Delhi Court November 1995 Judgments
Home Cases Delhi 1995 Page 15 of about 163 results (0.021 seconds)Sunder Lal Bajaj Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 60(1995)DLT719; 1995(35)DRJ548
S.K. Mahajan, J. (1) The plaintiff had filed this suit for a declaration that the orders dated September 2, 1959, October 20, 1959, April 1, 1980 and November 13, 1980 passed by different authorities of the Government of India under the provisions of Displaced Persons(Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1954 are illegal, void, without jurisdiction and ultra virus and not binding upon the plaintiff and the said orders do not confer any right, title or interest upon defendants 2 & 3.(2) Defendant No.1 did not contest the suit and defendant No.3 was proceeded ex parte. Defendant No.2 was already dead as on the date of filing of the suit. One of the order which has been challenged is the order dated 2nd September, 1959, whereby the application of defendant No.2 against the automatic vesting of the property in suit in the custodian was allowed and the case was remanded to the Assistant Custodian (Judicial). The Assistant Custodian (Judicial), by an order dated October 13, 1959, held the p...
Tag this Judgment!S. Bala Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 61(1996)DLT122
Anil Dev Singh, J. (1) The matter relating to pilot episode of the proposed Seriall 'Swami Vivekananda' prepared by the petitioner has again come back to us as the respondents after our directions dated December 20,1994 in Cwp No. 2398 of 1994 have not approved the same. In that order we had directed that the respondents should have the Pilot pre-viewed again by the Committee comprising of the same members which had pre-viewed it earlier on May 26,1993 and take a final decision in the light of the recommendations of the Committee. The operative portion of our order reads as under: 'Though we have undoubted power to issue a mandamus to compel the respondents to telecast the Seriall, as the petitioner has removed the defects pointed out in the second report of the Pre-view Committee, yet, we would think that another opportunity should be given to the respondents to properly and lawfully exercise their discretion. In the circumstances of the case, we are of the opinion that the revised pi...
Tag this Judgment!indo Graphic Art Machinery Co. Pvt. Ltd. Vs. National Small Industries ...
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 62(1996)DLT259; (1996)113PLR36
N.G. Nandi, J.(1) This is an application under Order Ix Rule 13 Civil Procedure Code by defendant No. 1, seeking to set aside the ex parte decree dated 2.11.92. Suit No.184/92 came to be filed against defendant No.1 (applicantherein)and defendant No. 2 M/s. Offset Printers Co., both of Kanpur, U.P. for the recovery of Rs. 2,85,294-63 paise. As revealed from the record, both the defendants, in the suit, were duly served but none appeared in the Court. By order dated 2.11.1992, decree came to be passed against both the defendants, for a sum of Rs. 2,25,600.00 with 18% interest on the said amount from 15daysafter21.3.1991 till the realisation and the costs of the suit. Thereafter, defendant No. 1 has come forward with this I.A. contending that the summons in the suit were served to defendant No. I on 25.2.1992 at its Kanpur Office; that some administrative changes were made by defendant No. I with regard to its northern region; that prior to the said administrative changes, the work of no...
Tag this Judgment!Prem Seth and ors. Vs. National Industrial Corporation Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: [2001]103CompCas1011(Delhi); 1995(35)DRJ642
Dalveer Bhandari, J. (1) The petitioners have filed a petition under Sections 397-398 read with Section 155 of the Companies Act for the grant of relief against oppression and prejudicial activities of the respondents and in the alternative, for winding up of the respondent-company under Sections 434 and 439 of the Companies Act, 1956.(2) Looking to the background of this case, I deem it appropriate to set out the prayers of the petition filed by the petitioner. @SUBPARA = 'It is thereforee, prayed that this Court may be pleased to: A)PASSsuch order or orders as may be necessary for relieving the petitioners of the oppressive activities of the respondent S.P. Seth Group and the Respondent Company of the prejudicial activities of the said Group: B)SETaside all allotments of shares made in favor of S.P. Seth Group which exceeds 30% of the share capital which was originally held by them and they be directed to transfer the remaining shares to the Petitioners and their nominees against pay...
Tag this Judgment!A.B.N. Amro Bank Vs. Indian Railway Finance Corporation Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: [1996]85CompCas716(Delhi); 1995(35)DRJ647
Dalveer Bhandari, J. (1) Abn Amro Bank N.V. has filed the company appeal under Section 10(F) of the Companies Act, in which a prayer has been made to set aside the order dated August 25, 1994 passed by the company law board. It is also prayed in the appeal that the Company petition filed by the appellant before the Company Law Board be allowed and respondent no.1 be directed to rectify the register maintained by it in respect of the said IRFC bonds, by entering the appellant's name as the holder of the said 1 lakh 9% (tax free) secured redeemable non-convertible (VIth A series 1991-92) Bonds of Rs.1000.00 each and to restore to the appellant the said letter of allotment, after making due endorsements and issue bonds certificate in respect of the said bonds to the appellant along with interest warrants. (2) The appellant has also prayed that respondents no.1 to 4 be directed to pay compensation for non-payment of interest on the said IRFC bonds on and after June 26, 1992, comprising the...
