Delhi Court March 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.
Lahori Mal and Sons and anr. Vs. Union of India and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-01-1996
Reported in: 1996IAD(Delhi)1057; 62(1996)DLT268
Manmohan Sarin, J. (1) The plaintiff No. 1 firm is an advertising agent and has filed this suit for perpetual injunction to restrain the defendants from demolishing or in any manner defacing or damaging the advertisements/hoardings put up by the plaintiff firm. Plaintiff No. 2 is partner of the firm. The case of the plaintiffs is that they had entered into contracts with the Northern Railway for display of the hoardings/advertisements at the sites belonging to the Railways. (2) The particulars of the contracts as given in para 6 of the plaint as per information furnished thereafter are :- ____________________________________________________________________________ SI. Site Reference No. of Date from which No. the defendants the site is in possession of the plaintiff & date of expiry of contract. ____________________________________________________________________________ 1. Park Office, 3 Pub./3199 28.11.1994 Rest House on & State Entry Road. 14.1.1996 2. Shadipur Bridge 3 Pub./2860 3....
R.S. Arya Vs. T.R. Dewan
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-01-1996
Reported in: 1996IAD(Delhi)940; 1996(36)DRJ673
S.K. Mahajan, J. (1) The plaintiff filed this suit for specific performance of an agreement to sell dated August 26, 1995 whereby the defendant had agreed to sell plot No.63-D, Dilshad Garden-1, Delhi - 110 095 for a total sum of Rs.7,95,000.00 . A receipt dated August 26, 1995 was executed by the defendant acknowledging a sum of Rs.20,000.00 in cash and Rs.75,000.00 by means of a cheque towards sale consideration of the said plot. In terms of the said receipt, last date for registration of the sale deed was October 15, 1995 and it is also stated that thereafter the agreement would be invalid. On October 12, 1995 the plaintiff handed over two cheques for Rs.3,22,500.00 and Rs.3,77,500.00 towards the balance sale consideration of Rs.7,00,000.00 . One of the said cheques, however, for Rs.3,77,500.00 when presented to the bank was dishonoured. The case of the plaintiff is that after the said cheque had been dishonoured, he went to the residence of the defendant on October 15, 1995 and off...
Jasso Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-01-1996
Reported in: 1996IIAD(Delhi)437; 1996(37)DRJ119
Jaspal Singh, J. (1) Jasso, Ratto and Moti were convicted by the learned Additional Sessions Judge under Section 326 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and each one of them was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years. Aggrieved by the said judgment of conviction and order of sentence they filed this appeal. However, Jasso and Moti are. already dead. (2) Balraj (Public Witness 2) is the injured. PW1 Ram Prashad is his father while Sita Devi (PW4) is his mother. This is how the prosecution version unfolds itself from the evidence given by the said three persons.(3) While Ram Prashad was in his house, the appellants came there and made a demand for Rs.500.00 and threatened to stab him in case their demand was not met. They were all armed. When Ram Prashad expressed his inability to meet the demand the appellants grappled with him and fell him on the ground. Soon thereupon Balraj and Sita Devi also came there and when Balraj and Sita Devi tried to intervene Ja...
Amar Singh Chawalwala Vs. Shree Wardhman Rice and General Mills
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-01-1996
Reported in: 1996(37)DRJ97
R.C. Lahoti, J.(1) The plaintiff has filed a suit for permanent injunction restraining infringement of trade mark, passing off and for rendition of accounts, recovery of damages, etc. An application for the grant of ad interim injunction has also been filed in the suit.(2) According to the plaintiff, the plaintiff firm is engaged in the selection, processing and marketing of rice since the year 1952. In the year 1954, the plaintiff adopted Golden Qilla ( word per se) and also device of Qilla as its trade mark so as to indicate its connection with trading in rice. In the year 1961, the plaintiff similarly adopted Lal Qilla (word per se) and also the device of Lal Qilla as its trade mark. In the year 1977, the plaintiff also adopted Neela Qilla and the device of Qilla as its trade mark in rice trade. The plaintiff has been continuously and extensively using the said trade marks and has acquired considerable reputation in connection therewith. Vide para 7 of the plaint the plaintiff has s...
V.K. Bhatnagar Vs. Municipal Corporation of Delhi
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-01-1996
Reported in: 1996IIAD(Delhi)279; 63(1996)DLT837; 1996(37)DRJ121
M.S.A. SIddiqui, J. (1) By this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioner seeks the following reliefs:- A)issue writ of mandamus and or any other writ order or direction directing the respondent not to interfere with the lawful commercial activities being carried out by the petitioner in the premises in dispute; B)and to issue writ of mandamus and or any civil writ or appropriate direction directing the respondent No.1 and 4 to issue the requisite licences for carrying on the trade and business of Hotel and Resorts, to the petitioner in the premises in dispute; C)to issue an appropriate any other order direction directing the respondent No.3 not to charge any penalty/charges surcharge over and above the one they are entitled to under the law for utilising the premises in dispute for commercial purpose; D)to issue appropriate writ order or direction directing the respondent No.2 not to prosecute the petitioner for utilising the premises in dispute for commer...
