Delhi Court February 1997 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.
Kamla Devi Vs. Prabhat Chand
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-04-1997
Reported in: 1997IIAD(Delhi)236; AIR1997Delhi317; 1997(2)ARBLR89(Delhi); 65(1997)DLT986; 1997(40)DRJ749; 1997RLR200
M. Jagannadha Rao, C.J. (1) This is an appeal against the Judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 8.10.1995 in I.A. 338/95 in Suit NO. 635-A/84. The suit was one filed under Section 20 of the Arbitration Act. It was filed by the 1st respondent Mr. Prabhat Chand.(2) Prabhat Chand (plaintiff-1st respondent), Smt. Kamla Devi (1st defendant) and Miss Manju Aggarwal (3rd defendant) were partners of M/s S.C.S. Publishers Distributors, under a deed dated 1.3.1977, having equal shares. It appears that the plaintiff, after serving notices dated 24.5.1983 and 11.9.1983, offered to retire from the firm and also sent reply notice dated 23.9.1983 on the defendants calling upon them to finalise the accounts and render the same to the plaintiff and pay his dues from the assets, goodwill and profits. On failure by the defendant, the plaintiff moved an application under Section 20 of the Arbitration Act. According to the plaintiff, his share in the assets and goodwill was Rs. 2.50 lakhs plus interes...
Larsen and Tubro Ltd. Vs. Commercial Electric Works and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-04-1997
Reported in: 1997IIIAD(Delhi)842; 67(1997)DLT387
K. Ramamoorthy, J. (1) The plaintiff has filed the suit against the three defendants. Originally it was filed against two defendants but later on it transpired that the first defendant M/s. Commercial Electric Work was a partnership concern and third defendant was one of the partners was imp leaded as the third defendant. (2) The suit is for the recovery of Rs. 1,18,492.66 with future interest @ 18% per annum. The defendants are carrying on their business for die purchase and sale of various electrical goods. The defendants were acting as Stockists of the switchgears etc. of the plaintiff from 1962. There was a break in relationship and the same was resumed with effect from 1.4.70. The plaintiff used to supply goods on credit and the payment made through cheques by the defendants is to be credited to the accounts of the defendants. The account, was mutual open and current. The cheques issued by the defendants were invariably dishonoured and the amounts were debited in the account of th...
Ram Kishore Singhal and ors. Vs. State of Delhi
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-04-1997
Reported in: 1997IIAD(Delhi)668; 65(1997)DLT912
J.K. Mehra, J. (1) I have perused the petition for quashing and also have kept in view the Explanationn given by the accused who has since been re-employed by the complainant after the alleged removal of misunderstanding and compromise between the complainant and the accused. The recovery of money was affected by police following the complaint by petitioner No. 1. However, in view of the mutual settlement and keeping in view the fact that almost the entire amount has since been recovered and can be restored to petitioner No. 1, I do not see if any useful purpose will be served in continuing with the prosecution. Accordingly, I allow the petition and grant permission for compounding the offence and pursuant thereto hereby quash the Fir No. 9/96 registered on 17.1.96 with P.S. Chandni Chowk, Delhi against petitioners 2 and 3 under Section 408, Indian Penal Code and all proceedings amenating there from. The amount recovered be restored to petitioner No. 1. This petition stands disposed of...
Ram Kumar Vs. Union of India
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-04-1997
Reported in: 1997IIAD(Delhi)165; 66(1997)DLT529; 1997(41)DRJ151; (1997)116PLR31
Mahinder Narain, J. (1) The appellants Ram Kumar and others arc bhumidars of Khasra Nos. 67/2,67/3, 67/8 67/9 67/13, 67/18,67/23, and 54/31, in all measuring 25 bighas 8 biswas, situated in the revenue estate of Narela. (2) The above said land of the appellants was acquired by notice of acquisition under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter called as 'the Act'), which was issued on 30.10.1963. Section 6 notification in connection with the acquisition of the appellants' land was issued on 16.1.1969. The award with respect thereto was made on 22.9.1986, and possession taken on 23.9.1986. (3) The notice of acquisition was issued as the land of the appellants was likely to be acquired for the public purpose of planned development of Narela Township. By his award dated 22.9.1986, the Land Acquisition Collector awarded a sum of Rs. 6650.00 per bigha to the appellants. (4) Aggrieved by the said determination of the market value by the Land Acquisition Collector, the appellants p...
Jagdish Prasad Gupta Vs. Kamal Kumar Gupta
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-04-1997
Reported in: 1997IIAD(Delhi)877; 67(1997)DLT396
S.N. Kapoor, J. (1) An application under Section 151, Civil Procedure Code was moved by the petitioner seeking a direction to pay the damages at the rate of Rs. 4,000.00 per month. That plea was rejected by the learned Additional District Judge on the ground that the rent of the premises was Rs. 350.00 per month. There was controversy with regard to the status of the defendant as tenant. Consequently, it was not possible to pass an order as prayed for, (2) Feeling aggrieved, the present revision petition has been filed. (3) Relevant facts in brief are as under: (A)The petitioner is father of the respondent/tenant. The premises No. 5908, Subhash Mohalla No.2,GandhiNagar,Delhi consistsof2shops,6rooms,5kitchens and one bath, one latrine and a staircase as shown in 'Annexure A'. In 1978 the respondent/son was allowed to use 3 rooms ad 3 kitchens. Just for the sake of obtaining license the petitioner issued a rent receipt for the period 1st April, 1978 to 30th April, 1978 (AnHexureB). The r...
