Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on : Jan-28-2003
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
Decided on : Sep-10-2003
Reported in : AIR2004Delhi53; [2005]127CompCas659(Delhi); (2004)1CompLJ457(Del); 107(2003)DLT180; [2003]48SCL524(Delhi)
ORDERO.P. Dwivedi, J. 1. By this order I shall govern the disposal of IA. No. 7626/ 2003, under O. 39 Rule 1 and 2 CPC, filed by the plaintiff in suit No. 1456/2003 seeking injunction against the defendants restraining them from entering into the hospital premises, committing illegal trespass into the hospital premises at 3 MMTC/ STC Colony, New Delhi, opposite Geetanjali Enclave, New Delhi, causing any disruption, interference in the working of hospital and from carrying on any personal and/or professional work from the hospital premises. 2. Plaintiff Geetanjali Nursing Home (P) Ltd. duly incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 having its registered office 3, MMTC/STC Colony, Geetanjali Enclave, New Delhi is engaged in the business of running and maintaining hospital under the name and style of 'Geetanjali Hospital'. The defendants herein are medical practitioners/ Doctors who were permitted by the plaintiff to practice their medical profession from the said hospital. Defendant No....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Feb-21-2003
Reported in : 2003IIAD(Delhi)351; 103(2003)DLT321; 2003(26)PTC349(Del); 2003(2)RAJ86
R.C. Jain, J. 1. The above-named plaintiff has moved this application under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 read with Section 151 CPC seeking an ad-interim injunction restraining the defendants, their officers, servants, agents, promoters, dealers, distributors and any one acting for and on their behalf from (i) manufacturing, selling, offering for sale any of the Occlusion devices including the Blockaid Devices which are a three-dimensional reproduction of the drawings of the plaintiff's Amplatzer products/devices thereby constituting infringement of the plaintiff's copyright in the said drawings (ii) restraining the defendants from using the impugned brochures or any other material/brochures which are a substantial reproduction or a colourable imitation of the plaintiff's brochures thereby constituting infringement of copyright in the said brochures, and (iii) selling, offering for sale any of the Occlusion devices which resemble the plaintiff's devices in any manner and from making any represen...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Jan-29-2003
Reported in : (2004)90TTJ(Del)353
ORDERR.M. Mehta, V.P.:This appeal is directed against the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) raising the following grounds :'l. That the learned Commissioner (Appeals) has erred in law and on facts in sustaining the order of the assessing officer in determining the total income of the assessed at Rs. 1,44,31,205 by rejecting the claim of the assessed for accumulation of the income in accordance with the provisions of section 11(2) read with rule 17 of the IT Rules, on wholly erroneous, illegal and untenable grounds.2. That the learned Commissioner (Appeals) was not legally justified in holding that the object specified in Form No. 10 for accumulation of income under section 11(2) did not specify the concrete nature of the purpose for which accumulation is being made and thereby denying exemption under section 11(2) for accumulation of a sum of Rs. 2.86 crores.3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the authorities below were not legally justified in lightly brushi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Sep-09-2003
Reported in : 2004(73)DRJ649; [2004]54SCL378(Delhi)
R.C. Chopra, J.1. is No. 6059/2002 is an application filed by the plaintiffs under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 CPC, praying for an ad-interim injunction restraining the defendants from importing, sourcing, manufacturing, distributing, supplying, offering for sale or dealing in ophthalmic glass blanks/lenses bearing 'two ribs' design which have not been sourced from the plaintiffs, and also from passing off counterfeit 'two ribs' products as those of the plaintiffs till the disposal of this suit. It is also prayed that the defendants be restrained by an ad-interim injunction from infringing the plaintiffs copyright in the industrial drawings in the manufacture of ophthalmic lenses bearing 'two ribs' design which is a three dimensional re-production. is No. 7084/2002 is an application filed by defendant No. 1 for restraining the plaintiffs from issuing any threats/communications to the dealers/business associates of the defendants till the application for stay is decided...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Jan-29-2003
Reported in : 103(2003)DLT491; 2003(67)DRJ773; [2003]44SCL498(Delhi)
