Delhi Court February 2014 Judgments
Home Cases Delhi 2014 Page 48 of about 540 results (0.021 seconds)M/S Drs Logistics (P) Ltd. and anr. Vs. Prs Agarwal Packeers and Mover ...
Court: Delhi
$~40. * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of Decision :5. h February, 2014 % + CS(OS) 335/2014 M/S DRS LOGISTICS (P) LTD. & ANR. Through : Mr.C.M. Lall, Adv. ..... Plaintiffs versus PRS AGARWAL PACKEERS & MOVERS PVT. LTD. & ORS. Through : Mr.L.B.Rai, Adv. ..... Defendants CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.S.SISTANI G.S.SISTANI, J.(Oral) 1. Plaintiffs have filed the present suit for injunction, damages for infringement of trade marks, passing off and unfair competition against the defendants for misuse of the plaintiffs trade mark Agarwal Packers and Movers, Agarwal Packers, DRS Packers and Movers, DRS Logistics and DRS Group word/logo by the defendants.2. Issue summons in the suit to the defendants. Mr.L.B. Rai, Advocate, accepts notice on behalf of the defendants. It may be noticed that on the last date of hearing, Mr.Sudheer Sharma, Advocate, had appeared on behalf of the defendants in this matter, and at his request the matter was adjourned for today to enable him to seek appr...
Tag this Judgment!Mewa Ram Vs. State
Court: Delhi
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CRL.REV.P. 402/2011 % Date of Decision:05. 02.2014 MEWA RAM ..... Petitioner Through: Petitioner in person. versus STATE ..... Respondent Through: Mr. Pramod Saxena, APP. SI Vikas Mudgal, P.S. Sabzi Mandi. CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE VEENA BIRBAL VEENA BIRBAL, J.1. By way of present revision petition u/s 397 Cr.P.C r/w section 401 along with section 482 Cr.P.C, a challenge has been made to the judgment dated 30.4.2011 passed by the ld.Addl. Sessions Judge, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi whereby the judgment passed by the ld.Chief Metropolitan Magistrate dated 19.1.2011 convicting the petitioner and sentencing him for the offences punishable u/s 193/204/419/471 IPC has been upheld.2. At the outset it may be mentioned that petitioner has submitted that he has already undergone the sentence as such he is not interested in pursuing the revision petition.3. Briefly the facts of the case are that a FIR under Section 191/193/205/417/420/468/471 IPC was reg...
Tag this Judgment!M/S Mahashay Chunnilal Vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax and ors
Court: Delhi
*IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % + Order reserved on :04. h October, 2013 Order pronounced on:05. h February, 2014 WPC No.7514 of 2010 M/S MAHASHAY CHUNNILAL .... Petitioner Through Mr. Jainendra Maldahiyar and Mr. Amit Bhanot, Advocates Versus DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX & ORS Respondents Through Mr. Abhishek Maratha, Sr Standing Counsel with Mr. Anshul Sharma Advocates for R 1, Mr. Ruchir Mishra and Mr. Mukesh K. Tiwari, Advocates for R 2. CORAM: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA HONBLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA ======================================================================= WP(C) 7514/2010 Page 1 of 25 SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J.1. The petitioner has filed the present petition challenging the order dated 23.08.2010 rejecting the objections filed by the petitioner against two notices, both dated 30.03.2010, under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 seeking to re-assess the income of the petitioner for the assessment years 2005-06 and 2006-07.2. The petitioner is...
Tag this Judgment!Sunil Kumar and ors. Vs. Govt of Nct of Delhi
Court: Delhi
$~ *IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of decision:- 5th February, 2014 + CRIMINAL APPEAL4131998 SUNIL KUMAR & ORS. ..... Appellant Through Mr. G.S. Sharma and Mr. R.A. Sharma, Advocates. versus GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI ..... Respondent Through Ms. Rajdipa Behura, APP. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.P. MITTAL SANJIV KHANNA, J.The third appellant, namely, Om Prakash @ Bengali brother of the other two appellants Sunil Kumar and Om Babu @ Pappu expired during the pendency of the present appeal. The present appeal, therefore, has been pressed on behalf of Sunil Kumar and Om Babu @ Pappu.2. The two appellants along with the deceased appellant Om Babu @ Pappu by the impugned judgment dated 17th September, 1998 stand convicted under Section 302 read with Section 34 Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) for murder of Tejpal at about 8.00-8.30 p.m. on 2nd October, 1992. By order of sentence dated 19th September, 1998, the two appellants have been sentenced to life ...
Tag this Judgment!Ashok Dhar Vs. the State and ors
Court: Delhi
$~14 *IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + TEST.CAS. 45/2013 Decided on 5th February, 2014 ASHOK DHAR ..... Petitioner Through Mr. Yash Mishra, Adv. versus THE STATE AND ORS Through ..... Respondents :Mr. Gursharan Singh, Adv. for respondent No.1 Ms. Sonam Sharma, Adv. for respondent No.2 Ms. Chandni Goyal, Adv. for respondent nos. 3 to 8 Respondent No.10 in person CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.K. PATHAK A.K. PATHAK, J.(ORAL) 1. Petitioner has filed this petition under Section 276 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 for grant of probate of the Will dated 14th August, 2001 of Late Shri Manmohan Dhar. Respondent No.3 is sister and respondent nos. 4 to 8 are brothers of Late Shri Manmohan Dhar.2. It is alleged in the petition that deceased was a Hindu, governed by the Hindu Succession Act, 1956. He was permanent resident of C-56, Kailash Apartments, Lala Lajpat Rai Marg, New Delhi. He died on 21st January, 2009 at Lilavati Hospital in Mumbai. Deceased made and published his last Will a...
