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.
S.S. JaIn Vs. Delhi Development Authority and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-01-1996
Reported in: 1996IIAD(Delhi)329; 63(1996)DLT46
K. Ramamoorthy, J.(1) The construction of Community Shopping No. 5 in Sector Vii, Rohini Phase I was a subject matter of contract between M/s. S.S. Jain & Co. (hereinafter called the contractor) and the Delhi Development Authority (hereinafter called the respondent). Dispute arose between the parties and as per the provisions in the contract, they were referred for arbitration to Shri R.K. Sundaram, Chief Engineer (Retd.). The Arbitrator passed the award on 14.1.91. The contractor filed a Suit No. 41 IA/91 under Sections 14 and 17 of the Arbitration Act for making the award rule of the Court. The respondent filed is 9302/91 under Sections 30 and 33 of the Arbitration Act for setting aside the award. In the petition, it js stated by the respondent that the agreement was executed on 12.5.86. The date of commencement of the work was fixed as 16.5.1986. The work was to be completed within four months. The contractor did not complete the work and consequently by letter dated 31.5.88, the re...
P.S. Aggarwal Vs. N.D.M.C.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-01-1996
Reported in: 61(1996)DLT883
M.S.A. Siddiqui, J. (1) The petitioner seeks quashing of the impugned assessment order fixing the annual rateable value of the 'Hotel Bright' at Rs. 5,60,348 .00 and 'Hotel Blue' at Rs. 2,97,840.00 less 10% respectively for the year 1995-96. (2) The validity of the impugned assessment order has been challenged on various grounds enumerated in the writ petition. The grounds of challenge are inter-connected and substantially relate to one matter i.e., measure for determination of the annual rateable value of the property in question. However, main grievance of the petitioner is that the taxing authority did not observe the law and failed in its duty to determine the annual rateable value of the property in question in accordance with the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in Balbir Singh v. M/s. M.C.D. : [1985]152ITR388(SC) . It is further stated that the impugned order is without jurisdiction and as such it is null and void. learned Counsel for the respondent raised a preliminary...
Indian Hotels Co. Ltd. Vs. New Delhi Municipal Committee
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-01-1996
Reported in: 1996IAD(Delhi)937; 62(1996)DLT96
M.S.A. Siddiqui, J. (1) The petitioner seeks quashing of the impugned assessment order fixing the annual rateable value of the Hotel Taj Palace, Inter Continental, Sardar Patel Marg, New Delhi at Rs.45,90,88,196.00 less 10% with effect from 1.4.1995. (2) The validity of the impugned assessment order has been challenged on various grounds enumerated in the writ petition. The grounds of challenge are inter-connected and substantially relate to one matter i.e., measure for determination of the annual rateable value of the property in question. However, main grievance of the petitioner is that the taxing authority did not observe the law and failed in its duty to determine the annual rateable value of the property in question in accordance with Section 6 of the Delhi Rent Control Act as directed by the Apex Court in Civil Appeal No. 42-44/87 New Delhi Municipal Committee v. East India Ltd. It is further stated that the impugned order is without jurisdiction and as such it is null and void....
G.N. Mehra Vs. International Airports Authority of India (iaai)
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-01-1996
Reported in: 1996IAD(Delhi)1042; 63(1996)DLT62; 1996(36)DRJ631
Manmohan Sarin, J.(1) The plaintiff has filed I.A. No. 1526/96 under Order Xxxix Rule 1 and 2 Cpc seeking inter alias to restrain the defendant from forcibly dispossessing him from the Travel Requisition Shop at the departure terminal, which the plaintiff claims to have been running since 1946. Further stay of the operation of the impugned order dated 23-1-1996 and communication dated 29-1-1996 of the defendant calling upon the plaintiff to vacate the Travel Requisition Shop immediately and calling upon him to remove his articles from the shop. I.A. 1531/96 has been filed seeking decaling of the shop which has been done by the defendant. (2) These applications have been filed in a suit for declaration and perpetual injunction, seeking declaration that the plaintiff cannot be evicted from the Travel Requisition Shop, (T.R Shop) except with due process of Law and compliance of provisions under the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act 1971. Permanent injunction is soug...
Ashok Rai Vs. Trilok Nath
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-01-1996
Reported in: 61(1996)DLT815
S.K. Mahajan, J. (1) This order will dispose of the application of the plaintiff under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 Civil Procedure Code for grant of an injunction restraining the defendant from causing any obstruction or interfering in any manner with the peaceful enjoyment by the plaintiff of the roof of the first floor of the premises being No. S-55, Panchsheel Park, New Delhi. The facts, in short, giving rise to the present controversy between the parties are that :- M/s. kaleen International of which plaintiff is the sole proprietor is a tenant under the defendant in respect of the first floor of the premises No. S-55, Panchsheel Park, New Delhi, open balcony, servant quarter on top of the garage block and terrace at a monthly rent of Rs. 2,500.00 p.m. The premises was let out to the plaintiff with effect from 1st March, 1987 at a rent of Rs. l,900.00 p.m. and since then the rent is being increased from time to time and the last rent is stated to be Rs. 2,500.00 p.m. It is alleged that ...