J.D. Kapoor, J. 1. The whole controversy for the limited purpose of the instant application revolves around the point 'Whether the plaintiff company (in short 'SESA') is the rightful successor-in-interest of the parent French company known as LTE which had entered into a joint venture with Indian company `CS' and floated the defendant company known as `TC' by investing equity of 38% each.' Plaintiff company SESA is seeking injunction against the defendant-TC from holding the meetings of Board of Directors of the defendant company as at the time of constitution of the defendant-company both LTE and CS were having 38% share each and plaintiff-SESA being the successor-in-interest of LTE is entitled to have one Director on the Board of Directors of the defendant company. 2. The dilemma and difficulty of the defendant-TC is that it is not sure whether the plaintiff company is rightful successor of LTE or not as till 1997 the defendant had no information about the change of name of LTE and i...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on : May-14-2003
Reported in : (2003)(88)ECC615
1. The issues involved in all these 15 appeals, arising out of Order-in-Original No. 16/98 dated 7.9.98 and 60 to 62/98 dated 24.11.98 are whether the goods manufactured by the Appellants No. 1 & 2 are Ayurvedic Medicaments classifiable under Chapter 30 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act or under Chapter 33 as Cosmetics, whether M/s. Shaherb Cosmetics are the related persons for the purpose of Section 4 of the Central Excise Act, whether extended period of limitation is invocable for demanding Central Excise duty and whether penalties are imposable on all the Appellants.2.1 Shri Vivek Kohli, learned Advocate, submitted that M/s. Shahnaz Ayurvedics is a sole proprietorship concern of Ms. Shahnaz Hussain, having work premises at Okhla, New Delhi and NOIDA Phase II, U.P.; that they are engaged in the activity of manufacturing various Patent and Proprietory Ayurvedic Medicines since 1986; that from the time of initiation, their products were considered as P & P Ayurv...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Nov-14-2003
Reported in : 2004(72)DRJ244
R.C. Jain, J. 1. Is a lessee of Public Premises who continues in possession after the expiry of lease by efflux of time must necessarily be served with a notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, before initiating the proceedings for his eviction and recovery of damages under the provisions of Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971? is the important question which arises for consideration in this batch of matters.2. The common order passed by Sh. Raghubir Singh, learned Additional District Judge, Delhi dated 14th February, 2002 thereby disposing of several appeals under Section 9 of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') against the orders of eviction and recovery of damages passed by the Estate Officer under Section 5 and under Section 7 of the Act, are the subject matter of Civil Miscellaneous (Main), Petitions under Article 227 of the Constitution of India filed by the pe...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Decided on : Aug-25-2003
Reported in : (2003)81TTJ(Delhi)319
1. This miscellaneous petition for rectification of mistakes apparent from record under Section 254(2) of the IT Act, arising out of order dt. 24th Aug., 2001, in ITA No. 842/DeI/2000 for asst, yr. 1997-98 is moved by the appellant. The misc. petition contains 56 pages in all.Therefore, on 4th Jan., 2002, when the case was first fixed for hearing, assessee was directed to file brief to the point and precise of mistakes claimed to be on the face of record arising from the order passed by the Tribunal. On 1st Feb., 2002, learned authorised representative filed a summary of the main application narrating therein 30 mistakes from the order. The case was partly heard and adjourned to 4th Feb., 2002 and again on 6th Feb., 2002.2. Learned authorised representative arguing on behalf of the assessee submitted that the order requires to be recalled for de novo disposal for ground Nos. 8, 9 and 10 have not been disposed of and that norms of natural justice have been violated and further that rel...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Apr-24-2003
Reported in : II(2003)ACC114; 2003ACJ1631; 2003IIIAD(Delhi)321; 104(2003)DLT234; 2003(68)DRJ128; 2003RLR333
ORDER'. The film had a patriotic fervor and was based on the 1971 Indo-Pak war. During the matinee show of the film, immediately after the interval, the audience in the cinema hall saw smoke coming out of the side of the screen. Most of the patrons sitting in the hall thought it was some special effect which was a part of the film Realizing little that a fire had broken out in the cinema building. By the time they realised that the smoke had engulfed the hall because of the fire in the building it was too late for many of them to leave the balcony. The entire balcony area and the stairs leading to the balcony were so full of smoke that it had became impossible for many of the patrons to go out of the building and as a result thereof 59 people, which included infants and children, lost their lives because of asphyxiation and about 103 other persons sustained injuries. Immediately after the incident of fire, the Lieutenant Governor vide order dated 14th June, 1997 ordered an enquiry into...
Tag this Judgment!