Delhi Court July 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.
Kataria Educational Society Vs. Vikas Puri (A-block) Welfare Associati ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-01-1996
Reported in: 1996IIIAD(Delhi)829; 1996(38)DRJ421
S.K. Mahajan, J. (1) The plaintiff Society, engaged in educational activities, is running a school in the premises at C-258, Vikas Puri, New Delhi-110 018. Delhi Development Authority [in short referred to as the 'Authority'] had formulated a scheme for allotment of Nazul land for different purposes including for schools and the plaintiff consequently applied for allotment of a plot of land for establishing a nursery school in the area. In March, 1994 the Authority on perpetual lease hold basis allotted a plot of land admeasuring 800 sq.mtrs. to the plaintiff Society for running a nursery school. As per requirement of the Authority, a sum of Rs.9,ll,787.00 was deposited by the Society and it requested for possession of land. After actual measurement at site, the plot of land came to be of 822.9 sq.mtrs. and an additional sum of Rs.26,100.00 was thereafter deposited on May 17, 1994 by the plaintiff Society. Possession of the plot is stated to have been handed over to the Society on May ...
Union Bank of India Vs. North India Electronics Pvt. Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-01-1996
Reported in: II(1996)BC389; 64(1996)DLT123
Manmohan Sarin, J.(1) The plaintiff Bank had instituted the above suit against the defendants on 1.6.1985 for recovery of Rs. 2,36,484.45p. (Rupees Two lakhs Thirty-six Thousand Four Hundred Eighty-four and paise forty-five only). The plaint has been signed, verified and instituted by Shri V.K. Gera, an officer of the plaintiff-Bank, having the power of attorney in his favour. (2) PLAINTIFF'S case in brief is that defendant No. I was a private limited company. Defendants 2 to 4 were its Chairman, Managing Director and Director respectively. (3) Defendant No. I had approached the plaintiff for grant of the Discount Bill Purchasing facility (hereinafter referred to as Dbp facility) in addition to other facilities being enjoyed by the plaintiff. Defendant No. I would give to the plaintiff several bills covering consignments of 'Telebird' brand televisions, two-in-one's, cassettes, etc. to its various customers, including M/s.Tip Top Steel Furniture works. Electronics Division, Hyderabad. ...
Brij Mohan Goel Vs. Om Parkash Goel
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-01-1996
Reported in: 1996IIIAD(Delhi)874; 1996(38)DRJ509
K. Ramamoorthy, J. (1) The matter is coming up for passing a final decree. The preliminary decree has already been passed declaring half share to the plaintiff and half share to the defendant. This court had appointed a Local Commissioner to prepare a plan and suggest modes of division by metes and bounds. The Local Commissioner had taken assistance of of an Architect. The premises consists of ground floor, first floor and second floor. (2) The entire ground floor is shown as A, B, C and D. E and F is the line showing in the plan where the Local Commissioner has suggested putting up a wall showing the division. (3) G and H is red line shown by the Local Commissioner for the division of the property on the ground floor inside the premises. On the top of G H line we see open courtyard. On the right hand side Hi a ventilation is shown. In the Courtyard division is suggested on the line Hi to H2. Mr. Maheshwar Dayal learned counsel appearing for the plaintiff fairly represented that the wa...
Rajiv Kumar Aggarwal Vs. Union of India
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-01-1996
Reported in: 1996IIIAD(Delhi)269; 63(1996)DLT183; 1996(38)DRJ95
R.C. Lahoti, J. (1) This order shall govern the disposal of Cwp Nos. 1420/94 and 2309/94. The property forming subject matter of the two petitions is main building of the property bearing No.4, situated at Keeling Road, now known as Tolstoy Marg, New Delhi (hereinafter - the said property, for short). At one point of time the rights in the property vested in late Shri Ballabdas Aggarwal. On his death the rights have devolved upon Rajiv Kumar Aggarwal, Shakuntala Devi Aggarwal, Govind Dass, Gopal Das and Venktesh Das Aggarwal.(2) The facts in so far as relevant for the disposal of the two petitions lie in a narrow campus and are not in controversy. 2.1The said property was requisitioned on 24.2.77 in exercise of the power conferred by Section 3 of The Requisitioning and Acquisition of Immovable Property Act, 1952 (hereinafter referred to as- 'the Act', for short). It was placed at the disposal of Ministry of Information and Broadcasting, New Delhi. Possession was taken over on 15.3.77. ...
Eap Industries Ltd. Vs. R.A. Industries and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-01-1996
Reported in: 63(1996)DLT210
Lokeshwar Prasad, J.(1) The plaintiff, named above, has filed the present suit against the defendants for the recovery of Rs. 1,14,124.58. The case of the plaintiff, in brief, is that the plaintiff is a Limited Company, incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 with its branch office at A/17,.2nd Floor, D.D.A. Office-cum- Shopping Complex, defense Colony, New Delhi and Shri Shekhar Chand Jain has been authorised to sign and verify the plaint and institute the suit on behalf of the plaintiff Company by virtue of the power of attorney executed by. the plaintiff Company in his favour. It is alleged that the plaintiff is carrying on the business of manufacture and supply of Die-Octyl Phthalate, Dibutyl Phthalate etc. It is averred that defendant No. 1 is a proprietorship concern of which defendant No. 2 is the sole proprietor and thus both the' defendants are jointly and severally liable to pay the amount due and payable to the plaintiff Company.I .A. It is alleged that the-defendants hav...
