Delhi Court January 1988 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
Harish Chander Kalia Vs. Sat Pal Oberoi
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-13-1988
Reported in: 1988(14)DRJ218
P.K. Babri, J.(1) The landlord has filed this civil revision under Section 25-B(8) of the Delhi Rent Control Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') challenging the order dated 31st October, 1986 of Shri A.K.Garg, Additional Rent Controller, Delhi, by which he had dismissed the eviction petition brought by the petitioner on the ground of bonafide requirement of residence covered by Clause (e) of Sub-section (1) of Section 14 of the Act.(2) In respect of some of the essential ingredients which go to constitute this particular ground of bonafide requirement i.e. that the landlord is the owner of the premises in question and that the premises in question had been let out for residential purpose, the findings have been given by the Controller in favor of the landlord and those findings are not challenged. before me by the learned counsel for the tenant.(3) The case set up by the landlord, in brief, is that he is aged about 73 years while his wife is aged about 69 years and both are havi...
Lachhmi Devi Vs. Hira Lal and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-13-1988
Reported in: 34(1988)DLT395
D.P. Watihwa, J. (1) The appellant Was defendant in the suit for possession and recovery of mesne profits filed by the respondents/plaintiffs who are two in number. (2) The suit was filed on 14.9.1972. The plaintiffs alleged that Mr. Ram Sarup-husband of the defendant was tenant in respect of one room and a Kotha in house bearing No. 4820, Phatak Namak, Hauz Qazi,Delhi,at a monthly rent of Rs. 18.00 . Tenancy of Mr. Ram Sarup was stated to have been terminated with effect from 31.1.1969. Since, as alleged, he did not surrender the tenancy he was merely a statutory tenant. It is stated that some time in January, 1971, Mr. Ram Sarup surrendered possession of the Kotha and promised to surrender possession of the room as well. But he died on 9.11.. 1971 leaving behind the defendant as his widow. The plaintiffs, thereforee, filed the present suit for recovery of possession and mesne profits against the defendant. The defendant denied that she a was statutory tenant and stated that earlier t...
Oma Shanker Sharma and anr. Vs. Delhi Administration and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-13-1988
Reported in: 1988(14)DRJ293
S.S. Chadha, J. (1) The question raised in this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is whether the petitioners who have taken full time employment as Public Prosecutors, are eligible for appointment to the Delhi Higher Judicial Service.(2) The High Court of Delhi, respondent No. 2, issued public notice and invited applications from practicing advocates possessing the qualifications and satisfying the conditions enumerated in the advertisement for direct recruitment to the Delhi Higher Judicial Service. In response to the advertisement, petitioner No. I applied and claims that he fully satisfies the qualifications prescribed for the appointment and is eligible for being considered and fit to be appointed on merits. Petitioner No. I is admittedly employed as Public Prosecutor in Delhi under the direct control of Delhi Administration. The eligibility of petitioner No. 1 was examined and it was found by respondent No. 2 that petitioner No. 1 and similarly situated perso...
Kunj Behari Vs. K.D. Churiwala and Sons Huf and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-13-1988
Reported in: AIR1990Delhi137; ILR1989Delhi683
C.L. Chaudhry, J. (1) By this application the defendants seek dismissal of the petition on the ground that Rishi Kumar being necessary' party to the suit was added as a part after expiry or limitation and the suit has become incompetent and not maintainable. The application has arisen from the following facts. Shri Kunj Behari and Rishi Kumar filed this petition under Section 20 of the Arbitration Act praying that the Agreements dated 3-2-1979 and 6-2-1979 be directed to be filed in this court and further proceedings in the matter of appointment of Arbitrator may be taken. The suit was filed by both the petitioners through one counsel Mr. Sabharwal on 12-2-1985. Petitioner No. 2 Rishi Kumar filed an application 1. A. 939185 through another counsel. Mr. Mohinder Goel and praved that in view of the compromise arrived at between petitioner No. 2 and the respondent the court may grant him necessary permission for sale and transfer of certain flats by the respondent is favor of the petition...
Sarathy Engineering Corporation Vs. Municipal Corporation of Delhi and ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-12-1988
Reported in: 1988(1)ARBLR79(Delhi); 34(1988)DLT200
Mahesh Chandra, J.(1) By this order I propose to dispose of O.M.P. No. I of 1987 filed under Sections 5, 11, 12 and 8 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 with request that this court may grant leave to revoke the authority of respondent No. 2 and to remove respondent No. 2, the nominated arbitrator and appoint some other persons as the arbitrator to adjudicate upon the claims of the petitioner Notice of this O.M.P. was served upon the respondent and on 23rd March, 1987 Ms.Nandita Chandra Advocate appeared for the respondent No. 1 and sought time to file reply. But since then nobody has appeared for respondent No. 1 nor has any reply been filed and in consequence ex parte proceedings were ordered against respondent No. 1 and ex parte evidence was ordered to be recorded on affidavits vide orders dated 6th November, 198 7. No application for setting aside ex parte order has been filed. In support of the petition affidavit has been filed by the petitioner. After the affidavit was filed I thought ...
