Delhi Court May 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.
G.S. Fateh Vs. Custodian General of Evacuee Property
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-01-1996
Reported in: 1996(37)DRJ514
Dalveer Bhandari, J.(1) The present Letters Patent Appeal has been filed under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent Act, against the judgment and order dated 30.3.1971 passed by S. Rangarajan, J. in Writ Petition no.321-D/61, quashing the order of the Assistant Custodian (Judicial) Mr. R.A. Avasthi dated 13th January, 1961 and that of the Deputy Custodian General Mr. Y.L. Taneja, dated 11th April, 1961 and 27th April, 1961.(2) Brief facts which are necessary to appreciate the controversy involved in the case are recapitulated as under:-(3) The dispute between the parties in the instant case relates to 8 plots no.ll42, 1143, 1152, 1156, 1309, 1114, 1332, 1344, situated in village Galibpur, District Muzaffarnagar,U.P.(4) Two persons, namely, Mohd. Zikriya and Mohd. Khan were the tenants of the plots mentioned above. The tenancy rights of these persons were taken over as Evacuee Property under the U.P. Administration of evacuee property Ordinance no.1 of 1949.(5) Zahid Hussain, respondent no.3...
Chatter Bhuj Vs. Municipal Corporation of Delhi
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-01-1996
Reported in: 1996(37)DRJ603
M.S.A. Siddiqui, J.(1) By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioner seeks a direction to the respondent No. I and 2 to perform their statutory duties and stop any unauthorized/illegal construction on 1st and 2nd floor of the property No. EA-114, Inderpuri, New Delhi and to demolish the unauthorised construction alleged to have been made on the 1st and 2nd floor of the said building by the respondent Nos. 3 to 6.(2) Brief facts leading to filing of this writ petition are that the petitioner purchased the ground floor of the property No. Ea - 114, Inderpuri, New Delhi from its previous owner Mrs Sonia Gupta through the registered deed dated 12-6-1995. The respondent No. 4 S.K. Chopra purchased the first and 2nd floor of the said building through a registered sale deed dated 4-1- 1995. According to the petitioner the respondent No. 3 to 6 unauthorisedly commenced construction work on 1st and second floor of the said property without obtaining any sanction and des...
Union of India Vs. S.P. Timber Industries
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-01-1996
Reported in: 1996IIIAD(Delhi)584; 1996(37)DRJ415
Manmohan Sarin, J.(1) The petitioner/objector has filed I.A.12421/92 being objections under Section 30 and 33 of the Arbitration Act, against the award made and published by the arbitrator, Sh. Shiv Prakash on 7-5-1990. I.As. 12422/92 is an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, seeking condensation of delay of 396 Jays in filing the objections. The petitioner has also filed an additional affidavit in support of the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act.(2) Let me notice the facts in brief:- THE Director General of Supplies and Disposals appointed Sh. Shiv Prakash, Additional Legal Adviser, Ministry of law, New Delhi as the sole arbitrator on 13-1-86, to decide the dispute that had arisen between the petitioner and respondents with regard to the contract contained in A/T No.TP-l/107/66/055/10.5.76/006/107/117 006/107/117 ,118 & 119/2.7.77/ 128/Rep/516/PACD dated 8.8.80. The learned arbitrator has made and published the award in respect of the claims and counter ...
Vishnu Bhagwan Mittal Vs. Renu Mehta
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-01-1996
Reported in: 1996IIIAD(Delhi)575; 1996(37)DRJ529
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 the grant of an injunction as well as the application of the defendant under Order 39 Rule 4 Civil Procedure Code for vacating the ex parte order of injunction and also the application under Section 151 Civil Procedure Code filed by the defendant for permission to carry on the construction.(2) The plaintiff has filed this suit on the allegations that defendant No.1 was allotted the plot in question by the DLF; that defendant No.1 sold the said plot to one Smt.Vidya, defendant No.6 by a registered sale deed and by a registered general power of attorney, she appointed defendant No.5 as her general attorney. It is alleged that the plaintiff along with his wife purchased plots of 100 sq.yds. each from defendant No.5, general attorney of defendant No.6 and the remaining 300 sq.yds. plot was purchased by defendant No.3, defendant No.2 and defendant No.4 in equ...
Sushil Sharma Vs. the State (Delhi Administration) and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-01-1996
Reported in: 1996CriLJ3944
Usha Mehra, J.(1) The awareness of what is happening around in the society to a great extent is the work-force of journalists. Mature investigative journalism helps in unearthing many skeletons Democratic institutions are surviving, thanks to the eternal vigilance of the journalists. But for journalists also there is code of conduct and ethical norms. The task to keep restraint in pending matters is expected more from the investigating and prosecuting agencies. Similarly the Judge dealing with sensitive and important matters have to exercise due restraint in their utterances. It is rightly said that the Judge speak through their judgments only keeping this dictum in mind, we have to see as to what is the grievance of this petitioner. (2) Sushil Sharma is facing murder trial before the Additional Sessions Judge. He has felt aggrieved because according to him the news items appearing in the Press and the electronic media having reported the Naina Sahni murder case in such a fashion that ...
