Delhi Court August 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.
J.C. Khosla Vs. K.G. Khosla and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-01-1996
Reported in: 1995IIIAD(Delhi)857; 1995(34)DRJ583
S.K. Mahajan, J. (1) This order will dispose of both the interlocutory applications. The first application has been filed by the plaintiff for an injunction for restraining the defendants from interfering in the enjoyment of the plaintiffs of the property owned by him and from raising any obstruction in the construction of partition wall in accordance with the partition deed dated 30th May, 1972 and from opening a separate entrance gate at point 'XY' as shown in the plan annexed Along with the plaint. Further injunction has been prayed for restraining the defendants from damaging or dismantling the construction which has already been raised by the plaintiff and to remove this from the portion shown red in the plan annexed with the plaint. The second application has been filed by the defendants for vacating ad interim ex-parte injunction. (2) In short, the facts of the case are that father of the plaintiff and defendant No.1. who was the original owner of the property, had during his li...
O.P. Arora Vs. Union of India
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-01-1996
Reported in: 63(1996)DLT871; 1996(38)DRJ725
Manmohan Sarin, J. (1) Petitioner has assailed the order dated 1-9-1993, passed by the trial court declining the petitioner's prayer made in an interim application for a direction to the respondent to accept the damages offered to be paid by the petitioner in accordance with the guidelines issued and acted upon by respondent. (2) A brief resume of facts Along with the rival contentions, shred of unnecessary details, is necessary. (3) A perpetual lease deed dated 2-9-1948 in respect of Plot No. G-8 Connaught Circus, New Delhi was granted to one Pandit Jagan Nath Ganju. A two and a half storied building was built. The respondent issued a notice for breaches on account of unauthorized constructions and misuser. This was followed by and order of re-entry. In the event, .petitioner subsequently vide a registered sale deed in January 1984, purchased the property. Petitioner applied to respondent L & Do formulation of the lease in his favor conveying willingness to pay damages. The respondent...
B.S. Bhandari Vs. Gangotri, U.P. Export Corporation Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-01-1996
Reported in: 1996IVAD(Delhi)241; 70(1997)DLT144; 1996(38)DRJ539
Devinder Gupta, J. 1. In this writ petition, filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed for direction against the respondents 1 to 3; (a) to frame pay scale and enumerate posts with reference to service rules; (b) to give seniority to the petitioner with effect from 11th June, 1976 after quashing the seniority list (Annexure -J); (c) to put the petitioner in a pay scale of Rs. 1025-1720 being given to the other similarly placed employees and (d) to revise petitioner's pay scale with retrospective effect from 1978 as has been done in case of other employees. 2. The petitioner's case is that he was appointed as Air-conditioning Operator-cum- Electrician by respondent No. 2 on a consolidated pay of Rs. 350/- per month.Pursuant to his appointment, the petitioner joined his service on 11th June, 1976 inthe show room of respondent No. 2 at Delhi. Nature of the job of the petitioner is that of a skilled workmen. No grades were prevailing in respondent Corp...
R.K. Khatri Vs. State (Central Bureau of Investigation)
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-01-1996
Reported in: 1996RLR118
Usha Mehra, J. (1) The short point for consideration is whether the decision of the Civil Court holding that M/s Ansal P. and I. Ltd. was not liable to file any revalidation plans or to pay any composition fee is binding and the review application of the present petitioner could not be dismissed by the Criminal Court.(2) In order to analyze this question the brief facts are that M/s Ansal P. and I. Pvt. Ltd. got its plan of multistorey building at 14, Kasturba Gandhi Marg approved by the New Delhi Municipal Council (NDMC). As per the prosecution the said approval was valid for a period of two years from the date of sanction, which was to expire on 1.1.87. M/s Ansal was to apply for revalidation prior to 1.1.87 and in case it fails to do so the revalidation charges were to be on the basis of composition fee to be levied by the NDMC. The revalidation fee was Ks. 5,570.00 and in case of failure the company was required to pay the revalidation charges of Rs. 4,64,250.00 as composition fee....
Mansa Ram Vs. Union of India
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-01-1996
Reported in: 1996IVAD(Delhi)113; 1996(38)DRJ551
Manmohan Sarin, J. (1) By this order, I would be disposing of I.A.4218/93 filed by the plaintiff under Order Xxxix Rules 1 and 2, read with Section 151 CPC. Plaintiffs have prayed for a restraint on the defendants from demolishing the houses and for taking over possession of property illegally and without following the due process of law. This application has been moved in a suit for declaration filed by the plaintiffs. (2) The plaintiff numbering 23, all residents of Village Jasola, filed the above suit for declaration bearing No.967/93 on 19-4-1993. The declaration sought is that acquisition proceedings initiated vide notification No.F.4(9)/64 L & H dated 4-4-1964 under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, hereinafter referred to as the Act, culminating in Award No.6A/Supplementary 86-87 are illegal, ultra virus and of no effect in respect of the plaintiffs land admeasuring 21 bighas 11 bids was in Khasra No.246, Village Jasola. The plaintiffs claim that the aforesaid land to be in...
Lok Sevak Cooperative House Building Society Ltd. Vs. S.P. Goyal and o ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-01-1996
Reported in: 70(1997)DLT152
Mohd. Sharnim, J. (1) The present petition has been brought forward under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for quashment of the resolution dated28.9.1986 and for fixing of premium in accordance with law so as to bring the price of the land at par with the market price and in any event at the notional price fixed by the Delhi Development Authority (for short DDA) and for issue of a restraint order against respondents Nos. 1, 2 and 3 from raising construction on the plots allotted to them by the impugned resolution. Brief facts, which are necessary for the appreciation of the points raised through the present petition are being reproduced below that the petitioner is a Cooperative House Building Society since the year1959. lt was allotted a piece of land for construction, development and allotment of plots amongst the members of the petitioner Society by respondent No. 5 vide Agreement dated 31.1.1966 and a lease deed dated 29.7.1970. Respondent Nos. I to3 herein applied for memb...
- ‹ Prev
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 16
- Next ›