.....to be listed on 3rd may, 2017 when it was taken up for consideration and allowed. by this order, the learned single judge noted the aforenoticed factual background and the details of the litigation including the proceedings in omp no.1154/2013 as well as the admission regarding the arrears in those proceedings. after so noting, the learned single judge also noted the admission of the appellant permitting the amount of rs.45 lakhs regarding the ownership of the premises by the respondent as well as the relationship of licensee and licensor between the parties and that the premises could be vacated on the 21st of october, 2015 (we are informed that the correct date of vacation was 20th january, 2015 in the proceedings in omp11542013) as also the admission of the arrears of license fee after making observation to this effect. the learned single judge thereafter by the order dated 3rd may, 2017 directed release of the amount of rs.45 lakhs upon its giving an undertaking to the effect that “this amount shall be kept alive and in case at the time of disposal of the suit this amount is found not payable to the plaintiff, he will make good this amount to the defendant with.....
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPT.....on these appeals being that he also should have been held responsible jointly and severally, his liability being vicarious.2. 3. the background facts may be noted at this stage. on 19.11.2000, rajesh khetrapal along with members of his family, they including sidharth khetrapal, nupur khetrapal and shelly khetrapal was returning from sushant lok, phase-ii, gurgaon in haryana to delhi, he driving his maruti zen car, bearing registration no.dl-4c-k-1205 (the car). the car had reached the t- point in the vicinity of golf club, gurgaon when it came to be involved in a collision with the tractor, driven by the first respondent mohd. hanif, (hereinafter referred to as “the driver”). as a result of the said collision, the occupants of the car, particularly the four afore- mentioned persons, suffered injuries, rajesh khetrapal dying in the consequence. the four claim petitions instituted on 08.10.2002 were based on the averments that the accident had occurred due to negligent driving of the tractor by the said mohd. hanif (“the driver”). mac appeal no.524/2008 etc. page 3 of 17 4. it is not in dispute that on the relevant date, the tractor was registered in the name of the.....
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPT.....expired on 15th august and 16th and 17th august were also holidays was held to be within time. slp (c) no.30694/2014 preferred thereagainst also was dismissed in limine on 21st november, 2014.10. considering the aforesaid and the fact that if this petition were to be clubbed along with the reference made to the division bench, it will not be in the interest of the respondent, it is deemed appropriate to allow this petition.11. the petition is allowed. rc.rev. 367/2017 page 3 of 4 12. axiomatically, the order dated 16th may, 2017 of eviction in favour of the respondent and against the petitioner is set aside.13. the arc, north-east district, karkardooma courts, delhi is directed to restore rc/arc no.32/2017 to its original position and to proceed to consider the application of the petitioner for leave to defend on merits.14. the parties to appear before the arc, north-east district, karkardooma courts, delhi on 24th october, 2017.15. the respondent to on that date file reply to the application for leave to defend. rajiv sahai endlaw, j september14 2017 ‘gsr’/pp.. rc.rev. 367/2017 page 4 of 4
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPT.....appellant that the will was executed on 6th august, 2005 and not on 5th july, 2005 is not supported by any evidence.7. rule 3 of the original side practice direction no.4 of 1974 “testamentary and interstate jurisdiction” requires the petitioner to disclose the names of members of the family or other relatives upon whom the estate would have devolved in case of an intestacy along with their present place of residence. however, the petitioner did not disclose the names of the members of the family and all other relatives in the probate petition filed before the trial court. the petitioner has filed cm no.32890/2017 to amend the petition, which is not permissible at this stage.8. there is no merit in the appeal, which is hereby dismissed. learned counsel for the petitioner seeks refund of the court fees deposited with the district judge. the appellant is at liberty to file an appropriate application for refund of the court-fees before the district judge which shall be considered in accordance with the applicable rules. the pending application is dismissed.9. copy of this judgment be given dasti to the counsel for the parties under signatures of the court master. september 14,.....
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPT.....deciding appeal, the entire gamut cannot be considered in second appeal. the said judgment cited by the counsel for the respondent/defendant in fact supports what has been observed by me hereinabove, inasmuch as i am not going into the appeal on merits as was argued on the previous dates but merely dealing with the order made on application under order xli rule 27 of cpc which is cm(m) 924/2017 page 3 of 5 undoubtedly in contravention of the judgments aforesaid.8. the only order to be passed in this petition is thus of setting aside of the order dated 3rd june, 2016 and directing the learned adj-01 (north), rohini courts, delhi to hear the appeal being rca no.139/2016 afresh along with applications under order xli rule 27 and order vi rule 17 of cpc supra and thereafter consider, whether after appreciating the evidence already led in the suit, there is any need for additional evidence as sought by the respondent/defendant or for amendment of the written statement as also sought by the respondent/defendant.9. it is ordered accordingly and the petition is disposed of.10. the counsel for the respondent/defendant at this stage draws attention to the order dated 23rd march, 2017.....
