Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in : (1990)(50)ELT381TriDel
1. This is Revenue's appeal against the impugned order in appeal passed by the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals) Bombay dated 18-12-1985 by which he set aside the order-in-original dated 4-1-1985 passed by the Assistant Collector of Central Excise.2. The respondents M/s. Hico Products Ltd. are manufacturers of the products (1) Dimethicon - 20 (2) Dimethicon - 350 (3) Dimethicon - 2000 (4) Dimethicon -1000 and (5) Simethicon and (6) Dimethicon - 100. They were filing classification list for products from Sr. No. 1 to 5 under Tariff Item 68 of CET w.e.f. 10-8-19.82 for the product against Sr. No.6, they were filing classification list under Tariff Item 68 w.e.f.24-1-1983. On certain occasions, they have filed classification in respect of the above products under Tariff Item 15-A on insistence by the Central Excise officers and have paid duty under protest, claiming that these products are classifiable under Tariff Item 68.3. The Department, therefore, drew samples of the above produ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % + Judgment delivered on:29. 09.2014 W.P.(C) 4157/2012 & CM No.8637/2012 MERCK SERONO S.A. ..... Petitioner versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS. ..... Respondents Advocates who appeared in this case: For the Petitioner : Mr Pravin Anand, Mr Dhruv Anand & Ms Udita Patro, Advocates. For the Respondent : Mr B.S. Shukla, CGSC with Mr Brajesh Kumar, : Advocates for UOI. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU JUDGMENT VIBHU BAKHRU, J1 The petitioner is stated to be the biopharmaceutical division of Merck KgaA, a chemical and life sciences company. The petitioner impugns an order dated 13.08.2008 passed by the Controller of Patents & Design whereby its National Phase Application bearing No.01363/DELNP/2003 (hereinafter referred to as the application) for invention titled A process of preparing a pharmaceutical composition for the treatment and/or prevention of heart disease and the compositions thereof was declared as abandoned. The petitioner also assails the o...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
$~ * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Reserved on: Pronounced on:2. d July, 2018 16th February, 2018 + W.P.(C) 17938/2004 & CM APP No.13489/2004 MOOLCHAND KHARAITI RAM HOSPITAL ........ Petitioner Through: Mr.Dhannjai Rana, Adv. versus WORKERS THRU M.K.R.H.KARAMCHAR ..... Respondent Through: Mr.Abinash K. Mishra, Adv. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.HARI SHANKAR % JUDGMENT C. HARI SHANKAR, J.1. This writ petition, at the instance of M/s Shri Moolchand Khairati Ram Hospital & Ayurvedic Research Institute, challenges Award, dated 28 April, 2004, passed by the learned Industrial Tribunal-II, Karkardooma, holding the petitioner liable to pay bonus, to its employees, under the Payment of Bonus Act, 1965 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), for the year 1997-1998. The contention, of the petitioner, that it was exempt from the requirement of such payment, under sub-clause (c) of clause (v) of Section 32 of the Act [referred to, hereinafter, for the sake of expediency, as Section 32(v)(c)...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : 1983CriLJ495; 22(1982)DLT33; 1982RLR553
Avadh Behari Rohatgi, J.(1) The Facts : The plaintiff, Dr. Bimal Chandra Sen, owns property No. 4405 in Darya Ganj, Delhi. He says that he gave a portion of his property on lease and license to one Mrs. Kamla Mathur wife of Shri Rama Shankar Mathur. The plaintiff alleges that Mrs. Mathur was making illegal construction in the property. On 6-4-1981 he brought a suit in the court of the subordinate judge, Mr. S. N. Gupta, for permanent injunction restraining Mrs. Mathur, her servants and agents, from carrying on any construction activities in the property. In. the suit the plaintiff made an application for temporary injunction under Order 39 rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The subordinate judge granted a temporary injunction against the defendant, her agents and servants.. on 6-4-1981. On 6-6-81 he modified the injunction order. From this order they, the plaintiff and the defendants, appealed to the court of the senior sub judge. Those appeals were dismissed.(2) Now the pla...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % + Judgment delivered on:26. 03.2015 W.P.(C) 7798/2014 ASHIM GHOSH ..... Petitioner versus THE CONTROLLER OF PATENTS ..... Respondent Advocates who appeared in this case: For the Petitioner : Mr S.K. Bansal and Mr Santosh Kumar. For the Respondent : Counsel (presence not given). CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU JUDGMENT VIBHU BAKHRU, J (ORAL) 1. The petitioner impugns the action of respondent authority treating the petitioners application (being Application No.1350/DEL/2007) for patent as Deemed to be Withdrawn.2. The relevant facts are briefly outlined as under:2. 1 On 22.06.2007, the petitioner applied for a grant of patent in respect of an invention titled YOGA YANTRA Y1008 which was allocated the number 1350/DEL/2007 (hereafter the application). 2.2 On 04.07.2007, the petitioner applied, in the prescribed form (i.e. Form-9), for an earlier publication of the patent under the application. 2.3 On 04.07.2007, the petitioner also filed an ap...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : 2004(3)ARBLR522(Delhi); 116(2005)DLT163; 2005(80)DRJ398
