Moonlight Electronic Vs. Delhi Development Authority

Moonlight Electronic vs Delhi Development Authority

Type Court Judgment Court Delhi Decided Dec 06, 1993

~2 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/700175

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/700175
Court: Delhi High Court
Judge: Mahinder Narain, J.
Decided On: Dec 06, 1993
Case Number: Suit No. 674 of 1991
Subject: Property;Civil

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

The case dealt with the necessity of notice under Section 53-B of the Delhi Development Act, 1957 - The plaintiff had filed a writ petition against the Delhi development authority prior to the filing of suit - thereforee, it was ruled that filing of writ petition was itself a sufficient notice and thus the provision...

Key legal issue: Property;Civil
Acts & sections: Delhi Development Act - Sections 53B

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Moonlight Electronic

Advocate K. Venkataraman and; T.R. Chopra, Advs

Respondent

Delhi Development Authority

Legal References

Acts: Delhi Development Act - Sections 53B
Reported In: 1994RLR71

Excerpt

the case dealt with the necessity of notice under section 53-b of the delhi development act, 1957 - the plaintiff had filed a writ petition against the delhi development authority prior to the filing of suit - thereforee, it was ruled that filing of writ petition was itself a sufficient notice and thus the provision of section 53-b of the act was duly followed - mahinder narain, j.(1) a preliminary issue was framed vide order dated 27.5.1992. it is : 'whether the plaint is liable to be rejected for want of notice u/s. 53(b) of the delhi dev. act or whether the suit could be entertained or the suit is maintainable without such a notice on the facts and circumstances of this case opp'(2) it is not disputed by the deft. dda that a civil w.p. was filed between the parties. in that w.p. and in the instant suit, the question is what is the unearned increase to which the deft. is entitled to upon sale of 90% of the land covered by plot no. w-38, okhla industrial estate, phase-11. (3) the purpose of s. 53(b) of the delhi dev. act is to give notice to the deft. of the facts on which the plaintiff wishes to rely for purposes of seeking relief from this court. (4) i have seen the order which has been passed by d.b. of b.n. kirpal and sunanda bhandare, jj. in c.w.p. no. 2716/88, d./25.01.91 which is annexure-a to the plaint. (5) it is not disputed that in the writ both the parties to the suit were parties & order of 25.1.1991 was passed. the writ was disposed of for the reasons that the d.b. would not go into the rate which was to be charged as market rate as on 8.1.81. the amount payable has already been deposited by the plaintiff in the instant suit, and petitioner in the w p. with the dda. (6) in my view, filing of the w.p. is sufficient notice. it is also sufficient notice, in my view, that this suit has been filed. counsel for the petitioner also refers to and relies upon 1991 rajdhani lr 389. same view has been taken by p.k. bahri, j. (7) i decide the preliminary issue in favor of the plaintiff by holding that the suit is maintainable.

Full Judgment

Mahinder Narain, J.

(1) A preliminary issue was framed vide order dated 27.5.1992. It is : 'Whether the plaint is liable to be rejected for want of notice u/S. 53(B) of the Delhi Dev. Act or whether the suit could be entertained or the suit is maintainable without such a notice on the facts and circumstances of this case Opp'

(2) It is not disputed by the deft. Dda that a civil W.P. was filed between the parties. In that W.P. and in the instant suit, the question is what is the unearned increase to which the deft. is entitled to upon sale of 90% of the land covered by plot No. W-38, Okhla Industrial Estate, Phase-11.

(3) The purpose of S. 53(B) of the Delhi Dev. Act is to give notice to the deft. of the facts on which the plaintiff wishes to rely for purposes of seeking relief from this Court.

(4) I have seen the order which has been passed by D.B. of B.N. Kirpal and Sunanda Bhandare, JJ. in C.W.P. No. 2716/88, D./25.01.91 which is Annexure-A to the plaint.

(5) It is not disputed that in the writ both the parties to the suit were parties & order of 25.1.1991 was passed. The writ was disposed of for the reasons that the D.B. would not go into the rate which was to be charged as market rate as on 8.1.81. The amount payable has already been deposited by the plaintiff in the instant suit, and petitioner in the W P. with the DDA.

(6) In my view, filing of the W.P. is sufficient notice. It is also sufficient notice, in my view, that this suit has been filed. Counsel for the petitioner also refers to and relies upon 1991 Rajdhani Lr 389. Same view has been taken by P.K. Bahri, J.

(7) I decide the preliminary issue in favor of the plaintiff by holding that the suit is maintainable.

Same Court & Year Delhi · 1993 Same Parties Moonlight Electronic vs Delhi Development Authority Same Subject Property;Civil Same Judge Mahinder Narain, J. Acts & Sections Delhi Development Act - Sections 53B

Property;Civil