Delhi Court September 1994 Judgments

Ajit Singh Vs. Ram Saroopi Devi

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 1994IVAD(Delhi)124; 55(1994)DLT759

Mohd. Sharnim, J.(1) The appellant has taken exception through the present appeal to the judgment and decree passed by the learned lower Court dated 24/03/1981 and the judgment and order dated 6/08/1982 passed by the lower Appellate Court, Shri S.R. Goel, Additional District Judge, whereby the appeal was dismissed.(2) It would be necessary to state in brief the facts of the present case which led to the present appeal in order to appreciate fully and properly the points involvedherein. The defendant/appellant (hereinafter referred to as the appellant for the sake of convenience) is the tenant under the plaintiff/respondent ( herein after referred to as the respondent for the sake of brevity) in respect of plot of land bearing Municipal No. 1/25748, situated at Church Road, Bhogal, at a monthly rent of Rs. 40.00. He has been carrying on motor-repairing workshop on the said plot.He has raised unauthorised structure of tin shed on the said plot. The tenancy of the appellant was terminated...

Enfield India Ltd. Vs. Union of India

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 55(1994)DLT753

P.K. Bahri, J. (1) Plaintiff in this suit has sought a decree for recovery of Rs.7,88,247.00 as price of the motorcycles supplied to the Union of India with interest@ 18% per annum and pendente lite and future interest. It has a lso sought declaration to the effect that no valid and binding contract came into existence between the parties and in the alternative to declare that the contract, if any, stood frustrated and the plaintiff stood discharged of its obligations and the demand of the defendant for alleged general damages and/or risk purchase damages is illegal,not maintainable and for injunction restraining the Union of India from enforcing any such alleged demand of damages.(2) The facts averred in the plaint leading to the filing of the present suit, inbrief, are that in response to invitation to tender issued by the Director General of Supplies & Disposals, New Delhi, the plaintiff submitted its tender dated July 19,1976, which was purported to be accepted vide advance accepta...

Kishan Chand Vs. the Secretary Union of India and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 1994IIIAD(Delhi)1473; 1994(30)DRJ683

R.C. Lahoti, J.(1) Vide order dated 13.8.79 this Court admitted this second appeal for hearing the parties on the following three substantial questions of law : (1) Whether on the terms of the letter of appointment issued to the appellant his appointment was on probation to a permanent post or a temporary appointment? (2) Whether the appellant was dismissed by an authority competent in that behalf? (3) Whether the dismissal of the appellant involved any stigma or punishment(2) A statement in brief of the facts of the case would be necessary inasmuch as the same is required to appreciate the merits of an application for amendment of - plaint under Order 6 Rule 17 Civil Procedure Code moved by the appellant.(3) It is not disputed that the appellant was appointed as a constable in the service of Ministry of Home Affairs. On 28.1.1976, the Commandant Delhi Armed Police 2nd Bn. Delhi, Mr. B.K. Mishra, Ips, terminated the service of the appellant by an innocuous order and without assigning a...

Jagmohan Lal Aggarwal Vs. the Chairman, Unit Trust of India and Anothe ...

Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi

R.N. Mittal, President: 1. This appeal has been filed by the complainant against the order of the District Forum dated 22-10-92 by which his claim has been rejected. 2. Briefly the facts are that the complainant purchased a large number of units of the O.P. The opposite party (O.P.) it is alleged, by him, did not send dividend warrant of Rs. 26,250/- relating to some units within time. Consequently he wrote them a letter dated 25-7-92 that he had not received the dividend warrant of 26,250/-. In reply to this he received a latter dated 31-1092 informing him that the dividend warrant was dispatched to him by ordinary post and that if he had not received the warrant he should furnish indemnity bond. Ultimately, he received the dividend warrant, in July '93 instead of July '92. He has claimed interest on the amount of dividend from the O.P. 3. The claim was contested by them. They inter-alia pleaded that the O.P. did not furnish the indemnity bond and, therefore, the fresh warrant could n...