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.
Manjit Singh Kohli Vs. Munni Devi
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-01-1996
Reported in: 1996IIIAD(Delhi)938; 1996(38)DRJ616
K. Ramamoorthy, J. (1) This is a suit for specific performance seeking the enforcement of the agreement dated 24th of March 1981. (2) On the 24th of March 1981 the plaintiff, Sh. Moti Ram, husband of first defendant now, and father of defendants 2 to 6 entered into this agreement for the sale of the property for Rs.l,50,000.00 the 2.1/2 storeyed building constructed on a leasehold plot of land measuring 100 sq. yds. situated in Lajpat Nagar, New Delhi..According to the plaintiff, he contacted Sh. Moti Ram through M/s. Dhingra Estate Agency. Sh. Moti Ram represented to the plaintiff that he was the sole and absolute owner of the property and he had put up the construction on a leasehold plot. Sh. Moti Ram also assured that there were no encumbrences. On these representations, the plaintiff agreed to purchase the property for a consideration of Rs. l,50,000.00 . On the 24th of March 1981 the agreement was executed and on 25th of March 1981 it was registered in the office of Sub Registrar...
Vijaya Srivastava and anr. Vs. Mirahul Enterprises and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-01-1996
Reported in: 1996IVAD(Delhi)95; 63(1996)DLT283
K. Ramamoorthy, J. (1) Mrs. Vijaya Srivastava is the plaintiff in Suit No. 451 / 86. Rear Admiral R.R. Sood is the plaintiff in Suit No. 450/86. Brig. K.K. Srivastava has given evidence on behalf of his wife Smt. Vijay Srivastava and Rear Admiral R.R. Sood as Public Witness .2, though his wife Smt. Vinaya Srivastava was also examined as P.W.I. The plaintiff in Suit No. 451/86 is hereinafter referred to as 'V' and the plaintiff in Suit No. 450/86 is hereinafter referred to as 'S'. Defendants 1 to 5 are hereinafter referred to as the second defendant. Though oral evidence is recorded in Suit No. 451/86, documents have been marked in both the suits separately to which I shall refer to them at the appropriate stages. Defendants 1 to 5.are common to the two suits and there is the 6th defendant in Suit No. 451/86. The facts are almost same and, thereforee, the two suits are being disposed of by this common judgment in Suit No. 451/86. (2) At the outset, I have to state that these two cases a...
H.B. Sharma Vs. Union of India
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-01-1996
Reported in: 1996IIIAD(Delhi)637; 63(1996)DLT427; 1996(39)DRJ249
Dalveer Bhandari, J. (1) The short question relating to service jurisprudence which arises for consideration in the instant case is, when claims of all eligible candidates were considered at the time, the current duty charge of promotional post was given to the petitioner and later on the current duty charge was converted into ad-hoc appointment from the date of assumption of charge. This ad-hoc appointment continued uninterruptedly till regularisation of service by the Dpc or UPSC. Whether in a case of this nature the promotion should relate back to the date when the petitioner was given ad-hoc appointment and the length of such service should be the basis for determining seniority in absence of any statutory rule or order? (2) The petitioner was appointed as an Assistant Assessor and Collector in the Municipal Corporation of Delhi, through direct recruitment in the year 1979. According to the petitioner, the first promotional avenue open to the petitioner was to the post of Assistant...
- ‹ Prev
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 16
- 17
- 18
- 19
- 20
- 21
- 22
- Next ›