Delhi Court May 1992 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.
Brij Bhushan Gupta Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-01-1992
Reported in: 1992(23)DRJ408
C.M. Nayar, J. (1) This writ petition is directed against the order dated July 4, 1983, of respondent No.3 by which the allotment in favor of the petitioner of type V flat in Som Vihar Project at R.K. Puram, New Delhi, was cancelled. The petitioner has impugned this order and has prayed for a writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to cancel the order of cancellation and to restore the petitioner to the position of allottee of the flat and for a writ of certiorari for quashing the said order cancelling the allotment in his favor.The petitioner was admitted as a member of the Army Welfare Housing Organisation (hereinafter referred to as the A.W.H.O.). The said organisation has been established by Army order for providing houses to serving and retired military personnel. The petitioner moved an application before the said Organisation for allotment of flat in R.K. Puram, New Delhi,and he was allotted the said flat on March 25, 1981. by the respondent. The petitioner has further averre...
Ram Sarup Vs. Brahma Devi and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-01-1992
Reported in: 1992(23)DRJ242
P.N. Nag, J.(1) This Second Appeal under Section 39 of the Delhi Rent Control Act (hereinafter called the Act) has arisen out of an order dated 15.2.1991 passed by Shri O.P. Dwivedi, Rent Control Tribunal whereby the Tribunal has upheld the order of eviction dated 18th March, 1986 passed by I.C. Tiwari, Additional Rent Controller, Delhi against the appellant/tenant under clause (b) of proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 14 of the Act. (2) The only question that requires consideration in this appeal is whether the appellant-tenant Ram Sarup has sub-let, assigned of parted with the possession of the premises in favor of Amrit Lal in 1971 without obtaining the consent in writing of the respondents and as such he is liable to be evicted under clause (b) of proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 14 of the Act. (3) Mr. Sethi, learned counsel for the appellant, has very effectively and neatly put up his case and submitted (i) that the Additional Rent Controller has found as a matter of fact ...
Shiela Sethi Vs. Mohd. Naseem and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-01-1992
Reported in: 47(1992)DLT698; 1992(23)DRJ75
Arun Kumar, J.(1) AS. 3723/86 & 4465/86(2) The plaintiff has filed the present suit for permanent injunction praying that defendants 1 and 2 be restrained from carrying out any construction on the plot bearing No.A-197, New Friends Colony, New Delhi. In the amended plaint, further prayer has been made that defendants 1 and 2 be restrained from occupying the building raised on the said plot and the plaintiff be allowed to occupy the same. Along with the suit the plaintiff filed an application being I.A. No. 373/86 under Order Xxxix Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure praying for an interim injunction restraining defendants 1 and 2 from carrying on any construction on the said plot. An ex parte interim order was passed on the said application.(3) On 30th May, 1986 restraining the said defendants from carrying on any construction activity on the plot inquestion. Soon thereafter the plaintiff filed not her application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 being I.A. 4465/86 praying that de...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- Next ›