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPT.....of the cr.p.c. or taking up of the additional evidence under section 391 of the cr.p.c. in a given case is the proper procedure will depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case for which no straight jacket formula of universal and invariable application can be formulated.30. while dealing with the issue of the re-trial, the apex court in mohd. hussain alias julfikar ali (supra) has held as under: “41. „speedy trial‟ and „fair trial‟ to a person accused of a crime are integral part of article 21. there is, however, qualitative difference between the right to speedy trial and the accused‟s right of fair trial. unlike the accused‟s right of fair trial, deprivation of the right to speedy trial does not per se prejudice the accused in defending himself. the right to speedy trial is in its very nature relative. it depends upon diverse circumstances. each case of delay in conclusion of a criminal trial has to be seen in the facts and circumstances of such case. mere lapse of several years since the commencement of prosecution by itself may not justify the discontinuance of prosecution or dismissal of indictment. the factors concerning the accused‟s right to.....
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPT.....section 19(1) of the p.c. act, 1988 went to the root of the matter for the prosecution to be stopped, there would be no necessity of dwelling on the facts/allegations concerning the petitioner in the present case.4. suffice it to say that after completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed on 27.11.2008 and charges were framed against the respondent under sections 7 and 13(2) read with section 13(1)(d) of pc act, 1988.5. during the trial, all the 13 prosecution witnesses were examined and the statement of the respondent was also recorded under section 313 cr.p.c. four witnesses on behalf of the defence also were examined. it was then that on 15.03.2012, an application was filed by the respondent for his discharge on the ground of invalid sanction. the respondent had taken the plea that he was an officer of group 'a' category and only the corporation was competent to remove him and accordingly to grant sanction to prosecute him. the learned trial court after considering the application of the respondent, stopped/dropped the proceedings and discharged the respondent vide order dated crl.rev.p.636/2012 page 2 of 13 03.08.2012 by relying on judgment of delhi high court in g.s......
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPT.....happened immediately after the pcr reached.17. the endorsement ex.pw12/a on the rukka/statement of the complainant ex.pw2/a records the following facts:-"(i) the police reached the spot on receipt of dd ex.pw11/a about apprehension of a thief. (ii) pw-2 mohd. raees handed over appellant mohd. jamil alongwith desi katta and three life cartridges to the police. (iii) the injured mohd. raees was sent to gtb hospital in pcr van crl.a. no.669/2017 page 7 of 12 and thereafter proceedings regarding seizure and sealing of arms and ammunition were conducted and a private photographer i.e. pw-1 sh.rahul was called to get the spot photographed. (iv) the rukka was sent through pw-5 ct.vijay no.438/ne to get the case registered whereas pw-12 si har prasad remained busy in the investigation at the spot.18. as per the mlc ex.pw7/a of the complainant pw-2 mohd.raees, the date and time of his examination is 8th march, 2009 at 9.20 pm. as per pw-2 mohd. raees, after his discharge from the hospital on the same day at about 10.45 pm, he reached police station gokal puri where his statement was recorded and other proceedings were conducted. pw-2 mohd. raees has also stated that the police did not.....
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPT.....the insolvency and bankruptcy code, 2016, in the eighth schedule, relating to amendment to the sick industrial companies (special provisions) repeal act, 2003, in section, in clause (b), after the second proviso, the following w.p.(c) 2681/2017 page 2 of 4 provisos shall be inserted, namely :-"“provided also that any scheme sanctioned under sub- section (4) or any scheme under implementation under sub- section (12) of section 18 of the sick industrial companies (special provisions) act, 1985 shall be deemed to be an approved resolution plan under sub-section (1) of section 31 of the insolvency and bankruptcy code, 2016 and the same shall be dealt with, in accordance with the provisions of part ii of the said code: provided also that in case, the statutory period within which an appeal was allowed under the sick industrial companies (special provisions) act, 1985 against an order or the board had not expired as on the date of notification of this act, an appeal against any such deemed approved resolution plan may be preferred by any person before national company law appellate tribunal within ninety days from the date of publication of this order”......
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPT.....still at the threshold when thrown out, no relief having come the way of the claimants even though the accident took place in 2004.3. in the above facts and circumstances, it is deemed proper that the appeal be taken up for hearing and considered without the presence of the first respondent being secured at this stage. in view of dis-interest shown by him in the earlier proceedings before the tribunal, such efforts seemingly would be a mere formality. the needful compliance with the requirement of law for he to be afforded due opportunity at the inquiry can always be made by requisite directions to such effect to the tribunal.4. coming to the merits of the contentions urged against the dismissal of the claim petition by the tribunal, reference needs to be made only to the provision of order ix rule 4 of the code of civil procedure, 1908 (cpc). a case which is suffered to be dismissed in default on account of non-appearance of the party that had instituted it does not bar a fresh one to be filed. the claimants had shown to the tribunal by documents that the claim petition filed at mainpuri, u.p. had been dismissed in default. in this view, the dismissal of the claim petition as.....
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPT