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.
Goodwill India Ltd. Vs. Tonu Constructions
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-01-1996
Reported in: 1996IIIAD(Delhi)598; 64(1996)DLT16; 1996(38)DRJ321
S.K. Mahajan, J.(1) This order will dispose of the application of the petitioner for the appointment of a Receiver to seize the equipment namely One number Stanford Eder Hydraulic Excavator Model R 825 Lc, Machine Sr.No.06.1010/8710 and all other necessary implements and accessories from the possession of the respondents and to keep the same in his safe custody till the decision of the suit.(2) Brief facts of the case, which have resulted in the petitioner filing the present application, are that the petitioner, alleging itself to be engaged in the business of hire purchase and leasing, is alleged to have purchased hi-: # :- I.A.1552/95 in Suit No.425/95(3) One number Stanford Eder Hydraulic Excavator Model R 825 Lc, Machine Sr.No.06.1010/8710 with necessary implements and accessories from M/s.Stanford Engineering Limited, Alwar and had given the same to respondent No.1 on lease.(4) While the total value of the excavator was Rs.23,77,280.00 , a sum of Rs.3,57,280.00 was deposited by re...
Radhey Mohan Vs. Registrar, Cooperative Group Housing Society Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-01-1996
Reported in: 64(1996)DLT683; 1996(39)DRJ603
S.N. Kapoor, J. (1) The petitioner seeks a writ of mandamus directing the Respondent No.1, The Registrar, Delhi Coop.Group Housing Societies to clear his name for allotment of flat and for directing the Rishi Coop.Group Housing Society Ltd., Respondent No.2 to allot the flat to the petitioner. (2) An interesting question arising in this writ petition is: 'Whether a Karta of Huf, who has purchased a house is disqualified for the purpose of the membership of a housing society and allotment of plot of land in the Society under Rule 25(i)(c) of Delhi Cooperative Societies Rules 1973'? (3) Before proceeding further, let us see the background in which this question arose. The petitioner became member of the respondent No.2 Society in 1979. On 28.11.1988 a complaint was received by the respondent society that the petitioner had become disqualified for he had purchased a House No.W 76, Greater Kailash, Part-1, New Delhi. On 4.3.1989, the respondent society required the petitioner to submit a f...
Pushpa Devi Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-01-1996
Reported in: 63(1996)DLT423; 1996(38)DRJ295
S.K. Mahajan, J. (1) On August 28, 1989 a secret information was received on telephone at Ps Mandir Marg that Charas was being sold in the Jhuggi of Radhey Shyam Pradhan and his wife was also involved in that trade. According to the information, one person was to come in their Jhuggi to take Charas. On receipt of this information, a raiding party was constituted which proceeded towards the Jhuggi of the Pradhan. On the way, the raiding party is alleged to have met the Sho at Gole Market who on being disclosed of the information also accompanied them. When they reached near Mata Ka Mandir, Raja Bazar, two public witnesses were also asked to accompany them. Nakabandi of Jhuggi No.28 was effected. At about 8.45 p.m. they saw one Ram Baran coming out of Jhuggi No.28 with a bag of polythene. On being spotted by the informer, the said Ram Baran was apprehended. In the meantime, the appellant was seen coming out of Jhuggi No.28 and hurriedly tried to proceed towards East. She was also apprehe...
Bank of Madura Ltd. Vs. Maninder Sachdeva and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-01-1996
Reported in: II(1996)BC512; 63(1996)DLT913
Lokeshwar Prasad, J.(1) The plaintiff has filed the present suit for the recovery of Rs. 6,06,799.60 against the defendants, named above. The case of the plaintiff, in brief, is that the plaintiff is a Banking Company, incorporated under the provisions of the Indian Companies Act, 1913, having its registered office at 33, North Chitrai Street, Madurai, Central Office at 758, Anna Salai, Madras and amongst others one of its Branches at F-144, Rajouri Garden, New Delhi and that Shri P.L. Muthiah, the Branch Manager of the plaintiff-Bank at Rajouri Garden Branch, is one of the principal officers of the plaintiff-Bank who is authorised to sign and verify the plaint and institute the present suit on behalf of the plaintiff-Bank. 1.2. It is alleged that defendant No. 1 is carrying on the business as a Transport Operator' and in connection with the above said business the said defendant applied for a 'secured loan' of Rs. 2,50,000.00 which was sanctioned in favor of the said defendant on 16.7...
Vishan Das Advani Vs. Hiranand Advani
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-01-1996
Reported in: 1996IIIAD(Delhi)836; 1996(38)DRJ410
S.K. Mahajan, J. (1) That one Shri Tola Ram, father of the parties to the suit was the owner of the property being House No. 13/28, East Punjabi Bagh, New Delhi and 1356/57, Street No. 4, Faizganj, Bahadurgarh Road, New Delhi. Shri Tola Ram died on 6th September, 1983, leaving behind him a Will executed on 1st April 1965 by virtue of which parties to the suit were given equal shares in his properties. Besides the properties left behind by the deceased Tola Ram, the parties had also jointly purchased a property being No. 6/28, East Punjabi Bagh, New Delhi and they had equal shares therein. The plaintiffs filed the present suit for partition .of the said properties on the ground that it was not possible for them to live together and they, thereforee, wanted separate possession of their respective shares in the said properties. (2) The defendant in the written statement has not denied the share of the parties either in the properties left behind by the deceased Tola Ram or in the property...
Anjini Devi and ors. Vs. V.S.T. Industries Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-01-1996
Reported in: 1996IIIAD(Delhi)389; 63(1996)DLT394; (1996)114PLR21
Lokeshwar Prasad, J. (1) The short question requiring consideration, in the present case, at this stage is as to which 'issue' can be treated as a 'preliminary issue' within the meaning of Sub-rule (2) of Rule 2 Order Xiv of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as 'the CPC'). The facts relevant for the above purpose briefly stated are that the plaintiffs, named above, have filed the present suit for recovery of possession, damages, mesne profits in respect of the property being the entire first floor of A/18, Ram House, Middle Circle, Connaught Place, New Delhi, measuring 2175 Sq. ft. alleged to have been let out to the defendants w.e.f. 1.6.86 vide lease deed dated the 29th May, 1986 which was subsequently renewed up to 31.5.95. It is alleged that the lease has been determined by efflux of time. Notice dated 14.6.95, terminating the lease, in respect of the demised premises is also stated to have been served on the defendants. The defendants also filed written st...
D.C. Kapoor, Vs. Delhi Development Authority
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-01-1996
Reported in: 63(1996)DLT193
Lokeshwar Prasad, J. (1) The present petition has been filed by Shri D.C. Kapoor, sole proprietor of M/s. Dipson and Company with the prayer to direct respondent No. 2 Shri O.P. Mittal, the Arbitrator to file the award Along with the proceedings and thereafter to make the award rule of the Court. (2) The work of construction of '104 Mig, Type 'C' Dwelling Units at Malviya Nagar, New Delhi' was awarded to the petitioner by the Executive Engineer of the Delhi Development Authority (hereinafter referred to as 'the DDA') vide agreement No. 8/HD-1/76-77. As regards the above said work certain disputes/ differences had arisen between the parties and as per the agreement between the parties respondent No. 2 Shri O.P. Mittal was appointed as the sole Arbitrator by the Engineer Member, Dda vide letter dated 17.12.84. The said Arbitrator entered upon the reference and gave his award on 23.9.89. (3) After the Arbitrator had filed the award Along with the proceedings, notice of the filing of the a...
S. Lal and Co. Vs. Delhi Development Authority and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-01-1996
Reported in: 1996IIIAD(Delhi)791; AIR1997Delhi26; 63(1996)DLT858
Lokeshwar Prasad, J.(1) The petitioner, named above, filed a petition under Sections 14 & 17 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') with the prayer that Shri S.C. Gupta (respondent No. 2), the Sole Arbitrator be directed to file the award Along with the proceedings and thereafter the award be made rule of the Court. The Arbitrator Shri S.C. Gupta (respondent No. 2) was directed to file the award Along with the proceedings vide order dated 4.2.1992. In pursuance of the notice issued from this Court the Sole Arbitrator Shri S.C. Gupta (respondent No. 2) filed the award Along with the proceedings vide letter dated 4.5.92. (2) After the Arbitrator had filed the award Along with the proceedings, notice of the filing of the award was accepted by the learned Counsel for the petitioner in the Court on 8.2.93. No objections have been filed on behalf of the petitioner. Notice of the filing of the award was also issued to respondent No. 1 Delhi Development Authority (...
Parasnath and Associates (P) Ltd. Vs. Kala Wati
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-01-1996
Reported in: 1996IIIAD(Delhi)673; 1996(38)DRJ428
N.G. Nandi, J. (1) In the suit for specific performance of Agreements to Sell dated 12.8.1994 in respect of property No. E-261, Greater Kailash Part-11, New Delhi, alleging the execution of agreement to sell in favor of each of the plaintiffs by defendants 1-3 respectively who are alleged to have obtained the sale deed of the said property from defendant No.4, who in turn allegedly obtained the General Power of Attorney from defendant No.6, who is the original owner of the said immovable property, by this application, the plaintiffs seek to restrain the defendants from changing the identity of the suit property by demolishing the existing structure of boundary walls and one room or by raising any type of new construction thereon and from alienating, encumbering or disturbing the status of possession of defendants 1-3 at the spot in respect of the suit property, particularly, by defendant No.6 or defendant No. 11; further seeking to restrain defendants 1-6 from executing any documents o...
Reeaa Hotel and Restaurants (P) Ltd. Vs. Anusri Enterprises
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-01-1996
Reported in: 1996IIIAD(Delhi)774; 63(1996)DLT747; 1996(38)DRJ404
K. Ramamoorthy, J. (1) A)directing the defendants to vacate and hand over the vacant possession of the premises forming part of property known as 13, Community Centre, Ashok Vihar, Phase Ii, Delhi to the plaintiff Company in the same condition as sit was at the time when the same was provided/handed over to the defendants by the Plaintiff at the beginning of the license for user of the same to run the restaurant of the Plaintiff there from; B)directing the defendants to hand back the assets and belongings of the Plaintiff, provided to the defendants for running the a forenamed restaurant as detailed in the Schedule to Annexure 'B' in a fit and working condition as they were at the time when the same were handed over to the Defendants for use and/or to replace the said assets with assets of the same quality and value; C)directing the Defendants to pay the sum of Rs. 5,55,000.00 (Rupees Five Lakhs fifty Five Thousand Only) as arrears of license Fee payable by the defendants to the Plaint...
- ‹ Prev
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 16
- 17
- 18
- 19
- 20
- 21
- 23
- Next ›
- Last »