Tag this Judgment!M/S. Vanick Oils and Fats Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Cce, Delhi-iii, Gurgaon
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Principal Bench New Delhi
D.N. Panda, J. 1. Notice had gone in this case on 17.12.2013 fixing the matter for hearing today. Earlier when that matter came up on 1.10.2013, in absence of the appellant issuance of notice was directed fixing date of hearing on 19.11.2013 following direction of the Honble High Court of Punjab and Haryana in customs appeal No. 9 and 10/2012 disposed on 21.3.2013. The appellant did not turn up on 19.11.2013. Accordingly, notice was further issued fixing the hearing today. 2. Today no one is present for the appellant nor there is any adjournment application. 3. Customs appeal No. 736/207 arose out of adjudication order dated 7.9.207 where learned Adjudicating Authority found that the appellant had imported 226800 kgs. of goods declaring that to be Hydrogenated Vegetable Oils (Vanaspati Ghee) from Nartha Agro Industries Pvt. Ltd., Sri Lanka in terms of Bill of Entry No. 1203 dated 11.7.2007 availing exemption under notification 02/2007-Cus dated 5.1.2007. Upon testing the sample of the ...
Tag this Judgment!Bonny Baby Care Pvt Ltd and Others Vs. Cce, Noida and Another
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Principal Bench New Delhi
D.N. Panda, J. 1. Appeal No. E/141/2005, 143/2005 and 144/2005 is one batch of appeal which covers the period 1.12.1998 to 31.03.2004, arose out of common adjudication. The other batch of appeals No.972/2012, 988/2012 to 992/2012 covers the period April, 2004 to April 2006 arose out of common appeal order. 2. Revenue is in appeal registered as E/3044/2005. SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF ASSESSEES 3. Ld. Counsel Shri B. L. Narasimhan appearing for assessees submits that there are 3 issues involved in the first batch of appeal registered as appeal Nos. 141/2005, 143/2005 and 144/2005 relating to the period 01.12.1998 to 31.03.2004. MANUFACTURE NIPPLE 4. The first issue in the first batch of appeals is whether complete feeding bottles cleared, manufacturing only nipple thereof and affixing/assembling thereto other components/accessories bought out from outside or manufactured by others, amounts to manufacture. 5. On behalf of appellant it was submitted that the nipple manufactured by the appell...
Tag this Judgment!Greetings Colour Processors Vs. the Appellate Authority and Others
Court: National Green Tribunal Principal Bench New Delhi
M. Chockalingam, Judicial Member: 1) This appeal has been preferred by the appellant herein against the order dated 28.06.2013 in Appeal Nos. 12 and 13 of 2013 of the Appellate Authority, Tamil Nadu Pollution Control, Chennai (for short Appellate Authority) wherein the Appellate Authority had set aside the orders dated 28.06.2013 passed by the Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board (for short the Board) under section 28 of the Water(Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 (for short Water Act, 1974) and section 31 of the (Air Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981 (for short Air Act, 1981) and dismissed the appeals. The short necessary facts of the case are narrated below: 2) The appellant has been running a dyeing unit in S.F. No. 159/2, Maniyakaranpalayam, Nallur village, Vijayapuram Post in Tiruppur District since 1995 with the name and style of M/s. Greetings Process and obtained necessary consent order under Water Act, 1974 and Air Act, 1981 from the Board vide Consent ...
Tag this Judgment!Satake India Engineering Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner (Adjudication), C. ...
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Principal Bench New Delhi
G. Raghuram, J. 1. Heard the ld. Counsel Shri J.K. Mittal for the appellant and Shri Amresh Jain, ld. A.R. for Revenue. 2. This is an assessees appeal preferred against the adjudication order dated 31.7.2013 passed by the learned Commissioner, Central Excise (Adjudication), New Delhi I. This order is the culmination of two show cause notices dated 19.4.2010 and 19.10.2010, covering the period October 2008 to March 2009 and April 2009 to March 2010 respectively. The order confirmed service tax liability apart from interest and penalties for having provided Business Auxiliary Service; of Rs.39,13,729/- and Rs.1,00,31,640/-, under the respective show cause notices, in all of Rs.1,39,45,369/-; and Rs.3,41,508/- towards Management, Maintenance or Repair Service during April, 2009 to March 2010 (covered by the 2nd Show cause notice dated 19.10.2010). 3. Several contentions are urged to impeach the validity of the impugned order. Principally however, the challenge is on the ground that the or...
Tag this Judgment!Tarun Garg Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation
Court: Delhi
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI CRL. A. No.52 of 2008 Reserved on: January 30, 2014 Decision on: February 4, 2014 TARUN GARG ..... Appellant Through: Mr. K.K. Manan, Mr. Nipun Bhardwaj, Mr. Navender N. Gautam, Mr. Ankush Narang and Mr. Satbir S. Gill, Advocates. Versus CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION ..... Respondent Through: Mr. Manoj Ohri, Special Public Prosecutor for CBI. CORAM: JUSTICE S. MURALIDHAR JUDGMENT0402.2014 1. Tarun Garg has filed this appeal against the impugned judgment dated 18th December 2007 passed by the learned Special Judge in CC No.67 of 2004 convicting him of the offence under Section 8 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (PC Act) and the order on sentence dated 20th December 2007 sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment (RI) for two years and pay a fine of Rs.25,000, and in default of payment of fine to undergo simple imprisonment (SI) for six months.2. The case of the prosecution is that Inspector Vivek Dhir (PW-1) of the Central Bureau o...
Tag this Judgment!