Delhi Court February 1996 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.
Raksons Leasing and Finance Limited Vs. Kulbir BhasIn and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-01-1996
Reported in: 1996IAD(Delhi)736; 61(1996)DLT752
Manmohan Sarin, J. (1) The petitioner M/s. Raksons Leasing & Finance Limited Company have filed this petition under Section 20 of the Arbitration Act for directions for filing of the arbitration agreement containing in the lease agreement RLF/KBB/403/87 dated 18th April, 1987 and for reference of the disputes and claims enumerated in para 13 of the petition to the named Arbitrator. (2) That the petitioner-Company vide the lease agreement dated 18th April, 1987hired a Maruti Van to the defendant No.1. The defendant No. 1, as per the terms of the lease agreement to pay lease rental of Rs. 2564.00 in thirty-six monthly installments. Respondent No.2 had signed as a guarantor to the said agreement. (3) Notices of the petition were issued to respondent No. 1 and respondent No. 2. The respondent No.1 was served for 8th September, 1994 through his wife Mrs. Prema Bhasin and respondent No.1 was served for 31st January, 1991 through his wife Mrs. Amita Bhasin. inspire of service and repeated opp...
Attar Singh and Bros. Vs. Delhi Development Authority
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-01-1996
Reported in: 1996IAD(Delhi)747; 1996(37)DRJ484
Manmohan Sarin, J. (1) This is a petition filed by the petitioner under Section 20 of the Arbitration Act praying that this Court be pleased to appoint an independent arbitrator to adjudicate upon the disputes or direct defendant No.2 i.e. appointing authority to appoint an arbitrator to adjudicate in terms of the arbitration agreement..(2) The facts giving rise to the present petition are somewhat peculiar. Mr. S.C. Kaushal, Superintending Engineer arbitration had been appointed the arbitrator vide communication bearing No.EN12(18)/92/Arbn/9136-40 dated 25-6-1992. The arbitrator entered upon reference and commenced the proceedings.(3) It appears that during the hearing on 11-5-1993, petitioner claimant expressed his unwillingness to proceed with the matter before the arbitrator. The arbitrator thereupon closed the case and sent the case file NO.ARB/SCK 1 to the Engineer Member vide his communication bearing No.F.(Retnd.)/SE-Abn.II/DDA/185 dated 20th May, 1993. It is in these circumsta...
Kochhar Construction Works Vs. Delhi Development Authority
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-01-1996
Reported in: 1996IAD(Delhi)821; 1996(36)DRJ748
K. Ramamoorthy, J. (1) The arbitrator published the award on 30th of August 1994 awarding a sum of Rs. 10,78,859.95 with simple interest at 12% per annum from the date of the award till actual payment. The Delhi Development Authority had filed objections to the award. In all the arbitrator has considered 16 claims.(2) Delhi Development Authority has filed the objections I A.2355/95. On claim No. 1 a sum of Rs. 4 lakhs on account of final bill was claimed. The arbitrator having considered the matter in detail awarded the sum of Rs. l,14,177.00 In the objection petition, it is stated that on this claim no reasons have been given by the arbitrator and, thereforee, it is in violation of clause 25 of the contract and accordingly the award is liable to be set aside. (3) I do not find any substance at all in the contention. thereforee, the objection made by the Delhi Development Authority in regard to claim No. I is rejected and the award on this claim is confirmed.(4) On claim No. 2, a sum o...
Altos India Ltd. Vs. Goyal Gases Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-01-1996
Reported in: 1996IAD(Delhi)998; 62(1996)DLT161; 1996(36)DRJ533
S.K. Mahajan, J. (1) By an agreement dated 18th March 1991, respondent No.1 had given on lease to the petitioner certain equipments/computers. Disputes having arisen between the parties under the agreement, a reference was made by respondent No.1 to one Sh.P.C-Jain vide letter dated 13th August, 1993. The petitioner challenged the validity of the appointment of Sh.P.C-Jain and also challenged the validity of the reference on the ground of the same being unilateral and arbitrary.(2) However, as the arbitrator was continuing with the reference, the petitioner filed the present petition under Section 5 read with Section 2(c) of the Arbitration Act for revocation of the authority of the appointed arbitrator and for superceding the reference.(3) One of the objections taken in the petition was that the agreement was vague and uncertain about the identity of the alleged arbitrators mentioned in the agreement. If was stated that the arbitration agreement only mentioned the name of one Sh.P.C.J...
Motor and General Finance Limited Vs. Prem Shankar Singh and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-01-1996
Reported in: 61(1996)DLT772
Manmohan Sarin, J. (1) This is a petition filed under Section 20 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 for filing of the arbitration agreement and for reference of the disputes to the named Arbitrator. The petitioner Company had entered into an agreement bearing No. 28/S/P.9676 T1 dated 20th September, 1982 with defendant No.1. The petitioner Company vide the said agreement hired out a second hand bus bearing registration No. Dlp 6731 now No. Utn 905 to the respondent No. I under the said hire purchase agreement. The respondent No.2 signed the hire purchase agreement as guarantor for and on behalf of respondent No.1, The agreement was entered into for a total sum of Rs. 1,25,000.00 which included the value of the vehicle at Rs. 90,000.00 and hire purchases charges for 24 months at Rs 32,400.00 and insurance charges of Rs. 2600.00 . The respondent No.1 was to pay the said amount in 24 installments as per schedule B to the agreement. (2) The petitioner allegation is that the respondent No.1 faile...