Afroz Begum Vs. Gufrani Begum and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-04-1997
Reported in: 1997IIAD(Delhi)232; 65(1997)DLT1030
Jaspal Singh, J. (1) Smt. Shamima Bano and others filed a suit for permanent injunction with regard to Shop No-1270 at Phatak Farashkhana, Delhi, claiming that late Abdul Sattar was the tenant of the said shop and that they happened to be his legal heirs. They imp leaded two defendants, one Shri Ramesh Chander, who happened to be the landlord and the other Smt. Afroz Begum. It may be noticed that Afroz Begum is the widow of one Salahuddin who too was a son of late Abdul Sattar. Salahuddin had died issueless. The plaintiffs claimed that they were in actual physical possession of the shop and that Afroz Begum was trying to interfere with the same. Along with the suit was moved an application for interim injunction which was allowed by the learned Civil Judge though by means of a cryptic order. Afroz Begum then went in appeal. While hearing the appeal, at the suggestion of the parties counsel, a local Commissioner was appointed to go to the spot and report as to who was in actual physical...
Hari Chand Vs. Swaran Lal
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-04-1997
Reported in: 70(1997)DLT567
S.N. Kapoor, J. (1) This petition has been filed against dismissal of the suit for possession,butchallengingfindingsonlyonissueNos.3and4.Theyreadsasunder: '(1)................. (2) ................. (3) Whether the defendants are unauthorised occupants of the suit property? (4) Whether there is relationship of landlord and tenant in-between the parties? Findings on other issue have not been challenged in any of the grounds in the petition.(2) At the time of issuing notice, a question arose whether second appeal could not have been filed in view of the provisions of Section 102, Civil Procedure Code in respect of suits which are not of the nature of suits cognizable by the Court of Small Causes. It was left open. (3) Section 102, Civil Procedure Code reads as under : 'Nosecone appeal in certain suits- 102. No second appeal shall lie in any suit of the nature cognizable by Court of Small Causes, when the amount or value of the subject matter of the original suit does not exceed-[three th...
Grindlays Bank P.L.C. Vs. Centre for Development of Instructional Tech ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-04-1997
Reported in: 1997IIAD(Delhi)200; AIR1997Delhi164; II(1997)BC232; [1997]88CompCas782(Delhi); 65(1997)DLT936; 1997(40)DRJ817
J.B. Goel, J. (1) Plaintiff is a Banking company and has filed the present suit for the recovery of Rs. 1,19,904.59 comprising of Rs. 79,601.99p. as Principal amount, alleged to have been paid to defendant No. 1 by mistake and Rs. 40,302.60p. as interest thereon at the rate of 17-1/2% per annum for the period 28th April, 1983 to March 18, 1986 against the defendant No. 1 and in the alternative against defendant No.2. (2) Briefly, the case of the plaintiff is that a Telex message dated 10 February, 1983 was received by the plaintiff from Union Bank of Switzerland, Geneva to credit the account of defendant NO. 1 with plaintiff on behalf of defendant No. 2 in the sum of Us $ 8,000. In pursuance of this on 14th February, 1983 a sum of Rs. 78,817.84 as equivalent of this amount was credited in the Savings Bank Account No. SF/61800/1 of defendant No. 1 with plaintiff bank. (3) Subsequently, inadvertently another sum of Rs. 79,601.99p. being equivalent of identical amount of Us $ 8,000 was ag...
Ormaa Impex Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Nissai Asb Pte. Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-04-1997
Reported in: AIR1998Delhi15
ORDERM.K. Sharma, J. 1. This is a suit instituted by the plaintiff against the defendant, for recovery of an amount of Rs. 34,24,237.50 along with damages of Rs. 10,10,774.00 with pendente lite and future interest.2. On service of summons, the defendant has appeared and filed an application registered as I. A. No. 4578/1996, under Section 45 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Ordinance, 1996, contending inter alia, that there is a valid and subsisting arbitration agreement between the parties and in that view of the matter, the present suit for recovery instituted by the plaintiff is required to be stayed.3. The plaintiff being interested in purchasing some machineries from the defendant approached the defendant and a quotation dated 7th July, 1994 was supplied by the deffendant. After negotiation, Sales Contract was entered into between the plaintiff and the defendant on 8th July, 1994. It appears that in the aforesaid sales contract, an arbitration agreement was incorporated to the ...
Central Board of Secondary Education Vs. Ms. Manisha Surana and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-04-1997
Reported in: AIR1998Delhi406
Manmohan Sarin, J. 1. Admit.Two Letter Patent Appeals bearing Nos. 194/96 and 201/96, have been preferred against the judgment dated 2-8-1996 of the learned Single Judge in the Civil Writ Petition No. 2545/96 titled Manisha Surana v. Central Board of Secondary Education and Another. LPA 194/96 has been preferred by the Central Board of Secondary Education (hereinafter referred to as the 'Board'); while LPA. 201/96 has been preferred by the Manipal Academy of Higher Education (hereinafter referred to as the 'Manipal Academy'). This common judgment would dispose of both the appeals.2. Respondent No. 1, Manisha Surana had appeared for the Under Graduate Entrance Test (UGET) conducted by the Board on behalf of the Manipal Academy for a seat in the Medical and Dental Colleges. Unfortunately, Manisha Surana omitted to fill in the test booklet code in her answer sheet, as a result, of which the Board declined to evaluate her answer sheet. She filed Civil Writ Petition No. 2545/96 seeking dire...
- ‹ Prev
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 16
- 17
- 18
- 20
- 21
- 22
- Next ›
- Last »