Alka Vs. R.K. Gautam
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-01-1996
Reported in: 1996IIAD(Delhi)4; AIR1996Delhi276; 62(1996)DLT109; 1996(37)DRJ167
Dalveer Bhandari, J.(1) This appeal is directed against the judgment of the learned Single Judge passed in Fao 169/92. The learned Single Judge affirmed the judgment and order passed by the learned Addl. District Judge, and dismissed the appeal. BRIEF facts necessary to dispose of this appeal are recapitulated hereinunder. (2) The appellant and the respondent belong to the medical profession. They got married on 27th November, 1986 when the appellant was preparing for her final year examination of Mbbs at Meerut, U.P. The respondent Dr. R.K. Gautam had filed a petition for dissolution of marriage on the ground of cruelty under Section 13(1)(i-a) of the, Hindu Marriage Act, 1959, amended by the Amendment Act, 1976. Section 13 (l)(i-a) of the Act reads as under: '13.Divorce. (1) Any marriage solemnised, whether before or after the commencement of this Act, may, on a petition presented by either the husband or the wife, be dissolved by a decree of divorce on the ground that the other part...
S.A. Jawad Vs. Delhi Municipal Corporation
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-01-1996
Reported in: 63(1996)DLT152; 1996(38)DRJ186
J.K. Mehra, J.(1) This is an appeal filed by the landlord against the decision of the Rent Control Tribunal whereby the said Tribunal had reversed the findings of the Additional Rent Controller and had dismissed the petition of the landlord for eviction of the Municipal Corporation of Delhi, respondent in the present proceedings. The ground for eviction was covered by clause (j) of proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 14 of Delhi Rent C'onlrol Act, i.e., causing substantial damage to the demised premises wherein Additional Rent Controller had found it in favor of the landlord and had come to the conclusion that it was during the tenancy of the Municipal Corporation of premises wherefrom it was running a Municipal school that extensive damage to the building look place as a result whereof it was rendered dangerous for use and Municipal Corporation through another department of Municipal Corporation of Delhi itself got the premises demolished instead of carrying out repairs and restorin...
Vijay Mendiratta Vs. N.D.M.C.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-01-1996
Reported in: 1996IIAD(Delhi)290; 1996(37)DRJ181
M.S.A. Siddiqui, J. (1) The petitioner seeks quashing of the impugned assessment order fixing the annual rateable value of the plot No.1 & 2, Opposite Block No.7, Old Double Storey, Lajpat Nagar -IV, New Delhi-110024, at Rs.l4,00,000.00 with effect from 1.4.1988. (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 Apex Court in Dr. Balbir Singh's case : [1985]152ITR388(SC) .(3) It is relevant to note here that the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act is a complete code in itself. It lays down the procedure for assessing ...
Murti Sh. Jagan Nathji Vs. Delhi Administration
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-01-1996
Reported in: 1996IIAD(Delhi)285; 63(1996)DLT784; 1996(37)DRJ61
M.S.A. Siddiqui, J. (1) This is a petition by Murti Jagan Nath Ji Maharaj through Mahant Sharda Ram under Article 226 of the Constitution for a direction that respondents be restrained from demolishing the remaining property of the petitioner situated on Khasra Nos. 148, 149, 151 and 152 and dispossessing the petitioner from the land comprising in the said khasra numbers except by due process of law. (2) The claim of the petitioner is that he has been in possession of the land comprising of khasra No.148 and 151 as an owner for more than 60 years. In the year of 1926, the Sardar Kanoongo, Nazul Officer, Delhi claimed land comprising of Khasra No. 148 as Nazul property but the said claim was negatived by the Secretary, Notified Area Committee, Fort Delhi vide letter Annexure D. Thereafter, Tehsildar Nazul, Delhi Improvement Trust (predecessor-in-interest of the respondent No.2) and the Cpwd, New Delhi claimed the said property as Government property but their claims were rejected by the...
Santosh Tuli Vs. Ram Nath Passi
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-01-1996
Reported in: 1996IAD(Delhi)952; 62(1996)DLT151; 1996(38)DRJ188; (1996)113PLR7
Dalveer Bhandari, J. (1) The appellant Smt. Santosh Tuli, the youngest daughter of late Shri Labh Chand Passi, who passed away on 26th of January, 1983, intestate, leaving behind two daughters, two sons and a widow, filed a civil suit for partition in this court. In the plaint filed by the appellant, it is stated that her late father owned a house in Karol Bagh over a plot of 150 sq.yds. There are two shops in this building. One shop is with Lamba Jewellers on a monthly rent ofRs.l50.00 , and in the other shop, defendant no. I and 2 are running their business of book selling and publication in the name and style of Rama Brothers book sellers and Rama Brothers Public divison. Both sons of Labh Chand Passi and his widow arc living in the said house. During the pendency of this petition, the appellant who was the plaintiff in the suit moved an application for compromise under Order 23 Rule 3, Civil Procedure Code . (2) The suit had been compromised between the parties before the learned s...
- ‹ Prev
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 16
- 18
- Next ›
- Last »