Tag this Judgment!N.K. Gambhir Vs. Carpet Export Promotion Council and anr.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 61(1996)DLT457; 1995(35)DRJ544
S.K. Mahajan, J. (1) This order will dispose of application of the plaintiff under Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 Civil Procedure Code for stay of the suit and the application of the defendant under Order 39 Rule 4 Civil Procedure Code for vacating the ex parte stay granted on 20th October, 1995.(2) Carpet Export Promotion Council (In short referred to as the Council) is a company limited by guarantee, incorporated under the provisions of Companies Act. Main object of the company is to support, protect, maintain, increase and promote the export of hand knitted carpets, woolen druggist and floor coverings by such methods as may be necessary or expediet. The administration of the Council is vested in a committee known as the Committee of Administration. This Committee consists of a Chairman, 2 Vice-Chairmen, 16 elected members (including Chairman and 2 Vice- Chairmen) and 4 Government nominees (including a representative of the Federation of Association of Small Industries). Elected members are el...
Tag this Judgment!Modella Woollen Ltd. Vs. Modella Knitwears Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1996(25)ARBLR370(Delhi); 61(1996)DLT12
Anil Dev Singh, J.(1) This is an appeal from the order of the learned Single Judge dated September 19, 1994 whereby interim order dated March 18, 1994 restraining the respondents from using, selling or offering for sale or advertising goods bearing trade mark 'MODELLA' with and without lion device was vacated and consequently, the application of the appellant-plaintiff, I.A.2754/94 under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 Civil Procedure Code was rejected and the application of the respondent-defendant, I.A. 3170/94 under Order 39 Rule 4 Civil Procedure Code was allowed. The facts necessary for the disposal of appeal are as under :- The appellant M/s. Modella Woolens Ltd., instituted a suit against the respondent M/s. Modella Knitwears Ltd. for perpetual injunction, infringement and passing off of trade mark, infringement of copyright and rendition of accounts against the respondent. It was averred inter-alia in the plaint by the appellant that the plaintiff was engaged in the business of manufact...
Tag this Judgment!Savitri Malhotra Vs. Ram Nath Malhotra
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1995IVAD(Delhi)618; 60(1995)DLT677; 1995(35)DRJ345
S.K. Mahajan, J.(1) On 29th October, 1971, a decree was passed in S.No.275/67 for possession by partition of portion of house No.J-III/67, Lajpat Nagar, New Delhi shown red in the plan with appurtenances to the constructed portion comprising 3' 6' wide passage running on North -Western side of the aforesaid constructed portion and the open space towards the South-East of the constructed portion shown by letters A, B, C, D, E, F, and P, Q, R, S on the plan which formed part of the portion allotted to the plaintiff on the basis of family arrangement dated 24th July, 1966. (2) Execution petition was filed on 19th September, 1981 for execution of the said decree. Notice of the execution petition was directed to be issued to Mr.R.N.Malhotra, judgment debtor, who appeared in person in Court on 20th October, 1981 and was allowed time to file the reply. Unfortunately, before reply could be filed, he died on 4th November, 1981. On 25th November, 1981, the Court directed notice to be issued to t...
Tag this Judgment!Michael Heath Nathan Johnson Vs. Subhash Chandra and ors.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 60(1995)DLT757
K. Ramamoorthy, J.(1) The plaintiff has filed the application for injunction restraining the defendants-respondents their servants and agents by an order of permanent injunction from in any manner directly and/or indirectly through themselves and/or through^ their business associates and/or other group of Companies in any manner disclosing, utilising, exploiting and/or implementing the Smpc system, having the characteristics identified in the Affidavit of the Applicant/Plaintiff annexed to the plaint (Annexure A), and based on the Applicant's valuable and unique confidential information; and to confirm the aforesaid order after hearing the parties. There are seven defendants in the suit. First defendant is contesting the case. 7th defendant Stephen Moss, without filing any reply to the application for injunction, has filed an affidavit in support of the first defendant.(2) I have heard learned Counsel for the plaintiff and the first defendant for a considerable length of time. (3) Mr. ...
Tag this Judgment!S. Satjit Singh and Sons Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1995IVAD(Delhi)646; 1995(35)DRJ444
Mohd. Shamim, J. (1) The petitioners through the present writ petition have prayed for issue of directions to the respondents Nos. 1 & 2 to mutate the property bearing No. 64, Sunder Nagar, New Delhi ( hereinafter referred to as the disputed property for the sake of convenience) in the name of the petitioner No.1 and to strike out the name of respondent No.3. They further seek the quashment of the order dated February 12,1974 passed by respondent No.2. (2) Brief facts which are necessary for the proper appreciation of the points involved herein are being reproduced below: that the petitioner. S.Satjit Singh & Sons are a Hindu undivided family. S. Satjit Singh was the karta of the said family. The said family is the owner of the disputed property which has been fully described in para 1 of the present petition. S. Surjit Singh is the real brother of S.Satjit Singh. S. Surjit Singh purchased the disputed property for a consideration of Rs. 13,400.00 as a benamidar for the petitioner S.Sa...
Tag this Judgment!