Delhi Court April 1993 Judgments

Bawa Barbara Singh Bedi Vs. Joginder Singh Bedi and anr.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 51(1993)DLT448; 1999(26)DRJ503

C.M. Nayar, J.(1) The present suit is filed by the plaintiff, Bawa Darbara Singh Bedi, against the defendants Shri Joginder Singh Bedi and Smt. Nirmal Jyoti Ahuja, who are the son and daughter of the plaintiff. The prayer in the suit is for declaration against the defendants, declaring that the plaintiff has the right to demarcate the ground floor premises of property situated at 70, Malcha Marg,Chankyapuri, New Delhi, and to execute a Codicil by way of supplement to the Will dated December21, 1984, executed by the plaintiff, in terms of the compromise dated January 4, 1985,between the parties. It will be relevant to reproduce the prayer clause, which reads as follows:- 'ITis,therefore,respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to pass a decree of declaration in favor of the plaintiff against the defendants declaring that the plaintiff has the right to demarcate the ground floor premises of the property situated at 70, Malcha Marg,Chankyapuri, New Delhi with servant qua...

Delhi Steel Tubes Indl. Ltd. Vs. the New India Assurance Co. Ltd.

Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi

R.N. Mittal, President: 1. Briefly the case of the complainant is that they get their machinery installed in the factory at Ghaziabad insured from the respondent. There was breakdown of the machinary and a claim was filed by the complainant with Insurance Company, which has not been paid by them till date. Consequently, they file the present complaint. 2. The complaint has been contested by the respondent. They raised a preliminary objection, that the Commission at Delhi, has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the complaint as the factory is situated outside of Delhi and the respondents office, which insured the machinery, is also situated outside Delhi. It is further stated that the Insurance Policy was issued by the Regional Office at Kanpur as the Bijnore Office is in that region. 3. We have heard the learned Counsel for the parties. Mr. Aggarwal faced with the plea of the respondent, argued that the amount of premium was paid to the agent of the respondent at Delhi and theref...

Malwinder Kaur and anr. Vs. Tej Pratap Singh

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 1993(26)DRJ117

Dalveer Bhandari, J. (1) By this order, I propose to dispose of three separate applications which have been filed by the plaintiff under Order Vi Rule 17, Civil Procedure Code . in this Suit. 1.A.3642/90 (2) The plaintiff filed I.A. 3642/90 under Order 6 Rule 17, Civil Procedure Code . The plaintiffs by this application had sought amendment, and want permission of this court to add paras 14A, 14B, 14C, 14D and some additions in para 17. I.A.4144/90 (3) The plaintiffs had filed another I.A.4144/90 under Order 6 Rule 17 read with Section 151 Civil Procedure Code . In this application, the plaintiffs want to add para 9A, after para 9. I.A.3376/92 (4) Thereafter, the plaintiffs filed another I.A.No-3376/92 under Order 6 Rule 17 read with Section 151 Civil Procedure Code . In this application, the plaintiffs want that para no.5 of the plaint and para no. 10A be added after para 10 of the plaint. (5) The central question and main prayer sought in all the three applications is the same, there...