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.
The General Marketing and Manufacturing Co. Ltd. Vs. Union of India
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-12-1996
Reported in: 62(1996)DLT215; 1996(37)DRJ277; 1996RLR175
Arun Kumar, J.1. In the disputes arising between the parties Justice D. R. Khanna, a retired Judge of this court, had been appointed as an Arbitrator vide order dated 26th July, 1993 passed by this court. The learned Arbitrator published his award on 19th April, 1994 and through a letter bearing the same date the award and the proceedings were forwarded by the Arbitrator to this court. The award along with proceedings was actually filed in this court on 22nd April, 1994. A copy of the letter of the Arbitrator dated 19th April, 1994 forwarding the award to this court appears to have been delivered to the petitioner by the Arbitrator. On 25th April, 1994 the learned Counsel for the petitioner wrote a letter to the Union of India through Directorate General of Supplies and Disposal, Jeewan Tara Building, Parliament Street, New Delhi informing about the filing of the award in this court by the Arbitrator on 22nd April, 1994. The counsel for the petitioner further called upon the Union of I...
Parduman Kumar Jolly Vs. State and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-12-1996
Reported in: 1996IIAD(Delhi)520; 62(1996)DLT154
M.S.A. Siddiqui, J. (1) This is an appeal against the judgment dated 30th May, 1994 of the Additional District Judge, Delhi in Probate Case 298/93. The learned lower Court vide the impugned judgment allowed the petition filed by the respondent No. 2 under section 278 of the Indian Succession Act and granted letters of Administration in his favour. (2) The facts in the present appeal are that the respondent No. 2 filed a petition under Section 278 of the Indian Succession Act for grant of letters of administration with respect to the Will dated 27.7.1977 executed by his mother Smt. Leela Wanti. The testatrix died on 28.1.1981 loving behind the appellant and the respondents - Shri P.D. Jolly respondent No. 2' Shri Tilak Raj Jolly respondent No. 3, Shri Sudesh Kumar Jolly respondent No. 4, Late Shri O.P. Jolly and Shri Durga Dass Jolly respondent No. 6 as her sons and three daughters. During her life time she had executed the Will in question whereby two immovable properties belonging to ...
Collr. of Cus. Vs. Gobind Figured and Wired Glass
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Feb-09-1996
Reported in: (1996)(86)ELT606TriDel
1. Along with the appeal the Revenue has filed the captioned application for condonation of delay in preferring the appeal.2. Arguing on the application No.C/COD/32/95-D Shri Sanjeev Sachdeva, Ld. SDR submitted that the impugned order-in-appeal was communicated on 19-5-1994 (wrongly mentioned as 26-5-1994 in C.A. 3 Form - Appeal Memo and the appeal was filed on 10-2-1995 by Speed Post. Ld. SDR submitted that on receipt of the impugned order-in-appeal due to some mistake copy of the order was sent to Appraising Group in place of sending it to the Review Cell of the Customs House and, therefore, it was not put up before the Collector for orders for filing the appeal and the order was obtained on 3-2-1995 for filing the appeal against that order. He further submitted that when asked by the Bench to give the detailed chart in support of the application for condonation, the Collector has stated that the ceiling of top roof of the Appraising Section collapsed in mid June, 1994 due to heavy ...
Rakesh Khanna Vs. Vishwanath Khanna and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-09-1996
Reported in: 62(1996)DLT131
Devinder Gupta, J. (1) This is a petition under Section 8(1)(b) of the Arbitration Act, 1940; hereinafter referred to as 'the Act', wherein prayer made is to appoint an Arbitrator to fill up the vacancy created on the refusal to act by one of the Arbitrators and to pass such other order, as may be deemed fit in the facts and circumstances of the case. (2) The parties to the petition are members of the same family. The petitioner Rakesh Khanna and respondents 2 and 3, Shri Rajesh Khanna and Shri Mahesh Khanna are the three sons of respondent No. 1, Shri Vishwanath Khanna. Respondent No. 4, Smt.Brij Rani Khanna is their mother and wife of Shri Vishwanath Khanna. Respondents 5,6 and 7 respectively are the wives of respondents 2,3 and the petitioner. Respondents 8 and 9 are the two sons of respondent No. 2. The entire controversy between the parties, which is subject matter of this petition along with other two connected petitions, namely, O.M.P.46/94 titled as Rakesh Khanna v. Vishwanath ...
G.L. Singh Vs. Surjit Kaur
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-09-1996
Reported in: 1996IAD(Delhi)881; 63(1996)DLT765; 1996RLR202
Arun Kumar, J. (1) This is an application under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act filed by the defendant. The plaintiffs have filed a reply to this application contesting the same. The suit of the plaintiff is for partition of property No. K-72 situated in the Manufacturers' Co-operative Industrial Estate Limited, Udyog Nagar, Rohtak Road. Delhi-41. The suit plot had been allotted to a firm styled M/s. Ramco of which plaintiff No. I and his mother Mahinder Kaur (since deceased) and the defendant were partners. A copy of the partnership deed dated 1st June, 1979, has been filed as Annexure 2 to the application of the defendant under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act. The said partnership deed contains a Clause No. 15 according to which in case of any dispute or difference of opinion whatsoever amongst the partners, the same shall be settled according to the Arbitration Act as applicable from time to time. Apart from the said partnership deed , defendant applicant has also annexed a phot...
