Delhi Court September 1995 Judgments
Home Cases Delhi 1995 Page 15 of about 167 results (0.022 seconds)M/S. Jagjit Cotton Textiles Ltd. and Others Vs. Col. A.K. Malhotra
Court: Delhi
Reported in: AIR1996Delhi165; 1995(35)DRJ16
ORDERAnil Dev Singh, J. 1. This is a Regular First Appeal against the judgment and decree passed by the learned single Judge in Suit No. 548/83, dated April 9, 1991 whereby the respondent-plaintiff has been held entitled to a decree for possession in respect of premises No. C-243, defense Colony, New Delhi and has also been held entitled to damages @ Rs. 1500/- per month for the use and occupation of the premises by the appellant-defend ants from the date of institution of the suit till the possession is delivered to the plaintiff-respondent. The facts giving rise to this appeal are as under:--2. Respondent is the owner of house No. C-243, defense Colony, New Delhi. The respondent and appellant No. 1 entered into a leave and license agreement, Ex. P-62, in respect of the premises in question.3. By virtue of the agreement the first appellant was given license to use the premises for residence of any employee and his family or for purpose of company's resident house for a period of three...
Tag this Judgment!Jagdish Prashad Sharma Vs. C.B.i.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1995IVAD(Delhi)97; 1996CriLJ946
A.K. Srivastava, J.1. This is a petition on behalf of one Jagdish Prashad Sharma allegedly involved under Sections 420/467/468/471 IPC read with Section 120B relating to FIR No. RC 1 (S)/95 registered by the Central Bureau of Investigation on 20-1-95. 2. Before dealing with this petition on merits it would be appropriate to state some facts which have emerged during the course of arguments and are relevant for disposal of the petition. The petitioner Jagdish Prashad Sharma came to be a tenant in the first floor of House No. N-224, Greater Kailash Part I of one Smt. Manjit Kaur on 1-1-1981. There was some dispute about rent and the same went to the adjudication of Rent Control Authorities and ultimately the rent was fixed at the rate of Rs. 435/- per month though, according to the landlady Smt. Manjit Kaur, the premises were taken at a rent of Rs. 1,800/- per month. The ground floor of the said house was on rent with some third person but later on it came into possession of the landlady...
Tag this Judgment!M. Thandani Vs. Road Transport Corporation Pvt. Ltd. and Another
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 60(1995)DLT558
Mr. S.D. Pandit, J. 1. This petition is filed by Mr. M. Thandani and Mr. H. T. Thandani under Sections 8 and 20 of the Arbitration Act. 2. The petitioners have before this court with the case that defendant M/s. Road Transport Corporation (Pvt.) Ltd. has entered into a contract between the plaintiffs on 16th of December, 1982 and pursuant to the said contract, the defendant No. 1 came in occupation of possession of the ground floor of property bearing No. 1-C, Ram Nagar, New Delhi with agreement to pay license fee of Rs. 2200/- per month. The period of license was agreed to be running between 1.10.1982 and 31st of August, 1983. The said agreement also contained the clause that in the event of any disputes or differences arising between the plaintiff and defendant No. 1 then Mr. R. P. Sharma, Advocate would be the sole Arbitrator who was to give his decision on the disputes between the parties. It is the claim of the plaintiff that after the expiry of the license period the defendant No...
Tag this Judgment!Nisith Kumar Banerjee Vs. S.L. Bhayana and anr.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1995IVAD(Delhi)143; 60(1995)DLT172; (1996)112PLR17
Manmohan Sarin, J. (1) The petitioner by this petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution is assailing the order dated 6th October, 1994, passed by the Additional District Judge returning the plaint for being presented before the appropriate Court having Jurisdiction to entertain it. The petitioner also assails the order dated 3rd July, 1995, dismissing his application for review of the order dated 6.10.1994.(2) The facts in brief relevant for the present petition may be stated :- (i) The petitioner in the capacity of sole executor and trustee to the trust estate of late Shri Surendra Nath Bose, filed a suit seeking a decree of declaration for award of damages as also the quantification of the amount of damages so declared, and payment thereof to the petitioner of the amount of damages so declared and quantified. Interest was also claimed. (ii) The allegation in the plaint is that late Shri Brojendra Chandra Chakravarty was a tenant of the estate of the trust of late Shri Sure...
Tag this Judgment!New Delhi Durga Puja Samiti and ors. Vs. New Delhi Kali Bari and ors.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1995IVAD(Delhi)232; 60(1995)DLT371
Manmohan Sarin, J.(1) The appellants have filed this appeal against the order dated 13.9.1995, passed by Ms. Indermeet Kaur, Additional District Judge, Delhi, dismissing the application under Order Xxxix, Rules I and 2 Civil Procedure Code seeking to restrain the respondents, from organizing the annual Durga Puja, at the New Delhi Kali Bari premises. (2) The facts leading to the filing of the appeal are as under:- (I)The appellant No. 1 is a Samiti i.e. an association of persons, comprising Bengali Hindus. The appellant No. 2 is the General Secretary of the appellant No.1 Samiti, while the others are the members of the Executive Committee of the Samiti. The sole function of the appellant No.1 Samiti and its members, is to celebrate the annual Durga Pu)a with the traditional gaiety, reflecting the culture and religion of the Bengali Hindus. The appellant Samiti submits that since the yeal: 1935, it has been organising the annual Durga Puja at the Kali Bari temple, premises of the respon...