Mahesh Kumar Monga Vs. Rishi Raj and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-01-1996
Reported in: 1996IIAD(Delhi)441; 61(1996)DLT850
Manmohan Sarin, J. (1) This is an application under Order Xiv Rules 2 and 5 Cpc by defendant No. 5 for framing of additional issues. The case of the defendant is that when issues were framed on 4th September, 1995 the Counsel for defendant No. 5 was not present and the pleas taken by the defendant No. 1 were only considered. The pleas and objections taken by the applicant/defendant No. 5 were not considered,while framing of issues. (2) The plaintiff and defendant No. 1 were served with the notice of IA. No reply was filed. Counsels desired instead to argue the matter. (3) Learned Counsel for the defendant/applicant defendant No. 5 contends that apart from the issues already framed the following four additional issues be framed:- 1. Whether the suit has not been properly valued for the purpose of Court fees and jurisdiction and this Hon'ble Court has no pecuniary jurisdiction to try and decide the present suit? 2. Whether the plaintiff has not paid the proper Court fees for separate rel...
P.N. Magan Vs. Karma Processors (P) Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-01-1996
Reported in: 63(1996)DLT134; 1996(36)DRJ640
Manmohan Sarin, J.(1) The plaintiffs one Sh. P.C. Magon and Sh. D.K. Magon have instituted the above suit for permanent and mandatory injunction, seeking inter alias a decree of permanent injunction restraining the defendant No.1 Company M/S. Karma Processors pvt. Ltd., from transferring the shares allotted to the plaintiffs in favor of defendant Nos.2 and 3 i.e. Sh. F.C.Dhawan and Sh. Rakesh Dhawan, and also from removing the plaintiffs from the post of the Managing Director and Director. (2) The plaintiff Nos. 1 and 2 claim to have substantial shareholding in the defendant No.1 Company. It is averred in the plaint that since the plaintiffs were involved also in the other running business in Agra, the defendant Nos. 2 and 3 who were also directors, were also called upon to look after the affairs of defendant No.1 Company. It is alleged that actions of defendant Nos. 2 and 3 were detrimental to the interest of the share holders of defendant No.l. Disputes had arisen between the parties...
Pioneer Publicity Corporation Vs. New Delhi Municipal Committee
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-01-1996
Reported in: 1996IIAD(Delhi)576; 1996(36)DRJ637
Manmohan Sarin, J. (1) This is an application filed by the plaintiff under Order Xxxix rules 1 and 2 Cpc, Along with the suit for perpetual injunction seeking inter alias to restrain the defendant No.1- New Delhi Municipal Committee now New Delhi Municipal Council, from demolishing, defacing, damaging or interfering in any manner with the advertisements/ hoardings put up by the plaintiff as detailed in annexure P-1 to the plaint.(2) The plaintiffs case is that it had entered into a contract with defendant No.2 i.e. Northern Railways for display of hoardings at the sites owned by the latter. The plaintiff states that after due approval from defendant No.2 Northern Railway, it had put up the hoardings and had duly paid the entire rental for the same to the Northern Railways. The plaintiff had also paid the advertisement tax to defendant No.1. Once the said tax was paid, no impediment could be created by defendant No.1 in the display of advertisements/hoardings.(3) The suit was filed in S...
Co-operative Stores Vs. B.D. Sharma
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-01-1996
Reported in: 61(1996)DLT794; 1996(37)DRJ148; 1996RLR257
N.G. Nandi, J. (1) E.A. No. 34/95 This Ea under sections 47 and 151 read with Order 41, Rules 97 and 101 Civil Procedure Code is by three applicants, stating themselves to be the bonafide occupiers of shops No. 213, 211 and 211A at Mohan Singh Market, popularly known as I.N.A. Market near Safdarjang Hospital, New Delhi, further stating that on 21.1.1995, the applicants learnt that the officials of the Cooperative Stores Ltd. had come to the shop for executing the decree of ejectment against one Mr. B.D.Sharma, New Prominent Tailors & Drappers, Vijay Sales Corporation, Bharat Bag House, Super Stitch Tailor and Janata Tea House.(2) As far as this Ea is concerned, it is the say of the applicants that they are in bonafide occupation of the shops in question since 1987; that the shop of the Dh is situated at 10 paces away from the premises in question; that the applicants spent money to renovate the shops in question and made the same habitable after considerable expenses and that in 1988, ...
Sandeep Kohli Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-01-1996
Reported in: 1996IAD(Delhi)813; 61(1996)DLT720; 1996(36)DRJ471
Vijender Jain, J. (1) By this petition (Crl.M.3245/95) under Section 482/483 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (in short 'Cr.P.C.') read with Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners/applicants inter alias prayed for quashing of orders dated 9th June, 1995 and 8th August, 1995 passed by the Metropolitan Magistrate, New Delhi. (2) This petition came up for hearing before my learned brother A K Srivastava, J., who listed this matter for appropriate orders before Hon'ble the Chief Justice to be listed before me as the Criminal Miscellaneous (Main) No-820/95 filed under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C. was disposed of by me vide order dated 8th May, 1995, that is how this petition (Crl.M-3245/95) was listed before me. (3) MR.R D Mehra, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, has contended that after passing of the order dated 8th May, 1995 by this Court, orders passed by the Metropolitan Magistrate dated 9th June, 1995 and 8th August, 1995 could not have been passed. By i...
- ‹ Prev
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 14
- 15
- Next ›
- Last »