Delhi Court December 1995 Judgments
Home Cases Delhi 1995 Page 13 of about 128 results (0.020 seconds)Gurmeet Singh Grewal Vs. Parma Nand R. Soniche
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1995(35)DRJ701
N.G. Nandi, J.(1) In this suit for perpetual injunction, seeking to restrain the defendants from dispossessing the plaintiff from the land comprised in Khasra No.25/1, totally admeasuring (4-16) situated within the revenue estate of Village Devli, National Capital Territory of Delhi, the plaintiff by is No. 4719/95 under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 Civil Procedure Code seeks to restrain the defendants from interfering, in any manner, with the enjoyment of the actual physical cultivatory possession of the suit land pending the hearing and disposal of the suit. (2) In the plaint, it is averred that the plaintiff is the recorded Bhoomidar in possession of the agricultural land, comprised in Khasra No. 14/21 situated within the revenue estate of Village Devli, Tehsil Mehrauli in National Capital Territory of Delhi since the purchase on 18.10.82; that defendant No.1 is the recorded Bhoomidar of the land comprised in Khasra No. 25/1 (4-16), situated within the revenue estate of Village Devli, Tehsil...
Tag this Judgment!Roshanara Begum Vs. Union of India
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 61(1996)DLT206; 1996(36)DRJ34
P.K. Bahri, J.(1) A large number of writ petitions have been referred for being decided by this Full Bench as all of them involve some important common questions of law besides some writ petitions having, in addition, certain additional points for decision. We shall, at first, deal with the disputed questions of law and facts which arc common to all the petitions and thereafter shall deal with individual cases with regard to their additional points.(2) The challenge in all these writ petitions is to the acquisition proceedings pertaining to the land belonging to the petitioners in pursuance to the various notifications issued from time to time for the common public object of planned development of Delhi. The Master Plan of Delhi, which came into force in 1962, in its Introduction, gives the broad background in which it became necessary to have the growth of the city planned in a more scientific and modern way. As indicated in the Master Plan, in order to check the haphazard and unplann...
Tag this Judgment!Manraj Singh Bindra Vs. P.S. Kahai
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1995(35)DRJ666
S.K. Mahajan, J. (1) This order will dispose of the application of the plaintiff under Order 39 Rule 7 Civil Procedure Code for a direction to defendant No.2 not to pay rent of the ground floor of the property to defendant No.1 but to pay the same to the plaintiff.(2) The facts in short are that Smt.Inder Kahai and defendant No.1 were the joint owners of property No.13, Rajdoot Marg, New Delhi. Smt.Inder Kahai expired on 23rd March, 1990 at Delhi leaving behind defendant No.1 her only son and Mrs.Mohini Bindra - her daughter. The plaintiff has filed this suit for partition of the suit property on the allegations that the deceased Smt.Inder Kahai had during her lifetime executed a 'Will' on 30th October, 1984 bequeathing her share in the property to him. The contention of the plaintiff, thereforee, is that he having become owner of one-half of the property by virtue of the 'Will' of the deceased Smt.Inder Kahai, he was entitled to get the property partitioned and to have separate posses...
Tag this Judgment!Jmp Manufacturingg Co. Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Delhi Development Authority
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1995(35)DRJ559
R.C. Lahoti, J. (1) This common order shall govern the disposal of two petitions as common questions of fact and law arise in the two. The property involved is shown in the site plan Annexure -C (in Cwp 4776/93). It appears to be one plot of land. The area covered by hatches belongs to M/S. Jmp Mfg. Co. Pvt Ltd., the petitioner in Cwp NO. 4776/93. The property situated on southern side, contiguous to the property above said belongs to M/S. Prem Chand Kapoor, Balram Kapoor and Kailash Kishore Kapoor, petitioners in Cwp 939/94. It is not disputed that this piece of land forms part of khasra No. 241, 242, 243, 244 245/1, situated in extended Abadi area of village Budhpur, Bijapur, Delhi. The construction of the petitioners is in progress which is sought to be sealed and demolished as unauthorised construction by the respondent DDA. The petitioners seek writ, order or direction prohibiting such demolition or sealing of the structure so far constructed on the above said piece of land.(2) Ac...
