Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on : Aug-22-2002
Reported in : (2002)(83)ECC630
1. This matter has been referred to the Larger Bench in terms of majority order reading as under: 65. In terms of majority order, all the above noted appeals are referred to Hon'ble President for constituting a Larger Bench to decide various issues involved in these group of appeals as noted by Member (Technical), Shri Lajja Ram in his differing order which has been concurred to by Shri Jeet Ram Kait, Member (Technical). The Larger Bench shall also consider the final order which is required to be passed in respect of each of the appellants noted above.2. In the majority order there is a request for deciding various issues involved in the appeals as noted by Member (Technical) Shri Lajja Ram in his differing order.3. Shri Lajja Ram in his differing order which is in para 24 at a page 108 is reproduced as under: 24. The main issue for consideration and decision in these group of appeals relating to alleged violations of the conditions as laid down in the Customs Exemption Notification N...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Apr-10-2002
Reported in : 2002(25)PTC262(Del)
..... lays down standards for patent and proprietary medicines (definition of ready to use medicine is that which is not specified in indian pharmacopoeia or any other prescribed pharmacopoeia sec-3(h) (drugs and cosmetics act, 1940) ii. not ..... drug cases:- -------------------------------------------------------------sr.no. bplaintiff's product kdefendant's productbcitation -------------------------------------------------------------1. security management management today 1991 fsr 348 today 2. blazer yardley english 1992 ..... in the above terms. the record be returned to the learned single judge for disposal of the application under order 39 rule 1 and 2 cpc on merits. any observation made herein shall not tantamount to expression of ..... it is for the court to decide that question'. he also submitted that this test was reiterated by the supreme court in the dropovit case reported in : [1970]2scr213 . his further submission was that in view thereof no evidence in the form of affidavit from any doctor, chemist or consumer was required ..... drugs which can be sold only on medical prescription. thereforee, confusion has to be avoided at all costs. the consumer may buy the defendants product penegra under the mistaken notion that it is indian version ..... business segments : health care, animal health and consumer health care. its products are available in more than 150 countries.this suit filed by the plaintiff is for injunction and damages for passing of an unfair competition. the product in question .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Aug-14-2002
Reported in : 100(2002)DLT558
S.B. Sinha, C.J. 1. These two letter patent appeals arise out of a judgment and decree dated 8th September, 2000 passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court in FAO 501/99.The fact of the matter is as follows:The parties were married on 18th November, 1981. They have been living separately since February, 1987.Shri Shyam Sunder Kohli, the respondent/appellant in LPA 82/2001, filed an application for divorce purported to be under Section 13(1)(ia) and (ib) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 alleging cruelty and desertion on the part of his wife, the respondent herein. It was further alleged that there had been no cohabitation between them. The respondent contested the said application on diverse grounds. Before the learned Additional District Judge, both the parties adduced their respective evidences. By a judgment dated 5th October, 1999, the Trial Judge dismissed the petition. The appellant preferred an appeal there against before the learned Single Judge. The learned Single Judge reje...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Jan-16-2002
Reported in : 2002(25)PTC243(Del)
S.K. Mahajan, J.1. Plaintiff claiming themselves to be the owners of the copyright in the precision moulds used for manufacturing toothbrushes under the name and style of DR. BEST, AQUAFRESH FLEX, AQUAFRESH FLEX 'N' DIRECT, have filed this suit against the defendants for an injunction restraining them from manufacturing, selling and/or offering for sale toothbrushes having dimensions like the toothbrushes CELLO FLEXY or any other toothbrush having dimensions substantially similar thereto or any other manner whatsoever infringing the copyrights of the plaintiffs in respect of the drawing and moulds for the DR. BEST and/or mould for the Flex 'N' DIRECT toothbrushes. Plaintiffs have also claimed an injunction restraining the defendants from manufacturing, selling and/or offering for sale toothbrushes which were identical in appearance to the AQUAFRESH FLEX toothbrush or any other toothbrush confusingly similar in appearance to the plaintiffs DR. BEST, AQUAFRESH FLEX and/or AQUAFRESH FLEX ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Sep-30-2002
Reported in : I(2003)ACC194; 2004ACJ80; AIR2003Delhi50; 100(2002)DLT721; 2003(66)DRJ407; [2004(101)FLR165]
S.B. Sinha, C.J.1. The petitioner is heir and legal representative of one Vinod Kumar Sharma. He met with an accident on 10.12.1992 while allegedly driving in a drunken state. A First Information Report (in short, 'F.I.R.') was lodged on the basis of a telephone call, which is in the following terms :-'D.D. No. 50B dt. 10.12.92, P.S. Rajouri Garden, New Delhi. Arrival of telephonic information from P.P. MIG Flats and Departure. Time, 8.10 P.M. Constable Santosh Kumar No. 1547/W gave an information from P.P. MIG Flats that on the main Najafgarh Road, in front of Shop of Maharaja Band, a two wheeler scooter has met with an accident. Police be sent. As per the procedure, the telephonic information was recorded in the Daily Dairy. Copy of the Daily Dairy has been handed over to S.I. Suhil Kumar who along with Constable Sumer Singh No. 1197/W left for the spot. Duty Officer.' 2. Thereafter the respondent No. 6 together with a Constable visited the site. The said respondent recorded statemen...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Mar-13-2002
