Court : Delhi
Decided on : Dec-01-2016
$~3 * + IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Judgment delivered on:01. 12.2016 CEAC112005 COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE ........ Petitioner Through: Mr. Pramod Kr. Rai, Sr. Standing Counsel with Mr. Deepak Anand, Jr. Standing Counsel. versus M/S U.K.PAINTS (I) P.LTD. ..... Respondent Through: Mr. Naveeen Mullick and Mr. Parth Mullick, Advs. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAJMI WAZIRI S. RAVINDRA BHAT, J (Oral) The following questions of law were framed on 27.01.2011 in 1. this appeal preferred by the Commissioner of Central Excise: (1) Whether the adjudicating authority is not required to call the DEEC and other related documents for quantification of correct amount of refund?. (2) Whether the CESTAT has the jurisdiction to decide the appeal in respect of any order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) under Section 35A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 read with sub-section 1(b) of Section 35B of the Act ibid and proviso thereto in the cases wherein g...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Dec-24-2016
$ * + IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Reserved on:7. h December, 2016 Pronounced on:24th December, 2016 CS (OS) 2399/2010 MOTHER DAIRY FRUIT & VEGETABLE PVT. LTD Through: Mr. Nischal Anand, Advocate with Mr. Aman Taneja, Advocate ...... Plaintiff Versus S.K. RAHEEM & ANR ..... Defendants Through: Ex-parte CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.K.GAUBA1 JUDGMENT This suit was instituted in November, 2010 seeking the reliefs of permanent injunction, damages, rendition of accounts, delivery up, etc. by the plaintiff company it being a wholly owned subsidiary of National Dairy Development Board (NDDB), a body corporate constituted under the National Dairy Development Board Act, 1987, having its registered office at Mother Dairy, Patparganj, Delhi-110 092, within the jurisdiction of this court.2. The claim in the suit is founded, inter alia, on the trademark MOTHER DAIRY, registered in the name of the plaintiff for sale of its various products in the nature of liquid milk, dahi (curd), ice CS...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Nov-02-2016
$~35. * + % IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI CS(OS) 2450/2015 Judgment dated 02nd November, 2016 PRESIDENT & FELLOWS OF HARV AND COLLEGE Through : Ms. Parul Singh, Advocate versus ..... Plaintiff SHRI RAJESH GOYAL ..... Defendant Through : Mr. Pratap Singh and Mr. Anwedra CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.S.SISTANI Singh, Advocates G.S.SISTANI, J (ORAL) 1. The plaintiff has filed the present suit for infringement and passing off of the mark Harvard seeking a decree against the defendant restraining them from using the mark. The plaintiff is the President & Fellows of Harvard College incorrectly mentioned as the President & Fellows of Harv and College.2. Despite service, the written statement has not been filed within the statutory period. The matter as passed over once and called second time to enable the counsels to take instructions in the matter. Counsel for the defendant submits that the defendant has no objection if the present suit is decreed in favour of the plaintiff and agai...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Nov-28-2016
s$~ *IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of Decision:28. h November, 2016 + CRL.A. 1027/2016 & Crl.M.(Bail) 1934/2016 SANJEET RAM @ SANJEET ........ Petitioner Through: Mr. O.P. Saxena, Adv. STATE versus Through: Ms. Aashaa Tiwari, APP for ..... Respondent the State CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE GITA MITTAL HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE ANU MALHOTRA JUDGMENT(Oral) GITA MITTAL, J1 The appellant assails the judgment dated 22nd February, 2016 passed by the District & Sessions Judge (East) finding him guilty of commission of offence under Section 302 IPC and 27 Arms Act with which he was charged in Sessions Case No.18/2013 registered by the Police Station Gazipur. The appellant also assails the order dated 29th February, 2016 passed on the point of sentence as a result of his conviction whereby the appellant stands sentenced to undergo life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo simple imprisonment for six months. Crl. A. 1027/2016 Pag...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Jan-04-2016
1. By way of this order, I propose to decide two pending applications, one being I.A. No.22711/2014 under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 CPC filed by the plaintiff and another being I.A. No.26365/2014 under Order XXXIX Rule 4 CPC filed by the defendants for vacation of the interim order passed on 14th November, 2014. 2. The plaintiff has filed the suit for permanent injunction restraining infringement of trademark, copyright, passing off, delivery up, rendition of accounts of profit, damages, etc. against the defendants. 3. Brief facts of the case as per the plaint are:- (i) The plaintiff Company was incorporated in the year 1981 and is engaged inter alia in the business of manufacturing, distributing and marketing of high quality pharmaceutical preparations. (ii) The plaintiff's key therapeutic segments include antiseptics, analgesics, gastroenterology, gynaecology, dermatology and neurocare and protein supplements. Some of the pharmaceutical preparations manufactured/marketed by the plaint...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Apr-22-2016
