Delhi Court September 1995 Judgments
Home Cases Delhi 1995 Page 17 of about 167 results (0.019 seconds)Devi Ram Vs. Dewan Singh and ors.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 59(1995)DLT820
Manmohan Sarin, J. (1) The petitioner has filed this revision petition against an order dated 27th June, 1995 passed by Ms. Indermeet Kaur Kochhar, ADJ. in Suit No. 59/95 titled Devi Ram v. Dewan Singh and Others, whereby the respondent No. I was allowed to proceed with the construction in the house bearing No. 1309/90, Shanti Nagar, Tri Nagar, Delhi hereinafter referred to as the suit property. The impugned order was passed on an application under Section 151 Civil Procedure Code . of the respondent. The learned Additional District Judge while fixing a date for reply to the said application, permitted the respondent No. 1 to proceed with construction. (2) On 11th July, 1995 when this petition had come up for admission, this Court had directed the parties to maintain status quo with regard to the property and stayed the operation of the impugned order dated 27th June, 1995. Counsel for the respondent has filed reply to the revision petition together with the documents relied in support...
Tag this Judgment!Shambu P. Jaisinghani Vs. Kanayalal P. Jaisinghani and ors.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 60(1995)DLT1; 1995(34)DRJ704
S.D. Pandit, J. (1) Shambu P. Jaisinghani has filed this petition to obtain probate as regards the Will executed on 1.9.1960 by his mother Smt.Puribai, widow of Late Shri Prem Chand Jaisinghani. (2) Petitioner Shambu P. Jaisinghani and respondents 1 & 2, viz. Kanayalal P. Jughani and Nanikram P. Jaisinghani are real brothers and sons of late Puribai widow of Late Shri Prem Chand Jaisinghani. In the year 1960 she was residing at Bhusawal with her son defendant no.1 and she was owning properties in Delhi and Udaipur. (3) By her Will dated 1.9.1960 she bequeathed the property bearing Block No.28, House No.175, Lajpat Nagar, New Delhi, in favor of her son Kanayalal P. Jaisinghani, respondent No.1, whereas House No.1OO-C. Prasad Nagar, Udaipur is bequeathed by her in favor of the petitioner Shambu P. Jaisinghani. It was the last Will of Late Smt.Puribai and the same was registered in the office of the Sub-Registrar, Bhusawal, District Jalgaon, Maharashtra. (4) It is the further claim of the...
Tag this Judgment!Anant Raj Agencies Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Rajinder Jaina
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 60(1995)DLT336
Devinder Gupta, J.(1) This is plaintiff's suit for recovery of possession and arrears of rent and interest thereon besides future damages. (2) The defendant was directed to be served with summons for 12th April, 1994. The defendant was personally served with summons Along with copy of plaint on 25th January, 1994. On 12th April, 1994, Mr. Vipul Maheshwari, Advocate appeared for the defendant and undertook to file power of attorney and written statement within four weeks. The case was directed to be posted for 10th August 1994 for admission/denial of documents, on which date defendant did not put in appearance. Written statement and power of attorney were also not filed. The case was posted in Court on 23rd September, 1994, on which date also nobody appeared for the defendant. The accordingly was proceeded against ex-parte. Plaintiff was called upon to adduce ex-parte evidence, which the plaintiff has done by filing an affidavit of Shri Anil Sarin, Director of the plaintiff and has been...
Tag this Judgment!Essex Farms Pvt. Ltd. and anr. Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 60(1995)DLT474
Devinder Gupta, J.(1) These are two applications, one by the plaintiffs under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure (in short 'the Code') for injunction directing the defendant to provide access to the plaintiffs, their agents, employees, patrons and other visitors to/from the South gate of the property on the street connecting Panchsheel Marg and Azad Apartment/Kalu Sarai Road and restraining them from, in any manner, interfering with and/or obstructing ingress and egress of the plaintiffs from the South gate up to the public street. The other application is under Order 39 Rule 4 of the Code filed by the defendant for vacating the ex parte order of injunction which was granted in mandatory form. (2) The plaintiffs in the suit have alleged that plaintiff No. I and late Shri R.N. Goyle owned and possessed the premises bearing No. 4, Aurobindo Marg, New Delhi. Plaintiff No. 2 is one of the heirs of Shri R.N. Goyle. Plaintiff No. I is engaged in the business of manufacturi...
Tag this Judgment!Vimla Vs. Kusum Lata and anr.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 60(1995)DLT115
Manmohan Sarin, J.(1) This revision petition is filed against an order dated 26.4.1995, by which the learned Civil Judge, dismissed the suit for permanent injunction, filed by the petitioner. The learned Civil Judge held that the suit was meritless without any cause of action. (2) The facts in brief leading to the filing of the present revision petition are as under:- (i) The petitioner and the respondent No. 1. were the joint owners of a two and half storyed house bearing No. B-134, Dera Ismail Khan Cooperative House Building Society Limited, Delhi. (ii) The petitioner and respondent No. 1, carried out a partition of the above property in terms of which the petitioner and respondent No. 1 were left with 50% undivided share each in the freehold land admeasuring 268.22 Sq. yards. The petitioner became the absolute owner of the structure on the ground floor together with mezanine floor as shown in Red colour in the plan attached to the partition deed. The respondent No. 1 became the abso...
Tag this Judgment!Ajay Sood Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1995IVAD(Delhi)329; 60(1995)DLT502
P.K. Bahri, J. (1) The challenge in this writ petition is to the appointment of respondent No. 3 to the post of Assistant Professor (Endocrinology and Metabolism) and for directions to respondents 1 & 2 to appoint the petitioner to the said post.(2) Facts, in brief, are that there was only one post available in that category which was advertised and both, petitioner and respondent No. 3, amongst others had applied for that post and the Selection Committee had prepared the panel for the said post and had placed respondent No. 3 at No. I and petitioner at No. 2 with the recommendation that both the candidates are of high merit and, if possible, another post may be created to which the petitioner may also be appointed. But, unfortunately, the authorities could not possibly create any post in which the petitioner could be accommodated. The petitioner and respondent No. 3 undoubtedly possess brilliant academic record and it is not necessary to give details of the academic careers of both of...
Tag this Judgment!C.P. Gupta Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1995IVAD(Delhi)10; 60(1995)DLT222; 1995(35)DRJ271
P.K. Bahri, J. (1) The petitioner has brought this writ petition seeking quashment of the order dated August 11, 1995 by which she has been repatriated to her parent department and also for declaration that she be deemed to have been absorbed permanently in the post of Director of the Institute for Physically Handicapped under the Ministry of Welfare and for direction that respondents be restrained from repatriating her to her Parent Department in future. (2) Facts leading to the filing of the present petition, in brief, are that a post of Director had fallen vacant in the said Institute for Physically Handicapped and an advertisement was issued inviting applications for appointment on transfer on deputation basis or on term contract for five years. Petitioner, who was holding a permanent post as Deputy Director of Training in the Directorate General of Employment & Training, Ministry of Labour, had applied for the said post of Director. After the interview, she was duly selected and w...
Tag this Judgment!