duty ought to have been paid. Commissioner (Appeals) has upheld the orders of the lower authority. 4. Learned Company Secretary, Shri Atul Gupta while agreeing that the issue of the liability to interest has been settled by the Ho...

C.C.E., Allabahad Vs. M/S Jhunjhunwala Vanaspati Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Per M. Veeraiyan: The Department is on appeal against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) No. 200-CE/ALLD/2007 dated 10.12.2007. Cross-Objection No.E/CO/350/08 is linked to the said appeal. 2. Heard both sides. 3. The relevant facts coming from the records are that there was explosion in the respondent s factory on 7.1.1995 in which some inputs and finished goods involving (a total duty amount of Rs.31,114/-) were destroyed. It is claimed that the respondents have filed an application dated 11.1.1995 seeking for remission of duty involved on goods destroyed. Show cause notice dated 22.6.95 was issued demanding duty on the goods so destroyed. The original authority passed the order dated 27.4.2007 confirming demand as proposed in the show cause notice issued about 12 years back. On appeal, the Commissioner (Appeals) set aside the order of the original authority directing him for awaiting the competent authority to decide on the issue of remission sought for. 4. The Department’...

C.C.E., Jaipur I Vs. M/S Supreme Cylinders Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Per M. Veeraiyan: This is an appeal by the Department against the order of Commissioner (Appeals) No. 90(MPM)CE/JPR-i/2006 dated 3.4.2006. 2. Heard both sides. 3. The respondent is a manufacturer of cylinders falling under Chapter Heading 73.11 of Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. They supplied hot rolled MS sheets to M/s International Engineering and Manufacturing Pvt. Ltd. referred to as job worker and got foot rings and VS plates manufactured on job work basis. The respondent took Cenvat credit and removed the same to the job worker and received back the materials after completion of job work. On the ground that there were certain irregularities on the part of the job worker in not following the procedure prescribed under Rule 57F of Central Excise Rules, the duty was demanded which was paid by the job worker and said amount of duty was taken as credit by the respondent based on supplementary invoices issued by the job worker. The credit taken by the respondent of the duty paid by th...

Harvir Singh S/O Shri Dharam Vir Vs. Union of India (Uoi) Through Secr ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 166(2010)DLT474

Madan B. Lokur, J.1. These are two writ petitions arising out of the same order dated 26th May, 2000 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal in O.A. No. 1471 of 1998.2. The question for consideration arises in the following circumstances: An order was passed on 16th April, 1993 in respect of Harvir Singh under Clause (b) of the second proviso to Article 311(2) of the Constitution. By this order, a departmental inquiry against him (in respect of allegations of criminal misconduct) was dispensed with on the ground that it was not reasonably practicable to hold such an inquiry. On a challenge being made, the Tribunal upheld this order. Subsequently, Harvir Singh was acquitted in the criminal cases filed against him arising out of his alleged criminal misconduct. The question before us is this: Could the Tribunal set aside the order dated 16th April, 1993 merely on Harvir Singh's acquittal in the criminal cases? Our answer to this question is in the negative. 3. At the relevant time,...