Delhi Court March 1993 Judgments

Standard Chartered Bank Vs. M.S. Handa and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: I(1993)BC502; 50(1993)DLT247; 1993(25)DRJ538

S.C. Jain, J. (1) MESSRS. Standard Chartered Bank, the plaintiff, filed a suit for recovery of Rs. 2,78,37,801.20 under Order 37 Civil Procedure Code against Mr. M.S. Handa, Mr. Ashwani Kapoor and Indian Overseas Bank. In brief the facts of the case as are apparent on record are that Mr. M.S. Handa is the drawer of Bill of Exchange No. HK/1 dated 23.6.1989. Defendant No 2, Mr. Ashwani Kapoor is the acceptor and Defendant No.3, Indian Overseas Bank is the co-acceptor of the said Bill of Exchange (Hundi). The said Bill of Exchange was duly discounted by the plaintiff bank by issue of a Reserve Bank of India cheque for Rs.4,75,62,500.00 favoring Indian Overseas Bank, defendant No.3, and by crediting a sum of Rs.5,17,295.00 into the account of defendant No.1. Before the maturity date of payment upon the said Bill of Exchange i.e. on September 20,1989 the plaintiff bank received a letter dated 3rd August, 1989 from the defendant No.3 's Zonal Office that the Branch Manager of Indian Oversea...

S.N. Bhatia and ors. Vs. Sita Bijai Singh and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 50(1993)DLT514; 1993RLR431

Usha Mehra, J. (1) Determination of a lease in accordance with the Transfer of Property Act (hereinafter called the T.P. Act) is a mere surplus age and unnecessary in order ro seek eviction of a tenant under the Rent ControlAct.' But an interesting question has arisen as to whether in an eviction petition a tenant would be entitled to a notice in terms of the agreement of tenancy as a double protection, even though no notice under Section 106 of the T.P. Act is required.(2) In order to determine the same, the relevant facts are that the respondent No. 1 herein filed a petition for eviction being a widow under Section 14-D read with Section 25-D of the Delhi Rent Control Act (hereinafter called as the 'D.R.C. Act') against the present petitioners. respondent No. 2 was also imp leaded as respondent in the said eviction petition. The petitioner/tenants filed the leave to defend application seeking leave on various grounds. One of the ground was that a notice under Section 106 of the Trans...

Ram Swaroop Kathuria Vs. Nagpal Optical Co.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 50(1993)DLT387

P.K. Bahri, J. (1) This case has been on the Board and office was required to give telephone message to Shri K.K. Chaudhary, Counsel for the respondent and I am informed that the office has given the information on telephone but despite waiting for Mr. K.K. Chaudhary, be has notappeared. So, I have no occasion to hear Counsel for the respondent in this case.(2) This appeal is directed against judgment dated 19/08/1985,of Shri M.A. Khan. Rent Control Tribunal, by which he had dismissed the appeal of the appellant brought against the order of the Rent Controller dated 1/04/1985, by which he had struck out the defense of the appellant under Section 15(7) of the Delhi Rent Control Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act').(3) Facts of the case, in brief, are that the respondent had brought an eviction petition against the appellant on the ground of eviction covered by Clause (a) of the proviso to Sub-section (1) of Section 14 of the Act alleging that despite service of notice of demand da...

M.L. Khurana Vs. H.C. Chopra

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 50(1993)DLT384; 1993RLR396

P.K. Bahri, J. (1) This civil revision is directed against the orderdated 12/02/1988, of the Additional Rent Controller, by which he had allowed the eviction petition brought on the ground of bonafide requirement covered by Clause (e) of proviso to Sub-section (1) of Section 14 of the Delhi Rent Control Act.(2) The case set up by the respondent-landlord, in brief, was that the premises in question were let out to the petitioner for residential purposes and the respondent is the owner-landlord thereof and earlier the landlord and his family were living in Delhi but they had shifted to Chandigarh and the landlord, who was in service, retired on 31/07/1984 and before that date he had given notice to the tenant of his intention to settle in Delhi in his own house. After retirement the landlord had shifted toJabal pur where his sons are having their own business. The five brothersand one sister of the landlord are settled in Delhi. So, the case of the landlord was that he wanted to settle i...

Rajinder Singh Bhatia Vs. Ramesh Suri Anand

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 50(1993)DLT244; 1993RLR321

Usha Mebra, J. (1) Rajinder Singh Bhatia, by this appeal has sought reversal of the judgment and decree passed by the learned Trial Court as well as the order of the First Appellate Court, whereby possession of the Barsati floor of property No. C-342, defense Colony, New Delhi has been ordered to be restored to the respondent. Decree for damages has also beenpassed.(2) The impugned orders have been assailed on the ground that the Court below having had that appellant was not a trespasser and his possession being permissive aught to have dismissed the suit.(3) Counsel for the respondent took up a preliminary objection regarding the maintainability of this appeal. According to him the appeal does not raise any question of law what to say of substantial and specific question of law. Whether the appellant was a trespasser or license, the Court below arrived at that decision after appreciating the whole evidence. This Court in second appeal cannot reappreciate the same evidence. The discret...

