Delhi Court July 1993 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.
Faqir Chand (Through L.Rs.) Vs. Laila Ram (Through L.Rs.)
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-15-1993
Reported in: 1993IIIAD(Delhi)168; AIR1994Delhi161; 51(1993)DLT505
ORDER1. This regular second appeal has been brought against the judgment and decree dated August 9, 1974, of a Additional District Judge by which he Had allowed the appeal of respondent-Lila Ram against judgment and decree dated January 31, 1974, of a Sub-Judge and had dismissed the suit brought by the appellant against the respondent wherein reliefs of mandatory injunction, perpetual injunction and rendition of accounts were claimed.2. The dispute pertains to property bearing municipal No. 1152 (Old No. 272) situated in Gali Samosan, Fresh Khana, Delhi. Admittedly this property was owned by Bhola Ram, father of the appellant, Lila Ram --respondent and one Kishan Lal. In 1921 Kishan Lal brought a suit for partition and decree for partition was made and portion which is in brown colour in map Ex. PW 3/2 had fallen to the share of Kishan Lal and ultimately that portion also had been purchased by Lila Ram -- respondent. In 1933 the partition deed was executed between Bola Ram and Lila Ram...
Greaves Fesesco Ltd. Vs. Ratlam Ispat Ltd. (In Liquidation)
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-15-1993
Reported in: [1997]88CompCas155(Delhi)
J.K. Mehra, J.1. This is an application filed on behalf of the Industrial Credit and Investment Corporation of India (hereinafter referred to as 'the ICICI') for vacation of order dated May 28, 1992, and permission to remit pro rata the shares of the State Government of Madhya Pradesh and the State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur out of the sale proceeds held by them. In this application there is no case made out for or prayer for approval or leave of the company court of the sale effected after commencement of winding up proceedings. 2. Some of the salient facts of this case are as under : On April 9, 1988, the Board for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction (BIFR) formed a prima facie opinion that the company should be wound up and appointed the ICICI as the operating agency. The said opinion of the BIFR for winding up was forwarded to this court on June 23, 1988. In the meantime proceedings for the winding up of the company, Ratlam Ispat Limited, were instituted, vide a substantive pet...
Haryana Financial Corporation Vs. Pnb Auto Ancillary (India) Ltd. (In ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-14-1993
Reported in: [1994]81CompCas588(Delhi)
J.K. Mehra, J.1. This is an appeal filed by the Haryana Financial Corporation (HFC) against the order of the official liquidator whereby he has accepted the claim of the Haryana Financial Corporation to the extent of Rs. 19,86,847.90 in its capacity as a secured creditor. At the time of hearing, it was pointed out that this claim represents the full principal amount plus interest in terms of the decree in favor of the Haryana Financial Corporation up to the date of the winding up order. 2. The case of the appellant is that being a secured creditor, it is outside the winding up and, as such, is entitled to charge interest at the contractual rate/the rate at which it has been awarded interest under the court decree. This contention has been challenged by the official liquidator. 3. At the time of the hearing, the Haryana Financial Corporation placed reliance upon the terms of its mortgage and the decree passed by the court whereby the District Judge at Faridabad decreed the claim for the...
Mahinder Singh Vs. Delhi Development Authority and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-14-1993
Reported in: 1993(2)ARBLR271(Delhi); 51(1993)DLT209; 1993(27)DRJ131
Sat Pal, J. (1) S. No-2238/86 has been filed by Shri Mahinder Singh (hereinafter referred to as the claimant) under Section 14 and Section 17 of the Arbitration Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) and in this suit it has been prayed that the Arbitrator be directed to file the original award and the award be made rule of the Court after hearing objections of the parties, if any. S.No-2243/86 has been filed by the D.D.A. also under Section 14 and 17 of the Act and in this suit it has been prayed that the Arbitrator be directed to file the award dated 26.2.86 and the same be made a rule of the Court and decree be passed in terms of the said award. Since the subject matter of both the suits is identical, I am disposing of both the suits by this judgment. (2) Pursuant to the above mentioned suits, notice was issued to the Arbitrator who filed his award after the receipt of the notice. Objections against the award have been filed by the claimant only which were registered as is 2731/87 ...
Ashok Mehta and ors. Vs. Kanwal NaIn Kaur and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-13-1993
Reported in: 51(1993)DLT212; 1993RLR500
P.K. Bahri, J.(1) This appeal is directed against judgment dated 21/09/1992 of Rent Control Tribunal by which he had dismissed the appeal brought by the appellant against order dated 2/07/1992 of an Additional Rent Controller by which the objection petition filed by the appellant in proceedings under Section 21 of the Delhi Rent Control Act had been dismissed.(2) Facts, in brief, are that Late Harminder Singh Anand had let outthe premises in question to M/s. Hindustan Sugar Mills Limited vide a Lease Deed dated April 25, 1977. The premises were used by Sri ChandMehta, predecessor in interest of the appellant. The said company is stated to have surrendered the tenancy to the landlord on 25/03/1978. However, Sri Chand Mehta continued in the premises and on 23/05/1978,Sri Chand Mehta and the landlord, Harminder Singh approached the Additional Controller for creating a limited tenancy under Section 21 with effect from 1/06/1978 for a period of five years. The Additional Controller granted ...