Tag this Judgment!Rajesh Ahuja Vs. Manoj Mittal and anr.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 60(1995)DLT101; 1995(34)DRJ661; (1995)111PLR61
ORDERxxxvII Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure makes Section 79 and Section 80 of the Negotiable Instruments Act specifically applicable to a case Filed under Order xxxvII. Hence, in suits on hundis Filed under Order xxxvii, where there is no agreement to pay interest in the document, statutory interest can be allowed under Section 80 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and the admission of the allegations in the plaint under Order xxxvii Rule 2 cannot refer to the award of interest which is specifically provided in Clause (a)'(12) Thus, I am unable to accept the contention of the learned counsel for the defendants that the present suit is not governed by the provisions of Order xxxvii because the plaintiff has made a claim of interest. No doubt the plaintiff has claimed interest @24% but under Section 80 of the Negotiable Instruments Act he is entitled to claim interest only @18%,but merely because of the same the suit filed by the plaintiff could not be said to be not tenable, as ha...
Tag this Judgment!Jagdish Prasad Sharma Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 60(1995)DLT689
A.K. Srivastava, J. (1) This is a petition on behalf of one Jagdish Prashad Sharma allegedly involved under Sections 420/467/468/471 Indian Penal Code read with Section 120B relating to Fir No. Rc 1(S)/95 registered by the Central Bureau of Investigation on 20.1.95. (2) Before dealing with this petition on merits it would be appropriate to state some facts which have emerged during the course of arguments and are relevant for disposal of the petition. The petitioner Jagdish Prashad Sharma came to be a tenant in the first floor of House No.N-224, Greater Kailash, Part I of one Smt. Manjit Kaur on 1.1.1981. There was some dispute about rent and the same went to the adjudication of Rent Control Authorities and ultimately the rent was fixed at the rate of Rs. 435.00 per month though, according to the landlady Smt. Manjit Kaur, the premises were taken at a rent of Rs. 1,800.00 per month. The ground floor of the said house was on rent with some third person but later on it came into possessi...
Tag this Judgment!Jai Bhagwan and anr. Vs. Ramesh Chander and ors.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: I(1996)ACC228; 1997ACJ363; 1995IVAD(Delhi)393; 61(1996)DLT155
C.M. Nayar, J.(1) The present appeal is directed against the award dated December 21, 1981 of Shri O.P.Dwivedi, Judge, Motor Accident Claims Triound Delhi (2) The brief facts aie the on May 31, 1977 the appellant Jai Bhagwan came out from Delhi Cloth Mills after finishing his duties at about 2.30 p.m. and was going to Najafgarth Road. After crossing the road, he was proceeding towards Moti Naga on his bicycle when bus No. DHP-101, driven rashly and negligently by respondent No. I, came front the .-'idacf Moti Nagar and after over to king another vehicle, cum to the wrong suit of the road and violently bit the appellant as a result of which he suffered injuries it was alleged that respondent No. 1 who was driving the bus did not blow any horn The appellant suffered injuries.. extreme mental pain and agony and remained hospitalised for quite a long time. He suffered serious head injuries and injuries on other parts of the body as a result of which he had been rendered permanently disable...
Tag this Judgment!Rupee Gains Tele-times Private Ltd. Vs. Rupeea Times
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1995(35)DRJ30
S.K. Mahajan, J. (1) This order will dispose of the application of the plaintiff under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 Civil Procedure Code for the grant of an order of injunction restraining Dr.Vinod Kumar, owner, publisher, editor and proprietor of 'RUPEE TIMES' from using the trademark 'RUPEE TIMES' in respect of journal, newspaper or any other trademark which is identical with and/or deceptively similar to the trademark 'RUPEE GAIN' allegedly belonging to the plaintiff. Further injunction is sought against the defendant from using the trademark 'RUPEE TIMES' so as to pass off its journals as that of the plaintiff. (2) The facts of this case in short are that M/s.R.B.G.Freelancers Private Limited were engaged in the publication and sale of a bimonthly financial journal under the name and style of 'RUPEE GAINS' since 1986; the name of the said company was subsequently changed to Rupee Gains Tele Times Private Limited; this journal is reported to have been registered with...
Tag this Judgment!Delhi Labour Union Vs. Union of India
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1995(35)DRJ132A; [1995(71)FLR874]
Y.K. Sabharwal, J. (1) Rule D.B. (2) In spite of nearly ten months having elapsed, counter-affidavit has not been filed. We are not inclined to grant any further time. (3) The Central Government by impugned order dated 28 June 1993 has refused to make reference of industrial dispute raised by the petitioner with the management of All India Radio in respect of the workman Suraj Bhan on the only ground stated in the impugned letter that the Supreme Court has granted stay of operation of judgment of the Madhya Pradesh High Court, holding All India Radio to be an `industry' under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. We are afraid the ground on which reference has been refused by the Central Government is wholly extraneous, irrelevant and unsustainable in law. Accordingly the impugned order dated 28 June 1993 is set aside with a direction to the Central Government to re-consider the matter afresh within two months of the receipt of the order from this Court. The Rule is made absolute in the a...
Tag this Judgment!