Delhi Court July 2010 Judgments
Home Cases Delhi 2010 Page 28 of about 331 results (0.021 seconds)C.C.E., Lucknow Vs. M/S India Pesticides 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 the Commissioner (Appeals) by which the penalties of Rs.10,000/- each in two cases imposed by the original authority were set aside by the Commissioner (Appeals). 2. The dispute relates to delayed payment of duty for the months of January 2005, March 2005 and March 2006 and the duty has been deposited delayedly along with interest. The original authority imposed penalty of Rs.10,000/- each in two cases. The Commissioner (Appeals), taking note of the fact that there was 29 days of delay in payment of duty due for January 2005, 4 days delay in payment for March 2005 and delay of 28 days for payment of duty for March 2006, set aside the orders of the original authorities imposing penalties. 3. Learned DR reiterates the grounds of appeal. 4. The grounds of appeal do not have any material which can upset the factual position by the Commissioner (Appeals). Further, the duty involved has been paid in all the cases with...
Tag this Judgment!M/S. J.K. Cables Ltd. Shri J.K. Chugh, Md Vs. Commissioner of Central ...
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Per M. Veeraiyan: Vide stay order No. 140-141/2010-SM(BR) dated 5.4.2010 the applicant company was directed to deposit sum of Rs. One lakh within 8 weeks and to report compliance on 5.7.2010. It is reported that no-compliance has been made. In view of the above, the appeals are dismissed for non-compliance with the provisions of section 35F read with stay order. 2. Appeals are dismissed....
Tag this Judgment!Babu Lal Vs Kishan Lal
Court: Delhi
(1) Whether reporters of local paper may be allowed to see the judgment?(2) To be referred to the reporter or not? Yes (3) Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest Yes 1. Appellant has filed this application seeking condonation of delay in filing the appeal challenging the judgment and decree of the First Appellate Court dated 23rd March, 2006. 2. Appellant has sought condonation of delay on the grounds that RCA No.21/05 was listed for hearing on 23rd March, 2006 when the judgment was passed by the court, that appellant was appearing in person as advocates were not appearing because of strike in Tis Hazari Courts, that he requested his counsel to apply for certified copy of the judgment and decree and also to draft appeal against the impugned judgment and decree, that he became busy due to board examination and competition preparation of his son and could not approach his lawyer from May 2006 till the end of vacation as his son was appearing in entrance examinations for pr...
Tag this Judgment!Sudershan Singh Vs Amrit Lata Jhamb
Court: Delhi
(1) Whether reporters of local paper may be allowed to see the judgment?(2) To be referred to the reporter or not? Yes (3) Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest Yes 1. Appellant had filed a suit being Suit No.83/2000 seeking permanent injunction against his tenant Smt.Amrit Lata Jhamb in the first floor of premises bearing No.M-16, Green Park (Main), New Delhi. The said suit was dismissed in default by the Trial Court on 17th October, 2001 due to non-appearance of the appellant. Thereafter he filed an application under Order 9 Rule 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter referred to as 'CPC') seeking restoration of the suit. The said application was dismissed by the Trial Court vide its order dated 7th August, 2002. Challenge to the said order was also unsuccessful and the Appellate Court dismissed the appeal vide impugned order dated 16th September, 2004. Appellant preferred this appeal challenging the orders of the courts below.2. During pendency of this appeal,...
Tag this Judgment!Smt. Sushila Devi Vs Shri Joginder Kumar
Court: Delhi
(1) Whether reporters of local paper may be allowed to see the judgment?(2) To be referred to the reporter or not? Yes (3) Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest Yes 1. Impugned in this petition is the order of the Trial Court dated 8th August 2008, whereby while allowing application of the petitioner (respondent in the main petition) filed under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), it awarded her maintenance @ Rs.3,000/-per month, besides litigation expenses of Rs.5,100/-. Being dissatisfied by the said order, she has filed this petition.2. Mr.K. Sunil, counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has submitted that the court awarded meagre amount of maintenance without considering income of the respondent (petitioner in the main petition) in the correct perspective as he is a man of means and therefore, she should have been awarded maintenance as claimed by her i.e. at least Rs.8,000/- to Rs.10,000/- per month. He further submit...
Tag this Judgment!Faqir Chand and ors. Vs State and anr.