S. Ravindra Bhat, J. 1. The judgment debtor appeals an order of the learned Single Judge who declined his objections to the attachment and sale of land. 2. This case has a complicated and chequered litigation history, recounted hereafter. The respondent (hereafter called "decree holder" and individually as "Manali" and "the daughter"-to describe the first and second respondents in the course of this judgment) applied for execution of the interim order dated 28.10.1998 of this Court (in I.A. Nos.11261/1997, 2634 and 2635/1998 in Suit No.2583/1997) The order directed, the appellant inter alia, to provide a residence to the respondent/decree holder in accordance with the family settlement agreement dated 04.11.1994 ( the settlement ) entered into between the parties. In terms of the settlement, a direction was made to deposit school fee and other charges in connection with studies of Decree Holder No.2 (hereafter the daughter ) and maintenance at the rate of Rs. 40,000/- per month. Extrac...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Apr-19-2016
1. This first appeal under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) impugns the judgment and decree dated 30th July, 2005 of the Court of the Additional District Judge (ADJ), Delhi decreeing Suit No.331/03 filed by the respondents for recovery of Rs.19,81,280/- with costs and interest at 9% per annum from 29th March, 2000 till realization against the appellant. 2. Notice of the appeal was issued and subject to the appellant depositing 50% of the decretal amount execution was stayed. The appeal on 6th October, 2006 was admitted for hearing and the maturity value of the fixed deposited created of the amount deposited by the appellant ordered to be released in favour of the respondent no.1/plaintiff subject to ultimate result of the appeal. The appeal, on 5th November, 2009 was dismissed in default of appearance of the appellant but notice of the application made by the appellant for restoration of the appeal was issued and remained pending for service of the respondent no.2 ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Apr-18-2016
IA 2920/2016 1. By this order, I shall decide IA 2920/2016, which is an application under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 CPC, 1908 wherein the plaintiff has sought the following reliefs: a) pass an ex-parte ad-interim injunction against the defendants and in favour of the plaintiff, restraining the defendants, their life trustees, term trustees, advisories, members, franchisees, officers, employees, servants, agents, delegates, representatives, assignees, associates and all others acting for and on their behalf from offering their services, advertising, offering franchisees, selling goods and stationary, adopting, using and / or dealing in any manner with the registered trade mark / name 'DPS' and logo IMAGE (Plaintiff s registered mark) of the plaintiff or any other trade mark identical or deceptively similar to the registered trade marks of the plaintiff amounting to infringement and passing off the plaintiffs registered trade marks; b) pass an ex-parte ad-interim injunction against defend...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Dec-22-2016
$~ * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CRL.A. No.514/2000 Date of Decision :22. d December, 2016 SURAJ BHAN & ANR. ..... APPELLANTS Through Mr.M.L. Yadav, Adv. versus CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION RESPONDENT Through Mr.Narender Mann, Spl.P.P. with Mr.Manoj Pant, Adv. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE P.S.TEJI P.S.TEJI, J1 Aggrieved by the judgment of conviction dated 7th August, 2000 convicting the appellants finding them guilty under Sectionsof the Narcotic Drugs & Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as NDPS Act, 1985) and order on sentence dated 9th August, 2000 vide which the sentence was passed to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of ten years and to pay a fine of Rs.1,00,000/- for the offence punishable under Section 20 of the NDPS Act, in default of payment of fine, convict was to undergo further simple imprisonment for three years, the present appeal has been preferred by the appellants.2. The facts in brief are that on the basis of the Source ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Oct-27-2016
$~ *IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + % CRL.A.No.395/2000 Reserved on :26. h September, 2016 Date of decision :27. h October, 2016 RAMESH KUMAR ..... Appellant Through: Mr. Sanjay Kumar, Adv. versus Ms. Rakhi Dubey, Amicus Curiae. STATE OF DELHI ..... Respondent Through: Mr. Varun Goswami, APP. CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE GITA MITTAL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE P.S. TEJI JUDGMENT GITA MITTAL, J.1. By the instant appeal, the appellant assails the judgment dated 17th May, 2000 whereby he stands convicted for commission of the offences under Sections 304B and 498A of the IPC with which he was charged in SC Case No.25/1999 arising out of FIR No.5registered by the Police Station Jahangir Puri under Sections 498A/304B/4of the IPC and the consequential order of sentence dated 23rd May, 2000 whereby he has been sentenced to undergo Crl.A.No.395/2000 Page 1 of 56 rigorous imprisonment for three years for the commission of the offence punishable under Section 498A IPC with fine of `500/- and in d...
Tag this Judgment!