Shipra Singh Vs. New Delhi Municipal Committee
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-01-1996
Reported in: 62(1996)DLT120
M.S.A. Siddiqui, J. (1) The petitioner seeks quashing of the impugned assessment order fixing the annual rateable value of the property bearing No. 11/90, Connaught Circus, New Delhi at Rs.l5,14,533.00 less 10% for the year 1995-96.(2) The validity of the impugned assessment order has been challenged on various grounds enumerated in the writ petition. The grounds of challenge are inter-connected and substantially relate to one matter i.e., measure for determination of the annual rateable value of the property in question. However, main grievance of the petitioner is that the impugned assessment is vocative of the directions issued by the Appellate Authority as also against the judgment of the Supreme Court rendered in Civil Appeal No. 42-44/87 New Delhi Municipal Committee v. East India Ltd. It is further stated that the impugned order is without jurisdiction and as such it is null and void. Learned Counsel for the respondent raised a preliminary objection about maintainability of the ...
Ved Kumari Vs. Tarachand
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-01-1996
Reported in: 1996IAD(Delhi)870; 1996(36)DRJ646
Manmohan Sarin, J. (1) The plaintiff has filed this suit for partition of properties and separate possession of her share of the properties left by her deceased father. In the present lAs. restraint is sought against defendants 1 to 3, who are the brothers of the plaintiff from selling, alienating, transferring in any manner or creating any third party interest in the properties set out in para 2 of the plaint. 2. Let me briefly recapitulate the facts:- (I)The plaintiff is the daughter of late Shri Ram Prasad Arya and Smt. Sandhya Devi. Defendants 1 to 3 are the brothers of the plaintiff and sons of late Shri Ram Prasad Arya and Smt. Sandhya Devi, while defendants 4 to 7 are the sisters of the plaintiff and daughters of late Shri Ram Prasad Arya and Smt. Sandhya Devi. Late Shri Ram Prasad Arya expired on 17-12-1980. Smt. Sandhya Devi died in 1986. The plaintiffs case is that late Shri Ram Prasad Arya left behind the under mentioned properties:- (A)Property No-3821 to 3826 Ward No. Iii ...
Dhruv Goyal and ors. Vs. Anand Prakash Goyal and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-01-1996
Reported in: 62(1996)DLT403; (1996)113PLR49
S.D. Pandit, J. (1) This application is filed by the plaintiffs under the provisions of Order 40 Rule I read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure for appointment of a Receiver in respect of the suit properties. According to the plaintiffs after the filing of the present suit they have got some letter written by the original Defendant No. 1 Anand Prakash Goel and it indicates that defendant No. I Anand Prakash Goel has divided various shops as well as profits from the said shops between his sons, defendants 2 & 3, in exclusion of the plaintiffs. (2) The said deceased defendant No. 1 Anand Prakash Goel has executed a Will plaintiffs, defendants 2 &: 3 are acting against the interests of the Huf and, thereforee, it is proper and necessary to appoint a Receiver. (3) The claim of the plaintiffs is resisted by the defendants by filing their reply. They contended that shop Nos. 109 and 110, Palika Bazar, New Delhi are not the subject matter of the suit. As regards shop at Kamal Baz...
Rakesh Arora Vs. S.D. Technical Service (P) Ltd. and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-01-1996
Reported in: 61(1996)DLT852
K. Ramamoorthy, J. (1) The point involved in the two suits involves the construction of the Will dated 23.2.90 by one Ram Prakash Arora. The execution of the Will is admitted by the parties. Before I deal with the applications in the two suits and the reliefs to be granted in the two suits, a few facts have to be noticed. (2) Ram Prakash Arora married Phool Wati @ Janak Dulari. Four issues were born out of the wedlock : 1.Mrs. Raksha Arora (daughter) 2. Kanwal Kishore Arora (son) 3. Chand Kiran (pre-deceased son) 4. Sneh Prabha (daughter)(3) In the Will he bequeathed the properties, mentioned therein, expressing his intentions. We are concerned with only one property in the Will. Mrs. Raksha Arora filed Suit No. 3726/90. The plaint was presented on 30.11.90, four months after the death of the father Ram Prakash Arora on 25.7.90. The reliefs prayed for in the amended plaint are as follows :- (A)A decree for grant of prohibitory injunction may be granted in favor of the plaintiff and aga...
- ‹ Prev
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- Next ›