Sunil Puri and ors. Vs. Modi Spinning and Weaving Mills Company Ltd.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 50(1993)DLT257; 1993(26)DRJ366

Santosh Duggal, J. (1) The appellants in this second appeal are owners/landlords of property bearing No.12, Friends Colony (West), New Delhi, who had initially let out these premises to the respondent M/s. Modi Spinning and Weaving Mills Company Limited, (for short 'the Company'), for a period of five years four months by means of an application, filed before the Rent Controller, under section 21 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958, (for short 'the Act'), on 16.8.77. This application came up before the Additional Rent Controller on 17.8.77 when statements were recorded. The application had been made on behalf of three owners/landlords, who arc brothers, signed by two of them personally, and by their mother as duly constituted attorney of the third brother, namely, Suresh Puri. At the time statements were recorded, one of them, namely, Sunil Puri, appeared and reiterated on oath the averments that had been made in the application under section 21 of the Act, and expressly stated that pr...

BurhanuddIn Pahevali Bilaspurwala Vs. Administrator, Union Territory o ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 51(1993)DLT468

Sat Pal, J.(1) In this case the petitioner was detained pursuant to order of detention bearing No. F.5/60/91-Home (P-11 dated 16/08/1991. passed by the Administrator of Union Territory of Delhi in exercise of powers conferred by Section 3(1) read with Section 2(f) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange's Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 (for short called 'COFFPOSA'). The order of detention was served on the petitioner on 19/08/1991 while he was in custody. It appears that a declaration under Section 9(1) of Cofeposa was also issued though a copy of the same has not been placed on the file.(2) Briefly stated the facts of the case are that on 2/06/1991 the petitioner arrived at Igi airport. New Delhi from Kualalampur and opted for green channel and when he reached near the exit gate, he was intercepted by the customs officers on suspicion and was diverted for screening of thebaggage. On screening of the briefcase one red white colour plastic envelope was found concealed betw...

O.P. Gauba Vs. Vice Chairman, Delhi Development Authority

Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi

R.N. Mittal, President: 1. Briefly the facts are that the Delhi Development Authority (hereinafter referred to as D.D.A.) floated a Housing Scheme known as "Rohini Residential Scheme" (R.R.S.). In the brochure it was given that it was situated in the North-West of Delhi, in continuation of Shalimar Bagh and Pitampura Residential Schemes on the Outer Ring Road. Its distance from the Connaught Place was 15 Kms. Later it floated another Housing Scheme nearby called as 'Rohini Extension Scheme". 2. The complainant applied for a plot of 90 sq. mtrs. against a deposit of Rs. 5,000/- in R.R.S. The rate of land quoted by D.D.A. for MIG plot was Rs. 200/- per. sq. mtr. and the scheme was to come into existence within a period of three years. However, no plot was allotted to him in that scheme. In Feb. 1990 a plot of land measuring 60 Sq. Mtrs. was allotted to him in Rohini Extension with a condition that if the payment for the plot was not made in time, the allotment would stand cancelled. It i...

Raipur Alloys and Steel Ltd. and anr. Vs. Union of India and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 1993(1)ARBLR447(Delhi); 50(1993)DLT508; 1993(26)DRJ142; 1993RLR285

Arun Kumar, J. (1) This is a petition under section 33 of the Arbitration Act. The petitioner has challenged the existence of any contract between the parties and thereforee the case of the petitioner is that when there is no agreement between the parties, there could be no arbitration clause and the arbitration proceedings before Shri M.A. Cherian, Executive Director, Mechanical Engineering, Railway Board, Ministry of Railways, Union of India or any other nominee who may be nominated by the respondents are uncalled for.(2) The petitioner company is engaged in the business of manufacture and distribution of various types of steel and processed steel products including steel ingots, steel billet springs, steel rounds and allied steel products. The petitioner company is a regular supplier of some of the items manufactured by it to the Railways under various contracts. Regarding the transaction forming subject matter of the present petition, it is case of the petitioner company that no co...

Uttam Singh Dugal and Co. (P) Ltd. Vs. International Airport Authority ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 1993(30)DRJ294

Dalveer Bhandari, J. (1) In pursuance of an agreement between the parties, the petitioner was given the work of construction of International Terminal and Cargo Terminal Project at Bombay Airport. SH: Apron for International Terminal Complex. The dispute regarding execution of the project was referred to the arbitrator in pursuance of the clause of arbitration in the agreement. The arbitrator gave his award on 2nd July, 1986. This court issued notice of filing of the award on 8th August, 1986.(2) Mr. S.L. Watel, appeared for the petitioner and filed objections to the award. This court on 5th May, 1987 framed the following issues on the pleadings of the parties: (1) Whether the award is liable to be set aside on the grounds mentioned in the objection petition? (2) Relief.(3) Counsel for the parties agreed that the record of the arbitration proceedings be read in evidence and they further agreed that the matter be decided on affidavits. Affidavits have been filed by the parties and parti...