Reported in : (2002)75TTJ(Del)343
ORDERKeshaw Prasad, A.M.The appeal has been filed by the assessed against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals), dated 29-12-1998, pertaining to assessment year 1994-95. The first ground of appeal relates to deduction under section 80-O of the Act.2. The assessed- company provides professional services in the field of medicines. It is headed by Dr. N.P.S. Chawla and Dr. (Miss) Devjit Kinberlay Chawla, as directors. The assessed- company got the necessary expertise in the matter of providing emergency medical assistance to any person anywhere in India on call. It has on its own panel several qualified doctors who always remain on call, provide necessary medical services wherever required and give professional information to foreign insurers. It is patronised by almost all the insurance companies in the world and some important select embassies of foreign countries, though no formal agreement exist in some of the cases. After providing required treatment they are also provided qualifie...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Sep-19-2002
Reported in : 100(2002)DLT111; 2003(2)SLJ102(Delhi)
S.B. Sinha, C.J.1. These appeals involving similar questions of law and fact were taken up for hearing together and are being disposed of by this common judgment.2. The fact of the matter, however, is being noticed from LPA 656/2002.The respondents herein were employees of the appellant herein. They were prematurely retired on the ground of medical invalidation. Questioning the said orders, writ petitions were filed by the respondents praying that they be reinstated in service with full wages,3. The respondent-Rajbir Singh met with an accident on 12.8.1996 as a consequence whereof his left femur bone was fractured. He remained under treatment till 16.2.1997. He was advised rest by his doctors for three months initially on 24.1.1997 and thereafter again so advised on 27.7.1997 and 15.1.1998. The respondent allegedly filed a fitness certificate issued by Dua Nursing House, Sonepat (Haryana) on 26.5.1998. However, he was directed to appear before a Medical Board, which declared him medica...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : May-20-2002
Reported in : 2002(64)DRJ418; [2002(94)FLR408]; (2002)IIILLJ424Del
Devinder Gupta, J.1. This matter arose pursuant to suo motu notice taken by us in relation to the then on going strike by the Residents Doctors Association of AIIMS in the month of August, 2001.2. Taking note of the observations of the Apex Court in Surjeet Singh v. State of Punjab and Ors. 1996 (2) Sup 11, it was felt that the right to life enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, would include the right against denial of treatment or even from being presented from availing the services of any doctor or any other member of the staff from attending to patients and rendering medical assistance to them. In doing so, we also relied upon the judgment in Vincent v. Union of India : [1987]2SCR468 ; Consumer Education and Research Centre and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors. : (1995)IILLJ768SC ; and Paschim Banga Khet Mazdoor Samity and Ors. v. State of West Bengal and Anr. : AIR1996SC2426 . Learned Additional Solicitor General Sh. R.N. Trivedi was also requested to assist the C...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Mar-22-2002
Reported in : 99(2002)DLT822; 2002(64)DRJ545
S.B. Sinha, C.J. 1. Interpretation of Section 3(3)(b)(i) of Delhi Municipal Act, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as 'the said Act') falls for consideration in this Letters Patent Appeal, which arises out of a judgment and order dated 20.11.2001 passed by learned Single Judge of this Court in C.W.P. No. 57 of 2001 whereby and whereunder a notification dated 15.12.2000 issued by the Administrator, Delhi in exercise of his power conferred upon him under Section 3(3)(b)(i) of the said Act was set aside.2. Elections for Councillors in Municipal Corporation of Delhi (in short, 'the Corporation') were held in February, 1997. The Administrator in exercise of his power conferred upon him under Section 3(3)(b)(i) of the said Act vide notification dated 29.09.1997, nominated ten persons to be represented in the Corporation including the petitioners. The said notification had neither been withdrawn nor cancelled or amended.3. By reason of the impugned notification dated 15.12.2000, the Administrator...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Aug-27-2002
Reported in : AIR2002Delhi509; 100(2002)DLT259
S.B. Sinha, C.J. 1. Constitutionality of a part of Section 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (hereinafter called for the sake of brevity 'the said Act' for short) is in question in these writ petitions. BACKGROUND FACTS :-2. The petitioners are owners of the premises in question. The said premises had originally been leased out to Delhi Improvement Trust by an Indenture dated 18th August 1953. The said leasehold rights were purchased by the petitioner in 1973.Clause 4(c) of the said Indenture reads thus:'4(c) The lessee shall not use the said land and building that may be erected thereon during the said terms for any other purpose than for purpose of a residential house, without the consent in writing of the Lesser.'3. The petitioner asserted that the second respondent/tenant had not been using the premises for residential purposes and the user had been permitted by the lesser in terms of the lease deed. She filed an application for eviction of the respondent No.2 from the t...
Tag this Judgment!