Tag this Judgment!B.G. Saraswat Vs. Engineers India Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 61(1996)DLT588; 1996(36)DRJ539; 1996LabIC1319
J.B.Goel, J. (1) Rule D.B. Both the parties have filed their detailed pleadings and have also Filed some documents in support of their respective cases. A short point is involved and we have heard the learned counsel for the parties and we are finally deciding this writ petition.(2) The petitioner was appointed as an Assistant Engineer with respondent No.1 (Engineers India Limited) since 14th December, 1983 and subsequently he was also promoted as Senior Engineer with effect from 1.7.1989.(3) While working with respondent No.1, the petitioner was appointed on deputation basis for a period of two years by State Trading Corporation of India (For Short STC) as Manager Electrical with effect from 13.6.1989. While working with Stc he did not attend his duty with effect from 2.7.1990 and on 3.8.1990 he was relieved by that office and repatriated to his parent department, i.e' respondent No.1. He did not join duty even there and was posted by respondent No.1 at their office at Gandhar. As he ...
Tag this Judgment!India Electric Works Ltd. Vs. Ram Kishan
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 61(1996)DLT479
K. Ramamoorthy, J.(1) On 15.4.1975, a Decree to; possession was passed by this Court. Ea No. 78/95 was filed by the Decree Holder. On 26.2.1995, the possession was delivered to the Decree Holder through Court. (2) One M/s. Nagpal Express Transport Pvt. Ltd. filed objections in Ea 96/95 claiming the right in the property. His Lordship Hon'ble Mr. Justice R.C. Lohati dismissed the Ea on 10.5.1995. (3) The Judgment Debtor Shri Ram Kishan filed objections claiming the right in the property in Ea 146/95. Ea 145/95 was filed for condoning the delay in filing objection in Ea 146/95. Tersely stated the objection by Shri Ram Kishan is that Laxmi Devi his wife is the owner of the property and she had filed Suit No. 425/ 94 on the file of Civil Judge (Shri S.K. Sharma, Civil Judge) Delhi against M/s Lica Pvt. Ltd who is the purchaser of the property from the Decree Holder. It is not stated in the petition under what capacity Laxmi Devi was in the possession of the property. (4) Miscellaneous Appl...
Tag this Judgment!R.K. Gupta Vs. Pink Co-operative Group Housing Society Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1996IAD(Delhi)182; 61(1996)DLT202
Manmohan Sarin, J.(1) This is an application under Order Ix Rule 7 Civil Procedure Code to set aside the ex parte order dated 23.5.1995. The facts culminating in the filing of this application may be briefly noted :- (2) The plaintiff has filed the present suit for recovery, of Rs. 14,99,018.00 (Rs. Fourteen Lakh Ninety Nine thousand eighteen only) in respect of the construction of the flats carried out for the society. The plaintiff was also directed to file exparte evidence by way of affidavit and documents were exhibitod. The defendant isa Cooperative Group Housing Society, the affairs of which an: presently being looked after by the Administrator, who had been appointed by the Registrar of Cooperative Societies. The present administrator also happens to be the Deputy Secretary (Home) in the Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi. (i) The plaintiff has claimed the suit amount which includes the amount of Rs. 8,78,711.00 (Rs. Eight Lakh Seventy Eight thousand Seven hundred...
Tag this Judgment!Dinesh Mathur Vs. O.P. Arora and anr.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1995IVAD(Delhi)1005; 61(1996)DLT577
Mohd. Sharnim, J.(1) The petitioner through the present petition under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure wants this Court to revise and set aside the judgment and order dated October 12,1995 passed by the learned Additional Senior Sub Judge whereby the judgment and order dated September 24,1994 passed by the Civil Judge was confirmed. (2) Brief facts which are necessary for the proper appreciation of the points involved in the present petition are as under: that the present petitioner is a partner of M/s. Lakshmi Restaurant, 7-G, Connaught Circus, New Delhi ( hereinafter referred to as the disputed property). Late Shri Mool Chand, grandfather of the petitioner was inducted as a tenant of the disputed premises by one Bhagat Ram, original lessee of the disputed property in the year 1937. Shri Mool Chand obtained a license for running the said restaurant from the Chief Commissioner, Delhi. He also procured a license for running a bar in the said restaurant. The said license being...
Tag this Judgment!