Delhi Court February 1997 Judgments

Gannon Dunkerley and Co. Ltd. Vs. Bhadohi Woollens Ltd.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 66(1997)DLT901

K. Ramamoorthy, J.1. The plaintiff has filed the suit for the recovery of Rs. 4,35,333.66 against the defendant. The case of the plaintiff is that pursuant to theinvitation to tender issued by the defendant, the plaintiff submitted the tender and the same was accepted by the defendant on 12.4.77 which is marked as Exhibit D-15.2. The work was for 'construction of Woollen Mill Plant Building, staff quarters etc.' The work was completed by the plaintiff in May, 1977. The Architects and Engineers certified the completion on 22.10.80. Under Clause 4 of the Special Conditions of the Contract 'any rise in price of labour or material on account of any legislation of the Government, State or Local Authorities will be borne by the defendant'.3. On 8.10.80, the plaintiff sent supplementary bill to the defendant with a copy to M/s. Mehta Gandhi & Associates, Architects & Engineers for certification. The minimum wages of unskilled labour at the time of inviting tenders was Rs. 4.38 p. per day. Thi...

Mohd. Siddique Vs. P.K. Mittal and Others

Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi

A.P. Chowdhri, President: 1. Brief facts giving rise to this revision petition are that Mr. P.K. Mittal, Mr. Zia-Ul-Hasan, Members and Ghalib Apartments Residents Welfare Association, GARWA for short, filed a complaint before District Forum-I against Mr. Mohd. Siddique as OP-1 and Ghalib Memorial Co-op. G/H Society through its Administrator as OP-2. It was averred in the complaint that the complainants No. 1 and 2 were Members of the Co-operative Society, OP-2. The Society had given contract to OP 1 regarding the following works: (a) Construction of roads inside the complex; (b) Construction of underground water tank and pump house; (c) Laying of water pipe-line; (d) Water proofing cement; and (e) Sewerage. The then Management of the Co-operative Society had made over payments to the contractor and the contractor had left the aforesaid works without completing them. The complainants, therefore, sought direction against the contractor that he should remove the deficiency in service by c...

Ashwini Kumar Sharma Vs. Balram Ajwani

Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi

A.P. Chowdhri, President: 1. Brief facts necessary for the disposal of this appeal are that the complainant had been purchasing and selling shares from Ajwani and Company, Broker in Stocks and Shares. He had a running account with them. The complainant alleged certain deficiencies in the service rendered by the said broker and claimed to recover a certain amount besides compensation. The case was contested by the other side. The complaint was dismissed by the impugned order by District Forum-II on the ground that both the parties had produced voluminous documents requiring a detailed trial which was outside the purview of the Consumer Protection Act. While dismissing the complaint, the complainant was relegated to his remedy in the Civil Court. The complainant has preferred this appeal. At the time of preliminary hearing, learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that there were only five transactions which were in dispute. The appeal was, therefore, admitted. In response to the noti...

Ram Chander Goyal Vs. Mohd. Umar

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 1998IIAD(Delhi)8; 70(1997)DLT492

Manmohan Sarin, J. (1) The present appeal is directed against the order of the Rent Control Tribunal dated 7.10.1997, in Rca No. 44/88, by which the Tribunal, while allowing the Appellant's appeal against the dismissal of the eviction petition on the ground under Section 14(1)(a) of the Delhi Rent Control Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act), upheld the dismissal of the eviction petition on the grounds under Section 14(l)(c)(e) of the Delhi. Rent Control Act. The learned Rent Control Tribunal accepted the appeal of the appellant with regard to dismissal of the petition under Section 14(l)(a) of the Act and has allowed the same giving benefit to the respondent under Section 14(2) of the Act. (2) Learned Counsel for the appellant has urged before me that learned Rent Control Tribunal should have also allowed the eviction petition of the appellant on the ground under Section 14(l)(c)(e) of the Act. (3) The learned Rent Control Tribunal found overwhelming evidence to uphold the finding...

K. Sunil Vs. Kishan Lal Matta

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 1997IIAD(Delhi)669; 66(1997)DLT81

Jaspal Singh, J.(1) The petitioner is a practicing Advocate. He is a tenant under the respondent allegedly on a monthly rent of Rs. 700.00 per month. He is neither paying rent nor water and electricity charges and yet is enjoying the premises with arrears mounting to Rs. 39,304.00 . The landlord, on the other hand is stated to be a retired Government servant aged about 70 years with failing eye sight. Driven to the wall, he filed a suit under Order 37 of the Code of Civil Procedure for recovery of Rs. 39,304 .00 . In response to that the present petitioner filed an application for leave to appear and defend the suit. The learned Civil Judge granted him the permission subject to his furnishing a bond for the suit amount. The petitioner is not prepared to furnish even that. Hence this revision petition. (2) The facts as narrated above paint a pathetic scene. The tenant wants to enjoy all the facilities - the premises, the supply of electricity and the flow of water and yet would not pay....