Anil Kumar Khurana Vs. Municipal Corporation of Delhi
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-09-1996
Reported in: 1996IAD(Delhi)749; 1996(36)DRJ558; 1996RLR140
ORDER In partial modification of office order No. 38/Bldg. dated 5. 9. 1977, priorities of demolition of unauthorised construction will be as under: FIRSTPRIORITY; A) Cases of unauthorised construction of commercial nature such asmarkets, offices, godowns which have been dismissed/remanded from the courts. B) Unauthorised construction of commercial nature including, cases. where unauthorised structure was demolished and has beenreconstructed. C) All cases of commercial as well as residential nature where sanction ofbuilding plans is revoked. D) Unauthorised construction of new colonies on green agricultural land/private land. E) Unauthorised construction of residential nature which has been dismissed from the court, including the cases of unauthor is edconstruction which affect rights (light, ventilation, passage etc. ofneighbors) . SECONDPRIORITY A) Cases of unauthorised construction effected by any structure or coming in the right of way of the road. B) Unauthorised constructio...
R.K. Aneja Vs. Delhi Development Authority and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-09-1996
Reported in: 1996IAD(Delhi)897; 61(1996)DLT757
Devinder Gupta, J. (1) In the suit instituted on 5th March, 1979, the plaintiff prayed for grant of a decree for declaration that the orders of defendant in making a demand of Rs. 47,111.00 with interest in respect of plot No.112, Block No. A/M, (Dakshani) Shalimar Bagh Residential Scheme, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as 'the plot') and subsequently its cancellation and forfeiture of the amount and reauctioning the same is illegal, without jurisdiction and wrongful. As a consequential relief the plaintiff prayed for the restoration of the allotment of the plot in question. (2) There was an office objection as regards Court fee payable on the plaint. Plaintiff sought amendment by moving I.A.785/79, which was allowed ex parte on 12th March, 1979, since defendant had not yet been summoned. In the amended plaint dated 8th March, 1979 the following prayer was made :- 'A declaratory decree be granted in favor of the plaintiff and against the defendant that the re-auction of the plot No...
Jagmohan Kapur Vs. Manmohan Kapur
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-09-1996
Reported in: 1996IAD(Delhi)933; 62(1996)DLT25; (1996)113PLR29
Devinder Gupta, J. (1) This application was filed on 2nd April, 1995 by defendant No.1, in which following prayers have been made :- '(A)restrain the plaintiff from deploying its Huf funds for the purposes of inter se bidding; (b) restrain the plaintiff from depositing in this Hon'ble Court Fdr Bonds, securities standing in the name of third parties (including Lips Publications Pvt. Ltd.) as a security for the purposes of inter se bidding; (c) divide the property after conversion into freehold in such a manner as both the defendant and the plaintiff get two independent three-bed duplex units with individual titles and complete rights of ownership; (d) direct an open auction instead of inter se bid between the plaintiff and the defendant No.1.'(2) The plaintiff on 5th July, 1985 filed suit for partition of movable and immovable properties. Immovable property sought to be partitioned is D-43, defense Colony, New Delhi. On 21st November, 1988, the case came up for framing of issues. Issue...
Anil Kumar Khurana Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-09-1996
Reported in: 62(1996)DLT313
Y.K. Sabharwal, J.(1) I had the advantage of reading the opinion of my learned Brother K. Ramamoorthy. I am in respectful agreement with the conclusions reached by brother Ramamoorthy that all the appeals and writ petitions deserve dismissal. In his judgment Brother Ramamoorthy has dealt with various aspects of the matter in great detail as also the decisions cited before us. Considering, however, the gravity of unauthorised construction and misuse and numerous cases which come up before Courts seeking injunction relating to such constructions, I would notice few salient facts of these cases. (2) The unauthorised construction and unauthorised user of residential building for commercial purposes in Delhi has gained alarming proportions and crossed all limits. At the very outset I may state that these activities are against the interests of the Society at large and need to be dealt with firmly. (3) The common questions of fact and law are involved in these batch of writ petitions and app...
G.S. Puri Vs. Indian Oil Corporation
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-09-1996
Reported in: 1996IAD(Delhi)669; 62(1996)DLT438; 1996(36)DRJ433; (1996)IILLJ573Del
J.B. Goel, J.(1) Rule D.B. (2) Both the parties have filed detailed pleadings and also documents in support of their respective contentions. We have heard learned counsel for the parties at great length and we proceed to decide this petition finally. (3) The petitioner was appointed in respondent No.1 Corporation as Assistant Cashier in April, 1966 and in due course was promoted as Accountant in 1984 and at the relevant time he was posted at Jammu office of respondent No.1 as Accountant. He was transferred from Jammu to Udaipur vide office Order dated 20.12.1993 which was duly served on him and in pursuance thereof he was relieved from there on 22.12.1993. He did not report at Udaipur. On the other hand he made representation dated 22.12.1993 against this transfer which was followed by 2/3 more representations but his request was not acceded to and he was directed to report for duty at Udaipur which he did not do. A charge sheet dated 8.9.1994 was issued for not complying the transfer ...
- ‹ Prev
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- Next ›
- Last »