Birla Institute of Scientific Research Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-12-1993
Reported in: 1993IIIAD(Delhi)282; 53(1994)DLT342
Jaspal Singh, J.(1) The Birla Institute of Scientific Research, which is the petitioner before me, is a Society duly registered under the West Bengal Society Registration Act, 1961. By a lease agreement dated March 17, 1971 the Society took premises bearing No. 13, Mahatma Gandhi Road, Lajpat Nagar Iv, New Delhi from Mrs. Santosh Chandiok, who is respondent No. 4 on a monthly rent of Rs. 4000.00 . Mrs. Chandiok had purchased the land underneath the said premises from one Mr. Sat Prakash Kapur. The original lessee was the President of India who had demised the same by a lease in writing dated April 3, 1959. One of the terms and conditions of the said lease and which is relevant for our purpose was as follows: '1.The lessee doth to the intent that the burden of the covenants may run with the said land and may bind any permitted assignee thereof hereby covenant with the Lesser as follows:- (i) ................... (ii) ------------------ (iii) ................... (iv) ------------------- (...
Krishan Lal Kohli Vs. V.K. Khanna and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-12-1993
Reported in: 1993IIIAD(Delhi)256; AIR1993Delhi356; 52(1993)DLT87; (1993)105PLR63
Jaspal Singh, J.(1) The facts are eloquent and speak for themselves. In the posh locality of Saket in South Delhi there is a building bearing No. E-26. It is built on a plot of land measuring approximately 500 sq.yards. There is a basement, besides the ground floor comprising of three bed rooms with attached toilet, drawing-cum-dining room besides, of course,a lawn in front. It is owned by the present petitioner Mr. Krishan LalKohli, a non-resident Indian who has an attorney in India. That attorney is Marshal (retd.) M.L. Sethi. The building, at present, is in possession of atenant. It is claimed that on 19/04/1989 it was let out to Pepsi Foods ona rental of Rs. 7000.00 per month through Mr. Ranjit Salve who was earlier employed with M/s. Pepsi Foods and who claims that it is he who is the tenant in his personal capacity. It is, however, not disputed that it is he who is presently in occupation of the building. Much before 19/04/1989negotiations for letting out the premises had taken p...
Goderj Soaps Ltd. Vs. New India Chemicals (Regd.)
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-09-1993
Reported in: 1993IIIAD(Delhi)231; 1993(27)DRJ8
Mahainder Narain, J. (1) By the applicationl.A.No.8316of 1992, the defendant seeks amendment of the written statement by incorporating certain pleas which amount to counter-claim. The court fee is stated to have been paid on the counter-claim which is proposed by way of amendment. (2) It is necessary to take note of the fact that the instant suit was filed on29.08.1985, and the written statement was filed on 15.04.1986. It is this written statement filed on 15.04.1986,which is sought to be amended by introducing the counter-claim. (3) Another judgment relied upon by the counsel for the defendant is in Jai Jai Ram Manohar Lalv. National Building Material Supply, Gurgaon, : [1970]1SCR22 , in which the Supreme Court has observed that, 'Rules of procedure are intended to be a handmaid to the administration of justice. A party cannot be refused just relief merely because of some mistake, negligence, inadvertence, or even infraction of the rules of procedure. The Court always gives leave to ...
inder SaIn Chadha and ors. Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-09-1993
Reported in: 51(1993)DLT430; 1993(26)DRJ539
Vijender Jain, J. (1) This writ petitioner was filed by Inder Sain Chadha and, his two sons, namely, Narinder Chadha and Naresh Chadha. During the pendency of the writ petition Inder Sain Chadha died. No application Was filed to bring his legal representatives on record. In any event of the matter his two sons are already the other petitioners in this writ petition. The writ petition was filed on 2nd August, 1983. The petitioners prayed for setting aside and quashing Notifications Nos.F.15(iii)/59-LSG dated 13th November, 1959 under Section 4 of Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) and F.I(44)/62-L&H; dated 29th November, 1962 under Section 6 of the Act and all the proceedings conducted by the respondents in pursuance of such notifications.(2) The case of the petitioners was that pursuant to the Notification Under Sec.4 of the Act the land was acquired by the respondents on 13th November, 1959. With regard to the said land a notification under Section 6 of the Act ...
Sh. Ajay Kumar Vs. Indian Railway Construction Co. Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-08-1993
Reported in: (1994)IILLJ182Del
ORDERY. K. Sabharwal, J. 1. The facts leading to the dismissal of the petitioner from service as pleaded in the petition, in brief are :- The petitioner was appointed in the respondent company as Junior Engineer on 29th June, 1981. The workman employed in the Headquarters as well as in the various Projects of the respondent company formed a Trade Union known as IRCON Employees Union, New Delhi, which was registered with the Registrar of Trade unions on 9th November, 1983. The petitioner became the first President of the Union and one Mr. V. K. Talwar became its General Secretary. On 10th November, 1983 a letter was sent by the petitioner to the management of the respondent Company requesting for recognition of the Union. In retaliation the management on 10th November, 1983 at about 4.30 p.m. ordered the transfer of the petitioner from New Delhi to Anpara (M. P.) a very remote place about 800 kms away in the State of Uttar Pradesh. V. K. Talwar was ordered to be posted on transfer at Ko...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »