Delhi Court August 1995 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.
Ashok Kumar Vs. Sanjeev Gupta and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-01-1995
Reported in: 1995IIIAD(Delhi)773; 1995(2)ARBLR397(Delhi); 59(1995)DLT720; 1995(34)DRJ531
N.G. Nandi, J. (1) In the suit requiring defendants 1 & 2 to render true and correct accounts of the dealings on behalf of the plaintiff and upon such true and correct rendition of accounts, a decree for recovery of the amounts, so determined and found due and payable to the plaintiff and requiring defendant No.3 to take effective action against defendants 1 & 2, defendants 1 & 2, by this LA., under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act, pray for the stay of the proceedings in this suit requiring the plaintiff to be directed to approach defendant No.3, Delhi Stock Exchange, for appointment of the arbitrator in accordance with the law.(2) It is the say of the plaintiff that the plaintiff is a member of Kanpur Stock Exchange and the plaintiff started having dealings with defendants 1 & 2, who are the members of Delhi Stock Exchange (Defendant No.3), from September 1990,that dealings of purchase and sale of shares continued till February 1992 and during this period, large transaction has take...
Pooja Films Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Motion Pictures Association
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-01-1995
Reported in: 1995IVAD(Delhi)205; 60(1995)DLT438
Devinder Gupta, J.(1) This is plaintiff's application under Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure seeking an injunction against the defendant during the pendency of the suit restraining the defendant from interfering in the sale and exclusive right of the plaintiff in respect of thedistribution; exhibition and exploitation of picture Dostana and further restraining the defendant from refusing to grant permission to run the picture in Delhi and U.P. and from issuing any circular to members for not running the said picture Dostana and from withdrawing any prints on this pretext. An injunction in mandatory form has also been claimed directing the defendant to forthwith deliver the prints collected by the defendant from Kumar Cinema (Bareilly),Miglani Cinema (Moradabad) and Nishat Talkies (Meerut).(2) The plaintiff has filed the suit alleging that it is engaged in the business ofdistribution, exhibition and exploitation of cinematographic films in Delhi ...
Sanjay Gupta Vs. Vinod Kumar Gupta and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-01-1995
Reported in: 1995IIIAD(Delhi)737; 1995(34)DRJ558
ORDER5 is applicable to situation under Order 37 Rule 3(1). Rule 3(2) would arise only after the defendant enters appearance. thereforee, the words in the sub rule 'the address given by him for such service' are important.(30) The Joint Registrar passed the order on 3.8.94 that the second defendant had been served and had entered appearance and summons for judgment was affixed in the office. thereforee, there is compliance with the sub rule.(31) Besides this, in the instant case first defendant is the real person contesting. He is only an alias for defendants 2 and 3. thereforee, defendant No. 2 though a company can not through a different person as a director feign ignorance about the proceedings.(32) I have gone through the averments in the petition and IA.7605/94. I do not find any reason worthy of acceptance to condone the delay of 55 days in filing the application for leave to defend.(33) There is also IA.7747/94, filed by the second defendant, to condone the delay in filing the a...
H.P. Singh Vs. Union of India and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-01-1995
Reported in: 1995(35)DRJ317
Lokeshwar Prasad, J.(1) The petitioner, who is a member of the Border Security Force (hereinafter referred to as `The B.S.F.'), has filed the present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The main grievance of the petitioner is that despite the fact that the state of his health required immediate specialised treatment by the specialists of the All India Institute of Medical Sciences (hereinafter referred to as `the AIIMS'), New Delhi, his request for his leave was declined and he was not permitted to leave for Delhi by the concerned authorities of the B.S.F. (2) On the other hand the case of the respondents, in brief, is that as the petitioner has to face trial for over stayal of leave, he could not be granted leave and permission to leave for Delhi as requested by him and that he could be granted leave and permission to leave Delhi after the conclusion of the above said trial. (3) We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the ...
J.R. Balan Vs. M.L. Mehta
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-01-1995
Reported in: 1995(35)DRJ231
Manmohan Sarin, J.(1) The petitioner has filed this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, assailing the order dated 17.5.1995 passed by Shri M.L. Mehta, Civil Judge, Tis Hazari, Delhi. By the impugned order dated 17.5.1995 the learned Civil Judge had rejected the respondent's application for reviewing the order dated 15.4.1995. The learned Civil Judge by order dated 15.4.1995 had directed that the fresh summons be issued to the defendant in the suit filed under Order 37 of Code of Civil Procedure. (2) The petitioner's grievance is that the trial court in terms of order V Rule 19-A Civil Procedure Code . was required to declare that the summons have been duly served on the defendant and proceed to decree the suit in the absence of an application for leave to defend. (3) The facts giving rise to this petition may briefly be stated as under:- (I)THATthe petitioner had filed a suit under Order 37 Civil Procedure Code . for recovery of Rs. 53,200.00 against one Smt. B.Ban...
Biba-chem Private Ltd. Vs. Hi-tech Carbon and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-01-1995
Reported in: 1995IIIAD(Delhi)1047; 1995(34)DRJ520
S.K. Mahajan, J. (1) This order will dispose of the application under Order 39 Rule I and 2 filed by the plaintiff for an injunction restraining defendant No.1 from enforcing bank guarantee No.4/90 and No.1/91 forRs. l0,00,000.00 and Rs.5,00,000.00 respectively and defendant No.2 bank from acting thereupon as also the application of defendant No.1 under Order 39 rule 4 for vacating the ex-parte stay granted in favor of the plaintiff on 4th January, 1993, whereby defendant No.1 was restrained from enforcing the aforesaid two guarantees.(2) In short, the facts of this case are that vide letter dated 29th June, 1988, the plaintiff was appointed the sales agent of defendant No.1 on the terms and conditions as contained in the said agreement. The designation as mentioned in the said letter for the plaintiff was 'Consignment Agent'. Under the terms of the agreement, the plaintiff was to sell the products of defendant No. I and it was to be paid commission at the rates agreed between the part...
Mahavir Aluminium Ltd. Vs. Sprinkler India Company and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-01-1995
Reported in: 60(1995)DLT443
Devinder Gupta, J. (1) Plaintiff is a company engaged in the manufacture of sale of sprinkler, irrigation sets and portable pipeline systems with their factory in the industrial area Bhiwadi, District Alwar, Rajasthan and this suit has claimed a decree for Rs. 5,61,185.56 against the defendants. As per the averments made in the plaint, defendant No. I was appointed as a dealer in the State of Maharashtra under an agreement dated 5.11.1986. Terms of agreement with commission payable are incorporated in para 5 of the plaint. It is the plaintiff's case that after appointment of the defendant as a dealer, he had been placing orders on the plaintiff in regard to the supply of sprinkler, irrigation sets and portable pipeline system and maintained with the plaintiff an open and current account in the regular course of business. The plaintiff supplied material from time to time to the defendant as per terms of the agreement. Certain disputes were raised by the defendant as regards supplies mad...
Radhe Krishan Aggarwal Vs. Chandrawati and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-01-1995
Reported in: 60(1995)DLT59
S.K. Mahajan, J.(1) This order will dispose of the application of the plaintiff for interim injunction for restraining the defendants from in any manner transferring, disposing or alienating the suit property. Facts of the case is short are that the plaintiff is seeking specific performance of the contract dated 30th June, 1993 alleged to have been executed in his favor by the defendants for sale of the factory premises constructed on 400 sq .yards in Khatoni No. 66, Khasra No. 28 /10/ 3 in the extended lal Dora of village Barwala, Delhi - 110 039. Injunction has also been sought restraining the defendants from transferring or alienating the said factory premises. The case as set up in the plaint is that M/s. Delhi Wire Industries, which was a partnership-firm, were tenants in respect of the aforesaid factory premises at a rent of Rs. 850.00 p.m. under defendant No. 1. Defendant No. 2 is the husband of defendant No. 1 and is also stated to be her general attorney. As attorney of defend...
Dev Arora Vs. Super Parts Pvt. Ltd. and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-01-1995
Reported in: 60(1995)DLT67
S.K. Mahajan, J.(1) This suit has been filed for recovery of Rs. 2,93,627.40 paise on the allegations that the plaintiff-company is carrying on business of metal processing, Chemical plating, that the defendants approached the plaintiff sometime in the year 1980 for getting their gas stoves, burners, etc. processed, finished and nickel plated from the plaintiff to which the plaintiff is stated to have agreed. It is stated that the plaintiff executed various jobs for the defendant up to November, 1985 and submitted bills for the work done Along with periodical statement of accounts. The defendant used to make payments after adjusting their counter demands and checking the statement of account. It is stated that as per the statement of account dated 1st April, 1985 forwarded by the plaintiff, a sum of Rs. 2,58,988.22 paise was due from the defendants. The said amount is stated' to have been accepted to be payable by the defendant for the jobs carried out by the plaintiff. However, certai...
Union of India Vs. Panipat Foods Ltd. and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-01-1995
Reported in: 60(1995)DLT258
K. Ramamoorthy, J.(1) On 14tn of April 1980 there was an agreement between the petitioner Union of India and the respondent M/s. Panipat Foods Ltd. with respect to the supply of tinned vegetable fruits/Dehydrated foodstuff. The contract provided for extension of time in delivery period on payment of liquidated damages. According to the respondent owing to acute shortage of power and non allocation of diesel in Haryana, the respondent could not make the supply on or before 14th of May 1980 and the respondent made a request for extension of time up to 14th of June 1980 and the same was agreed to by the petitioner-Union of India on payment of liquidated damages of 0.2% per month. The respondent by its letter dated 10th of June 1980 requested the petitioner to grant another extension of one month's time from 14th of June 1980 to 14th of July 1980. (2) By letter dated 20th of June 1980 the petitioner granted extension subject to payment of liquidated damages up to 30th of June 1980. The res...
- ‹ Prev
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 15
- 16
- Next ›
- Last »