Shiv Charan Vs. Deep Chand

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 71(1998)DLT763; 1998(44)DRJ487

ORDERManmohan Sarin, J.1. The petitionertenant by this Revision Petition assails an order dated 16.1.1997, passed by Shri H.S. Sharma, Additional Rent Controller, Delhi, directing the petitioner to produce his wife on the next date of hearing failing which an adverse inference would be drawn and it shall be presumed that the complaint dated 26.2.1991, bears the thumb impression of his wife. The physical presence has been directed so that the identity of petitioner's wife who has denied making the complaint could be verified by the Investigation Officer. 2. For an appreciation of the matter in controversy the following facts giving rise to the present Civil Revision Petition may be noticed:(i) The respondent has filed an eviction petition against the petitionertenant under section 25-B, of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 on the grounds of bonafide need, i.e., under section 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958. The petitionertenant has filed his written statement and denied the ...

Delhi Rickshaw Chalak/Malik Sangharsh Association (Regd.) Vs. Municipa ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 1998IIAD(Delhi)277; 70(1997)DLT502

Manmohan Sarin, J.(1) This writ petition is filed by the petitioner Association, seeking a direction for quashing of the Public Notice No. 985/VO/1997 dated 30.12.1997, by which applications were invited by the respondent Mcd for grant of 99,000 Cycle Rickshaw Licences. (2) I have heard learned Counsel for the petitioners, who has contended before me that the said Public Notice is a gross violation of the Model Code of Conduct of the Guidance of Political Parties and Candidates, issued by the Election Commission of India. Learned Counsel submits that the impugned Public Notice violates the guidelines in respect of item No. 71.04 and 72.5, which read as under: '0.4In particular, during the period when elections from a State, or part thereof, become imminent, those in positions of authority tend to undertake some such 'administrative' and 'welfare' measures as are aimed at perpetuation of power more than observance of rules, procedures and financial properties. Announcements of concessio...

Cosmos Builders Promoters (P) Ltd. and anr. Vs. Rajesh Ahuja and anr.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 1997IIAD(Delhi)653; 66(1997)DLT151

Manmohan Sarin, J.(1) ADMIT. (2) These two appeals have been preferred against the order dated 1.9.95, -passed by the learned Single Judge whereby learned Single Judge. dismissed the application (I.A. 5113/93) under Order 37 Rule 3(5) of the Code of Civil Procedure, filed by the appellants in Suit No. 309/93, seeking leave to contest the suit. Learned Single Judge held that no triable issues were involved and contentions raised in defense were frivolous. As a consequence of dismissal of IA. 5113/93, the suit was decreed against the appellants for a sum of Rs. 18,97,093.85, which included the principal amount of Rs. 16,93,867.70 and interest amounting to Rs. 2,03,226.15 @ 18% instead of 24%. Learned Single Judge granted future interest @ 18% on the principal amount of Rs. 16,93,867.70 from the date of suit. Aggrieved by the rejection of their leave to contest, the appellants have preferred the above appeals. (3) Fao (OS) 292/95 is preferred by M/s. Cosmos Builders and Promoters (P) Ltd....

Raghubir Aggarwal Vs. Jagdish Prasad Garg

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 1997IIAD(Delhi)392; 1997(1)ARBLR463(Delhi); 66(1997)DLT316; 1997(40)DRJ728; (1997)116PLR72

M. Jagannadha Rao, J. (1) The plaintiff is appellant in this appeal directed aginst an order dated 28.9.95 in is 8217/94 in Civil Suit No. 3767/91. By the impugned order, the learned Single Judge allowed the said is filed under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act and stayed the suit. The plaintiff whose suit has been stayed has filed this appeal. (2) The suit was filed by the appellant who claims to be a tenant in respect of the ground floor shop measuring 720 Sq. Ft. for dissolution of partnership, rendition of account etc. According to the appellant, there was a settlement between the appellant and his landlords who sued for eviction and a deed was executed on 3.2.1984 by the owners of the property (Mr. K.L. Jain and Smt. Raj Rani Jain) wherein, it is said, they recognised the appellant as a tenant of the shop on a monthly rent of Rs. 100.00 . Appellant says he entered into a partnership on 2.4.79 with one Mr. Satpal, the respondents (S.P. Garg, Sulekh Chand Shiv Kumar). These five par...

Prabha Misra Vs. Consortium Finance and Leasing Ltd.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 70(1997)DLT486

Manmohan Sarin, J. (1) By this judgment, I would be disposing of two revision petitions, one filed by Mrs. Prabha Mishra and the second by Consortium Finance & Leasing Limited, against the impugned order dated 29.8.1996, passed by the learned Additional District Judge. The learned Additional District Judge, by the impugned order, granted leave to contest to Mrs. Prabha Mishra (hereinafter referred to as the 'defendant') to defend the summary suit for recovery, filed by M/ s. Consortium Finance & Leasing Limited, (hereinafter referred to as the 'plaintiff) subject to her depositing a sum of Rs. 67,788.00 within two months. (2) The facts giving rise to these revision petitions may be briefly noted : (I)Plaintiff instituted the suit under Order xxxvii of the Code of Civil Procedure, for recovery of the sum of Rs. 1.30 lakhs, against the defendant. The case of the plaintiff company was that the defendant had submitted a proposal for finance of the purchase of a new Maruti Car, which was ac...