Anil Kumar, J. 1.This appeal is against the order dated 19th October,2001of the Learned Single judge allowing applications for condensation of delay and substitution of legal representatives of deceased Karta of an HUF and another defendant, who was also a coparcener and where other defendants were the HUF and other coparceners, one of them being also the son of deceased karta.2.The respondents had filed a petition under Section 20 of the Arbitration Act,1940 against M/S K.D.Churiwala and sons HUF through its Karta M.P.Churiwala who was defendant no.6 in the petition. Besides the said two defendants, the other members and coparceners of said HUF, Shri K.P.Churiwala, Mr.R.K.Churiwala, Mr. Sanjay Churiwala and Mr. Nikhil Churiwala were also imp leaded as defendants in the petition. Shri Sanjay Churiwala is the son of Shri M.P.Churiwala, deceased karta.3.The addresses of all the defendants in the petition under Section 20 of the Arbitration Act,1940 were given as 32-J, New Road, Alipore, ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI * + W.P.(C) No.6798/2019 and CM Nos. 28450/2019 & 34373/2019 Judgment reserved on :07. 08.2019 Date of decision :27. 08.2019 VENKATESHWARA INSTITUTE OF MEDICAL SCIENCES Through: Mr. J.S. Bhasin & Mr.Nishant ........ Petitioner versus Shokeen, Advocates BOARD OF GOVERNORS & ORS ........ RESPONDENTS Through: Mr. Rajesh GognaCGSC for R- 1 Mr.Anil Mittal & Ms. Komal Aggarwal, Advocates for R-2 Mr.Vikas Singh, Sr. Advocate with Mr. T. Singhdev, Ms. Puja Sarkar, Ms. Arunima Pal, Mr. Tarun Verma and Mr.Abhijit Chakravarty, Advocates for MCI. CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE ANU MALHOTRA JUDGMENT ANU MALHOTRA, J.1. The petitioner vide the present petition seeks the following prayers: (i) issue an appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari for setting aside/quashing the decision of the Respondent No.1-BOG in Supersession of the MCI vide letter W.P.(C) No.6798/2019 Page 1 of 18 2. No.MCI-34(41)(R- 78)/2019/120551 dated 31.05.2019 (received ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in : (2003)(153)ELT695TriDel
1. The issue involved in these three appeals, arising out of a Common Order No. 9/99, dated 29-10-99 passed by the Commissioner, Central Excise, is whether the products manufactured by M/s. Meghdoot Gramodyog Sewa Sansthan are Ayurvedic Medicaments or preparations for use on the hair' falling under Heading 33.05 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act.2.1 Shri V. Lakshmikumaran, Learned Advocate, submitted that M/s.Meghdoot Gramodyog Sewa Sansthan, a society registered under the Registration of Societies Act, 1860, manufacture Ayurvedic drugs in its factory which is registered with U.P. Khadi and Gramodyog Board; that they manufacture about 20 Ayurvedic drugs out of which the present appeals are concerned with the classification of the following products : 2.2 He mentioned that Appellants manufacture these products on the strength of the Ayurvedic drug licence under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act 1940; that the ingredients based on which the products are manufactured are duly me...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI IA No.3997 of 2012 in CS (OS) No.523 of 2012 Reserved on: November 26, 2013 Decision on: December 12, 2013 U. VARADARAYA NAYAK ..... Plaintiff Through: Ms. Swathi Sukumar with Mr. Anirudha Mitra, Ms. Anur Paarcha and Ms.Essenese Obhan, Advocates. versus S.K. ANAND & ORS. Through: ..... Defendants Mr. Mahender Rana, Advocate for Defendant No.1. Mr. Amarjeet Singh, Mr. Hari Subramanium, Ms. Vernika Tomar and Ms. Vibha Arya, Advocates for Defendants 2 to 4. Mr. Sanjeev Mahajan, Advocate for Defendants 5 and 6. CORAM: JUSTICE S. MURALIDHAR JUDGMENT1212.2013 1. This judgment disposes of the application by the Plaintiff U. Varadaraya Nayak under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 (CPC) for interim relief. Background facts 2. The Plaintiff has filed the above suit seeking a permanent injunction to restrain the Defendants from infringing Patent No.184118 granted in his name for a twin blade razor. At the time of filing of the suit...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : AIR1986Delhi181; ILR1985Delhi416
D.P. Wadhwa, J.(1) The plaintiff, a public limited company, has filed this suit praying for a decree of permanent injunction restraining the defendants from using, trading or carrying on business under the name and style of M/s Khosla Extraktions Limited and or making public issue under this name. There are three defendants. Defendant No. 1 is, of Extraktions Ltd. and Others. course, M/s Khosla Extraktions Ltd. Defendants Nos. 2 and are stated to be the' promoters and Directors of defendant No. 1. Defendant No. 2 Naresh Chandra Bansal and defendant No. 3 is S. K. Khosla. With this suit the plaintiff filed an application under Order 39, Rules I and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, praying that during the pendency of the suit, the defendants be similarly restrained from using, trading and carrying on business and from entering the capital market and making public issue under the name M/s Khosla Extraktions Ltd.(2) The pleadings in, the case are complete. Considerable arguments were addr...
Tag this Judgment!