Syndicate Bank Vs. Silver King and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-12-1988
Reported in: 34(1988)DLT203
S.N. Sapra, J.(1) The present I suit has been filed by plaintiff. Syndicate Bank, through Shri P.D. Shenoy, the then acting Manager and Principal Officer of its branch at Asaf Ali Road, New Delhi I for recovery of Rs. 3,69,305.23 against defendants' (2) Facts leading to the institution of suit in brief are that plaintiff bank sanctioned the following facilities to defendants for their business (defendants 2 to 7 are the partners of M/s Trade and Exports, a business concern of defendant No. 1) Nature of facility A/c No. Date of Limit documents Os L against hypothecation of machinery 24/73 28.4.73 Rs. 47,000.00 Osl against hypothecation of Machinery 4/74 10.6.74 Rs. 50.000.00 Odh against hypothecation of stocks 53/73 29.5.73 Rs.30,000.00 In respect of loan account No. 24/73 for Rs. 47,000.00 defendants executed various documentary on April 28, 1973, carrying interest at the rate of 4 per cent per annum above the bank rate with a minimum of 10% per annum compounded quarterly. Defendants 2...
Municipal Corporation of Delhi Vs. Bhajni and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-12-1988
Reported in: 34(1988)DLT225; 1988(14)DRJ261; 1988RLR276
Charangit Talwar, J. (1) This appeal on behalf of the Municipal Corporation of Delhi (for short the Corporation') challenging the acquittal of respondent No. 1 herein for the offence punishable under Section 7 read . with Section 16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') was filed on 25th May, 1978 by the counsel in whose favor a power of attorney had been executed by the Law Officer of the Corporation. This was returned to the counsel as certain objections had been raised vide endorsement dated the 27th May, 1978. The appellant was given one week's time to remove the objections and re-file the same. The learned counsel, however, after removing the objections re-filed it on 14th July, 1978.(2) This appeal was heard Along with a number of other appeals filed. by the Municipal Corporation of Delhi wherein a preliminary objection had been raised on behalf of the respondents that those appeals were barred by limitation as the applications se...
Olympic Time Industries Vs. Collector of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jan-11-1988
Reported in: (1989)(41)ELT262TriDel
1. The appellants are manufacturer of watches falling under Tariff Item 44 of the Central Excise Tariff. Watches are also as sembled out of certain imported parts which are exclusively used as components in the manufacture of watches. In regard to imported watches, the appellants are allowed to avail proforma credit initially and the set-off of the countervailing duty under Notifica tion 210/79-C.E., dated 4-6-1979 as amended by Notification No. 264/79-C.E., dated 29-9-1979. The appellants are informing the department whenever they received the imported parts and were claiming credit of the countervailing duty in writing. They had also submitted D. Ill for their verification. The credits were duly allowed as could be seen from the RG. 23 Registers.On 31.3.1980, the Inspector, Incharge of the appellants factory, scrutinised the registers and noted that the proforma credit under Rule 56-A had been erroneously given under Notification 104/79-C.E., dated 33.1979 as the watch movements hav...
Sushila Devi and ors. Vs. A.C. JaIn and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-11-1988
Reported in: 34(1988)DLT186; 1988(14)DRJ245
N.N. Goswamy, J. (1) This revision petition under Section 25B(8) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958, by the tenants is directed against the eviction order dated 10-9-1984 passed by the Additional Rent Controller, Delhi.(2) The landlords had sought eviction on the ground of personal bonafide requirement. In paragraph 18(a) of the petition it was alleged :- '1.The petitioner No. I is the owner and landlord and petitioner No. 2 has been held to be landlord of the premises in question. The premises in the occupation of the respondents are Bona fiddly required by the petitioner No. I for use as a residence for himself, his wife Smt. Rachna Jain and his daughter who are dependent on him. 2. He has no other accommodation (residential/non-residential) in Delhi or outside Delhi, much less reasonable suitable accommodation. 3. At present, petitioner No. I and his family are living in one room and a small store-cum-kitchen provided by Shri Areh Dass Jain who is also not having sufficient accommo...
Onkar Nath Bajpai Vs. Purolator India Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-11-1988
Reported in: 1988(14)DRJ233; 1988RLR228
N.N. Goswamy, J. (1) This second appeal by the landlord is directed against the order dated 23-1-1986 passed by the Rent Control Tribunal whereby his first appeal against the dismissal of the petition for recovery of possession under Section 21 of the Delhi Rent Control Act was also dismissed.(2) The premises in dispute i.e. first floor of house No. 32, Paschimi Marg, Vasant Vihar, New Delhi was leased out by the appellant to the respondent-company for residential purpose for a limited period of three years under Section 21 of the Act. The said period of three years was to expire on 18-12-1981. The execution of the order could be taken out within a period of six months, from the expiry of the period of tenancy. Instead of taking out the execution, a joint application was filed by the parties under Order 21 of the Code of Civil Procedure on 15-3-1982 i.e. within the period of six months. In the said application it was mentioned that the limited tenancy which was granted, was to expire o...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 7
- 8
- 9
- Next ›
- Last »