M.S. Associates Vs. Commissioner of Police and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-01-1996
Reported in: 62(1996)DLT638
Usha Mehra, J.(1) Petitioner M/s. M.S.Associateshas assailed the order dated 26th December, 1995, p assed by the Commissioner of Pol ice under Section 144 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (In Short Cr.P.C.) thereby prohibiting lottery trade in Delhi w.e.f. 28th December,1995. This order was passed because it was apprehended that sale of lottery tickets and the connecting activities are likely to cause disturbance of the public tranquillity and public morale and breech of peace and danger to human life and property in the National Capital Territory of Delhi (in short Nct of Delhi). This order was to remain in force for a period of 60 days i.e., up to 25th February^ 996 unless withdrawn earlier. Subsequent thereto the Govern- ment of Nct of Delhi issued a Notification published in Part-IV of Delhi Gazette (Extra Ordinary) dated 28th February, 1996 indicating therein that order of 26th Deember, 1995 made by Commissioner of Police, Delhi shall remain in force for a further period of six m...
Ram Prakash and anr. Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-01-1996
Reported in: 1996IIIAD(Delhi)113; 62(1996)DLT628
Usha Mehra, J. (1) This petition has been directed by Sh. Ram Prakash and Ashutosh, petitioners herein, against the order dated 18th December,1995 passed by the Special Executive Magistrate. Ram Prakash, petitioner No. 1 is retired Professor from the Institute of Public Administration, Delhi. Petitioner No. 2 is Managing Director of a Company known as Best Power, a Unit of General Signal. They are father and son. Petitioner No. 1 is owner of House No. B-48, New Delhi South Extension, Part-1, New Delhi. Second floor of the said premises belonging to petitioner No. 1 had been let out to one Sh. D.N. Srivastava. The said portion which was let out consists of one room attached with W.C. and bath on Barsati Floor. Petitioner No. 1 kept with him two rooms, one kitchen, two bath and WCs and about 150 sq.ft. terrace in his possession. Since the tennant, Sh. D.N. Srivastava did not pay the rent and obtain illegal electric connection without paying electricity charges and unauthorisedly occupied...
K. Krishnaswamy Vs. Municipal Corporation of Delhi
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-01-1996
Reported in: 1996IVAD(Delhi)198; 63(1996)DLT943; 1996(39)DRJ116; (1996)114PLR55
Manmohan Sarin, J. (1) The plaintiff has filed the above suit inter alias for permanent and mandatory injunction seeking to restrain the defendant No. 1 Mcd from interfering in the peaceful enjoyment of property No.8A/63 Wea Karol Bagh, New Delhi. The Commissioner of police, has been imp leaded as defendant No.2 as its staff provided protection to defendant No. 1 for demolition. (2) The plaintiff's grievance emanates from action taken by the officials of the defendant No.1, to. demolish the unauthorized construction in property in suit on 22-3-1995. The plaintiff claims that demolition was carried out in his absence after breaking open the doors. The plaintiff has produced on record the photographs showing part demolition. The plaintiff's allegation is that the demolition was carried out without any notice to the plaintiff and in the evening after sunset. The plaintiff also lodged a FIR. The plaintiff claims that this is at the behest of vested interests, who wanted the plaintiff to se...
Allied Distributors (P) Ltd. Vs. Baljeet Singh
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-01-1996
Reported in: 1996IIIAD(Delhi)260; 62(1996)DLT632; 1996(37)DRJ658
Manmohan Sarin, J. (1) The plaintiff company has filed the present suit under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act alleging that though being lessee under a registered lease deed, they were illegally and wrongfully dispossessed on 29-8-1994 by defendants 1 and 2. (2) One of the questions that would arise for consideration is that if the defendants are to he restrained from alienating or patting with possession of the suit property during the trial of the suit, whether the plaintiff should be put to any terms so as to secure defendants against loss in ease it ultimately fails in the suit. (3) Me look at the facts in some what more detail:- (I)The plaintiff company has instituted the suit through it director, Sh. Karan Luthra. The plaintiff case is that it was looking for rental accommodation in South Delhi and one property dealer Sh. Rohtas Yadav informed the plaintiffs director that ground floor of property No. 8-2/13 Safdarjang Enclave was available for being let out if the plaintiff ...
Gochwal Leasing and Finance (P) Ltd. Vs. Harish Chand Jhamb
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-01-1996
Reported in: 1996IIIAD(Delhi)718; 1996(37)DRJ497
S.N. Kapoor, J. (1) This Fao is directed against an order dated 28th February 1996 passed by learned Single Judge rejecting is No. 774/95 for injunction restraining the respondent/ defendant from creating third party interest in respect of one-sixth share in the property bearing No. R-7B Green Park Extn., New Delhi, which was agreed to be sold, and from forcibly dispossessing the plaintiff/appellant from the first and second floor and the incidental areas attached to the suit property in suit No. 1749/95 filed for specific performance and injunction.(2) The learned Single Judge took the view that alleged Receipt-cum-Agreement was prima facie a forged document as nobody would sell property worth Rs.two crores for a paltry sum of Rs. 6,20,000.00 ; the appellant was acting in collusion with brother of respondent/defendant; and the appellant/plaintiff had come forward with a false case. The learned Single Judge has rejected the application and also imposed a cost of Rs. 10,000.00 to be pai...
- ‹ Prev
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 16
- 17
- Next ›