Court: Delhi
1. Whether Reporters of Local papers may No be allowed to see the Judgment?2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? No3. Whether the judgment should be No reported in the Digest?ORDER. (Oral)1. The present petition is filed by the petitioners under section 482 of the Cr.PC praying inter alia for quashing of FIR No. 26/2010 lodged by respondent No.2 under sections 448/380/323/341/34 IPC and registered at Police Station- Nihal Vihar, Delhi.2. It is stated in the petition that disputes arose between the parties at the time, when respondent no.2 was a tenant under the petitioner no.1 in respect of a portion of premises bearing No.C-32, Kunwar Singh Nagar, Delhi-110041. However, during the pendency of the proceedings in the court below, with the intervention of the neighbourers and well-wishers of the parties, a compromise is stated to have been arrived at between the petitioner No.1 and respondent No.2. An affidavit dated 17.02.2010 sworn by the respondent No.2, is placed on the record. I...
Tag this Judgment!M/S Budhiraja Electricals Vs Rites
Court: Delhi
1. Whether reporters of Local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? NO2. To be referred to the reporter or not? NO3. Whether the judgment should be reported NO in the Digest?ORDER.1. The objections under Sections 30 & 33 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 by way of I.A. No.6198/1999 preferred by the petitioner M/S Budhiraja Electricals, on being served with notice of filing in this Court of the award dated 10th February, 1999 of Sri B.K. Makhija, General Manager of the respondent Rites, acting as the sole Arbitrator are for consideration. The Arbitrator was appointed pursuant to the order dated 26th November, 1997 of this Court in a petition under Section 20 of the 1940 Act preferred by the petitioner and registered as Suit No.2312A/1995 of this Court. Accordingly, even though the Arbitrator entered upon reference after coming into force of the 1996 Act but the arbitration was one under the 1940 Act. 2. It was one of the pleas of the respondent Rites in Suit No.2312A/1995 that the petit...
Tag this Judgment!Duke Fashions (India) Ltd Vs Girish Hosiery and ors
Court: Delhi
1. Whether reporters of Local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? No2. To be referred to the reporter or not? No3. Whether the judgment should be reported No in the Digest?ORDER.1. The applications for interim relief in the two suits are for adjudication.2. CS(OS) No.2500/2007 was instituted first against M/s Girish Hosiery, Mr. Kanwar Singh, Mr. Inderpreet Singh & M/s Punjab Agencies Pvt. Ltd. for restraining them from infringing the trademark "Duke" of the plaintiff therein viz. M/s Duke Fashions (India) Ltd. (hereinafter called as "Duke Fashions") and also for the reliefs of injunction, passing off, infringement of copyright, accounts etc. On application, being I.A. No.14687/2007 in the said suit, the defendants were restrained from using the mark "Duke" or from passing off their goods under the said mark as that of M/s Duke Fashions. The defendant no.1 M/s Girish Hosiery was initially sued through its proprietor Mr. Narayan Poddar and on it being disclosed that Mr. Narayan P...
Tag this Judgment!R.S. Avtar Singh and Co Vs National Project Construction
Court: Delhi
1. Whether reporters of Local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? No2. To be referred to the reporter or not? No3. Whether the judgment should be reported No in the Digest?ORDER.1. The petitioner filed a petition under Section 14 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 for directing the respondent no.2 Arbitrator to file the award dated 29th August, 2000 in this Court. Upon the respondent no.2 Arbitrator filing the award along with the record of arbitration before this Court, notice of the same was issued to the petitioner and the respondent no.1, being the parties to the arbitration. The petitioner has not preferred any objections to the award. The respondent no.1 has by way of I.A.No.4318/2004 under Section 30 & 33 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 preferred objections to the award and which now fall for adjudication.2. The disputes between the parties arose out of a contract awarded by the respondent no.1 to the petitioner for construction of a food grain godown at Moradabad, U.P. on behalf ...
Tag this Judgment!Vasudeva Publicity Service and anr Vs Mrf Ltd.
Court: Delhi
1. Whether reporters of Local papers may be YES allowed to see the judgment?2. To be referred to the reporter or not? NO3. Whether the judgment should be reported in NO the Digest?ORDER.1. The plaintiff has filed this suit for recovery of Rs.58,43,756/- as the principal amount and Rs.20,84,176/- as interest, a total amount of Rs.79,27,932/- from the defendant on account of advertisement of defendant displayed through the plaintiff.2. The plaintiff contended that he is engaged in the business of display of outdoor publicity/advertisements in Delhi and surrounding areas. According to the plaintiff, defendant had been availing the services of the plaintiff for display of his advertisements. The defendant had allegedly approached the plaintiff in January 1998 for display of advertisements on traffic islands on Bharion Marg Junction and Nehru Place Crossing and after negotiations, the plaintiff agreed to display defendants advertisements at two traffic islands, Mathura Road, Bhairon Marg Ju...
Tag this Judgment!