Court : Delhi
Decided on : Apr-03-1984
Reported in : AIR1985Delhi336; 26(1984)DLT355
Avadh Behari Rohatgi, J. (1) The cooking gas or L.P.G., as it is called, has brought about a revolution in the home. Most housewives find it convenient to use the gas stove. They are so much in fashion these days. Now complete cooking range is on sale. This case raises the question of copy wright in the registered design of a cooking range which is sold under the brand name of 'KITCHENETTE'. (2) These are the facts. The Plaintiffs (the present appellants). M/s. Niky Tasha India Private Limited brought a suit for permanent injunction against the defendants (the present respondents). M/s. Faridabad Gas Gadgets Private Limited complaining of infringement of their registered design No. 152986 dated 11-4-1983 pertaining to the product known as a Kitchenette which is a combination of gas burner, grill and oven. The plaintiffs got registration with regard to shape and configuration in this product of theirs. It is alleged that the defendants under the name of Navjyoti are manufacturing, selli...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on : Dec-18-1984
Reported in : (1985)LC592Tri(Delhi)
1. In this Shri application, purporting to have been made under Section 35G(1) of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944, M/s. Anil Starch Products Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as "the applicants") had required us to refer to the High Court the questions as in the Annexure to this order, which are stated to be questions of law arising out of the Tribunal's Miscellaneous Order No. 104/84-D, dated 23-8-1984 [Miscellaneous Application ED(SB) 55/84-D].2. In order to appreciate the position, the sequence of events has to be stated. The applicants had filed a revision application to the Central Government against Order-in-Appeal No. 1688/80 dated, 24-10-1980 passed by the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), Bombay, in which he had upheld the Order No. CL, No. IE/2/78, dated 26-6-1978/18-10-1979 of the Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Division III, Ahmedabad, holding that the "Wet Dextrose" produced by the applicants was excisable and classifiable under item IE of the Central Excis...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Nov-06-1984
Reported in : AIR1985Delhi318; 27(1985)DLT134; 1985RLR133
Avadh Behari Rohatgi, J.(1) Many, years ago there lived a man called Ganga Sahai in village Bhartal near Delhi. He owned much land in the village. In 1913 he purchased land bearing. Khasra No. 1177 from Ranjit and Ram Singh, sons of Gulab Singh. They were the predecessors-in-interest of the present respondents 2 to 5 to this appeal. This land Ganga Sahai purchased without share in shamlet deh. In revenue record he got mutation effected in his name. Ganga Sahai had no son. He, thereforee, gifted the land to his daughter's son, Ram Sarup, the present appellant in 1928. This he did by means of a registered gift deed dated 15-3-1928. Mutation was accordingly effected in favor of Ram Sarup. On this land admeasuring 13 bighas-7 bids was Ganga Sahai had built a dharamshala, a well and a piao. (2) On 29tb May, 1932 before a gathering of the people of the village Ganga Sahai's daughter Mst. Khem Kaur, on behalf of her minor son, the present appellant, made a statement that there was no dharamsh...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Dec-20-1984
Reported in : 1987(29)ELT753(Del); ILR1985Delhi164
..... are sufficient to prove that the collector's order is motivated. he says that in matters of malafide acts of public officials,onus of proof of malafide is not to be proved beyond reasonable doubt as held in mis. pannalal binjraj ..... there is an equally efficacious remedy by way of an appeal to the appellate tribunal established under section 129 of the customs act. that act was amended by finance act 2 of 1980 whereby a separate procedure of appeals and reference has been created. the appellate ..... particular import policy.' this is a well known principle in regard to foreign trade policiesof the government. for example, the commercial journal soften assert that import policy at a given rime is framed for political considerations and for party gains. this criticism is ..... view i hold to be erroneous). so i must exercise my discretion in enforcing a patently erroneous view ofthe central government. reference by mr. rana to 1965(2)r ..... latex, as known to trade and commerce in india and abroad,is raw rubber falling under item 39 i.c.t. and not under residuary entry 82(3) and did not ..... ofnatural justice, are followed, is the government. the board ofhigh school v. k.chittra srivastava : [1970]3scr266. it may be further noted that the collector had not collected any independent evidence ..... of 1980-81 licenses.(145) same is the case with the public notice issued in february, 1982 whereby para 185(3) was made applicable to additional licenses for the first time, by the said public notice. in east india .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Dec-13-1984
Reported in : I(1985)ACC121; ILR1985Delhi746
Avadh Behari Rohatgi, J. (1) On 18/08/1964between 5 and 6 in the evening two brothers Suresh Chander(the deceased) and Ramesh Chander were going on a scooter from their office to their residence. They passed through AlipurRoad beyond Kashmere Gate. The deceased was driving the scooter and Ramesh was a pillion passenger. When they reached20, Alipur Road, known as Sant Permanand Blind Relief Mission Building, opposite Rai Sahib Bhola Ram Petrol Pump, a branch of the neem tree standing there fell on the deceased. His head was crushed. He was rushed to Irwin Hospital where he died the following morning at about 11 a.m. inspire of a surgical operation. A piece of wood was found in his brain.(2) The deceased left behind a widow, three minor sons and a minor daughter besides his mother. All six of them brought a suit for damages claiming Rs. 3,00,000 from the defendants,namely, (1) Municipal .Corporation of Delhi, (2) Union ofIndia, and (3) Delhi Administration. The suit was partially decreed...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Decided on : Oct-31-1984
Reported in : (1985)12ITD137(Delhi)
1. This is an appeal by the assessee relating to the assessment year 1977-78. In the year of account, the assessee received retrenchment compensation to the extent of Rs. 21,908.20. The assessee claimed that in view of Section 10(705) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('the Act'), it was exempt from tax. The assessee joined the National Mineral Development Corporation as consultant on 12-6-1970 on contract for a period of one year as per terms and conditions of the agreement dated 9-7-1970. The contract was terminated before the expiry of the period of contract. The assessee took the matter in the Court of law. The Court appointed an arbitrator who gave the award on 11-3-1976, according to which the assessee was entitled to claim Rs. 21,908.20 only from the National Mineral Development Corporation. This amount was received by the assessee on 12-5-1976. The ITO did not allow the exemption. According to him, the assessee was not a workman within the meaning of Section 10(10B). The learned AAC...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on : Aug-23-1984
Reported in : (1985)LC305Tri(Delhi)
1. This is an appeal against order No. C-642/BII-144/83 dated 21st March, 1983 passed by the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), Bombay which arose from order No. V(14E)4-6/ 1980/4609 dated 31-12-1981 of the Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Bombay. The dispute is with respect to a medical preparation of M/s. Mac Laboratories Pvt. Ltd. which the appellants call Kemicetine Vaginal Suppositories (KVS) which contain the antibiotic chloramphenicol (CAF). The preparation is manufactured in two different strengths, namely, 0.25 gms and 0.50 gms chloramphenicol content. The KVS preparations arc classified as patent and proprietary medicines and are assessed under item 14E of the Central Excise Tariff. The dispute arose when the central excise issued five demand notices listed below :---------------------------------------------------------------S. No. Period of demand Total amount of Date of duty involved demand-------------------------------------------------------------- Rs.5. 1-1-...
Tag this Judgment!