Devi Sahai and ors. Vs. Ram Phal Bansal and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-01-1996
Reported in: 1996IIIAD(Delhi)714; 64(1996)DLT773; (1997)115PLR1
Manmohan Sarin, J.(1) By this order, I would be disposing of the above application moved by the petitioners under Order Xi Rule I, Civil Procedure Code seeking to deliver Ii interrogatories to respondent No. 1. (2) For a proper appreciation to determine the material questions in dispute between the partics, it would be pertinent to recapitulate the relevant facts in brief: (I)The petitioners No. 1, Sh. Devi Sahai now deceased and petitioners No. 2, Sh. Dhansi Ram son of Devi Sahai had filed the present petition under Sections 32 and 33 of the Arbitration Act, 1940, seeking declaration that the agreement of reference dated 31.8.1975 be declared to be illegal, void and non-existence and of no effect. (ii) The petitioner case is that Sh. Devi Sahai was a sole tenant of shop No. 4788 Ram Bazar, Cloth Market, Fateh Pun, since 1941 having taken the shop on rent from one Smt. Triveni Devi. It is claimed that Sh. Devi Sahai was carrying on his sole proprietorship business under the name and st...
Applied Electronics Limited Vs. Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Ltd. and anr ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-01-1996
Reported in: 1996IIIAD(Delhi)709; 64(1996)DLT133
Manmohan Sarin, J.(1) The defendant No. I M/s. Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Limited (MTNL) has moved the above application in the suit, under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act, 1940, for staying proceedings in the suit, in view of their being an arbitration agreement in the contract dated 28.2.1995, which is the subject matter of the aforesaid suit. (2) The defendant's case is that Clause 2 of the aforesaid contract contains an arbitration Clause, categorically providing for reference of disputes and differences to the sole arbitration of the Chief Managing Director of Mtnl or his nominee. (3) The present suit has been filed by the plaintiff for recovery of Rs. 1,97,11,751 .00 (Rs. One crore ninety seven lakh eleven thousand seven hundred and fifty one only) against Mtnl as defendant No. I and U.O.I as defendant No. 2. In addition, the plaintiff sought an injunction restraining the defendants from disconnecting the existing pay phones. A further declaration is sought that the defendants a...
Vijayshree Commercial (P) Ltd. Vs. Tika Jagjit Singh Bedi
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-01-1996
Reported in: 66(1997)DLT359; 1996(38)DRJ66
R.C. Lahoti, J.(1) In a suit based on landlord-tenant relationship, the appellant has been ordered to be evicted from the suit premises. The defendant has come up in appeal. (2) It is not disputed that the plaintiffs- respondents are owner-landlords of the premises known as N-97, Panchsheel Park, New Delhi. The defendant- appellant has been a tenant in the premises on a monthly rent of Rs. 14,000.00 . The tenancy runs from month to month, parallel to English calendar month. By notice dated 10.7.1993 the plaintiffs terminated the tenancy of the defendant w.e.f. 31.8.1993 calling upon it to vacate the premises. The notice was replied to. On 3.12.1993, the defendant sent an amount of Rs. 14,000.00 to the plaintiff No.2. This amount was in the form of a bank draft dated 3.12.1993 and accompanied by letter dated 3.12.1993 sent through registered post. The suit for ejectment was filed on 3.1.1994. It was contested by the defendant -appellant mainly on two grounds : firstly, that the notice t...
Lucky Home Cooperative Group Housing Society Ltd. Vs. Registrar, Coope ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-01-1996
Reported in: 1996IVAD(Delhi)156; 70(1997)DLT541; 1996(39)DRJ121
Mohd. Shamim, J.(1) This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for quashment of Order No. F.47/224/Co.op/GH/NW/971 dated June 28,1995 passed by the Registrar, Co-operative Societies, under Section 32 of the Delhi Co-operative Societies Act whereby the managing committee of the petitioner was superseded, and for issue of a direction to the respondent to hold the elections. (2) Brief facts which are necessary for the appreciation of the points raised through the present petition are as under: that the petitioner is a registered co-operative group housing society under the provisions of the Delhi Co-operative Societies Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act' for the sake of convenience). The petitioner was allotted a plot bearing No.{ 19/1, Sector 13, Rohini, for the purposes of construction of 78 dwelling units. The election of the managing committee of the petitioner was to be held on September 5,1993. Shri P.P.Sikri was appointed as an Election Officer in...
The Motor and General Finance Ltd. Vs. Milap Bus Service and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-01-1996
Reported in: 63(1996)DLT176; (1996)114PLR25
Lokeshwar Prasad, J.(1) This Order will dispose the application filed by Shri Gian Singh, respondent No. 2 under Section 151 CPC. The facts relevant for the disposal of the above mentioned application briefly stated are that M/s Motor & General Finance Limited, a Company incorporated under the Companies Act filed a petition under Section 20 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 alleging that by a Hire Purchase Agreement dated the 30th June, 1982 the petitioner Company gave on hire to respondent No. 1 a motor vehicle, bearing registration No. Put 7686 on terms & conditions mentioned in the said agreement and respondent No. 2 guaranteed the due performance of the said agreement by respondent No. 1. It is alleged that the said agreement contained an arbitration clause (Clause VI). It is further alleged that in terms of the said agreement respondent No. 1 agreed to pay a sum of Rs. l,19,680.00 in 24 hire installments as provided in Schedule B of the said agreement. It is further alleged that respon...
- ‹ Prev
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 16
- 17
- 18
- 19
- 20
- 22
- 23
- Next ›
- Last »