Delhi Court March 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.
Kishan Chand Vs. Delhi Development Authority and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-03-1997
Reported in: 1997IIAD(Delhi)722; 66(1997)DLT292
Devinder Gupta, J.(1) On 21.11.88 this petition was filed seeking direction against the respondents to issue Demand-cum-Allotment letter in respect of Shop No. 14, Vaishali, Pitam Pura, Delhi and to hand over the possession thereof and execute proper conveyance deed. (2) The facts giving rise to the petition are that, on petitioner's land having been acquired by the Government at public expense for public purpose, namely. Planned Development of Delhi, under the relevant scheme, which was in vogue, stall No. 23, L.S.C. Wazir Pur, Phase-1, Delhi was allotted to him. A sum of Rs. 25,200.00 towards premium lease money, ground rent and maintenance charges was deposited by the petitioner on 21.2.86. It is the petitioner's case that possession of the stall was also handed over to him. Certificate Annexure C was issued in August, 1986 by the Deputy Director (CE), D.D.A. entitling him to obtain electric connection in his own name. It is alleged that the said shop at Wazirpur was located at a co...
Raghunath Chand Anand Vs. All India Institute of Medical Sciences
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-03-1997
Reported in: 1997IIIAD(Delhi)38; 66(1997)DLT386; 1997(41)DRJ381
Mahinder Narain, J. (1) The petitioner Dr. Raghunath Chand Anand has Filed this petition, seeking a mandamus, directing the respondent All India Institute of Medical Sciences to implement the recommendations of the selection committee, whereby the petitioner was recommended for appointment as Medical Superintendent of the All India Institute of Medical Sciences, and to permit the petitioner to join the All India Institute of Medical Sciences as its Medical Superintendent. The petitioner has also prayed for costs, and for such other reliefs, as this Court deems fit and proper. (2) The case of the petitioner is that he has been working as an Additional Medical Superintendent in the All India Institute of Medical Sciences, Ansari Nagar, New Delhi, since 16.7.1987. (3) The petitioner asserted that in the month of February 1992 one po of Medical Superintendent was advertised in the newspapers as the said post was vacated by Dr. A.N. Safaya, who had taken voluntary retirement w.e.f. 15.2.199...
Mansingh Gupta and Co. Vs. Ashok Kumar Jain
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-01-1997
Reported in: 70(1997)DLT575
S.N. Kapoor, J.(1) This revision petition is directed against an order dated 30th January, 1989 rejecting an application to review closing plaintiff's evidence on the ground of non-payment of costs.(2) This order has been assailed by the learned Counsel for the petitioner on the ground that on account of the marriage of the nephew of the Counsel for the plaintiff on 6th September, 1989 at Bombay, he sought an adjournment which was granted and the case was adjourned to 6th November, 1989. On 6th November, 1989, the partner of the plaintiff firm Anil Gupta had not turned up by the time the case was called. The case was adjourned to 30th January, 1990 subject to further payment of the costs as last opportunity. On 29th evening, the Counsel for the plaintiff apprehending that he would not be able to attend the case, requested Mr. B.P.S. Tyagi on 29th January, 1990 to come and attend to this case. The plaintiff did not come to the Court costs imposed on the previous dates was not paid. Cons...
S. Dalip Singh Vs. Satnam Singh
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-01-1997
Reported in: 1997IIAD(Delhi)947; 66(1997)DLT423
Jaspal Singh, J.(1) Exordial speaking, the point for decision in this petition is short but deep is its legal import. (2) The petitioner instituted a suit for possession as an indigent person. This was in the year 1993. On April 27, 1993 the learned Additional District Judge recorded the statement of the petitioner and on its basis allowed the petitioner to sue as an indigent person. This was followed by an order for issuance of summons to the defendant. (3) On April 5, 1994 the defendant after putting in appearance, moved an application under Order 33 Rules 1,6 and 7 and its reply was filed by the petitioner on July 13,1994. The same day the learned Additional District Judge passed an order which runs as under : 'Reply to the application u/Order 33 Rules 1A, 6 & 7 filed. Arguments heard. Counsel for the defendant has submitted that he be given an opportunity to cross examine the witnesses produced by the plaintiff inspire of the fact that he is an indigent person and can sue as such. ...
Daya Chand Uttam Prakash JaIn and anr. Vs. Santosh Devi Sharma
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-01-1997
Reported in: 1997IIIAD(Delhi)556; 67(1997)DLT13
S.N. Kapoor, J.(1) In this revision petition the primary question is whether a suit under Order 37, Civil Procedure Code could be filed on the basis of an 'acknowledgement'.(2) The plaintiff/respondent filed a suit of recovery for a sum of Rs. 49,956.00 Along with interest on account of loan advanced and written acknowledgement of liability by the defendant. (3) According to the case of the plaintiff, the respondent gave a statement of account indicating balance amount of Rs. 59,859.50 for the financial year 1986-87. The respondent acknowledged the same by signing it. Interest of Rs. 7,422.50 was paid in July, 1987 and Rs. 8,081.00 in April 1989 by the petitioner. The defendant made another written acknowledgement of the amount payable by it to the plaintiff showing that Rs. 75,363.00 was due against the defendant on 31 March, 1989. On demand the defendant paid Rs. 20,500.00 on 29th july, 1989 leaving a balance of Rs. 42,927.50. The petitioner claimed this amount Along with interest at...
Sumer Singh Vs. Municipal Corporation of Delhi
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-01-1997
Reported in: 1997IIIAD(Delhi)388; 66(1997)DLT745; 1997(41)DRJ261
Vijender Jain, J. (1) The petitioner has contended that the respondents issued a public notice for inviting open bid for two years for removal of dead animals within the area following in Group 'B' within the jurisdiction of the Municipal Corporation of Delhi (in short 'MCD'). The bid was to take place at 3.00 P.M. on 11.9.1996. Petitioner pursuant to the open bid deposited a sum of Rs.20,000/=. It is the case of the petitioner that he quoted Rs.10.10 lakhs which was highest amount and deposited 25% of the bid amount and 10% as security amount by 13.9.1996. Mr.R S Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner, has contended that the amount of Rs.2,52,500/ = being 25% of the bid amount was deposited vide Receipt No-311048 the Receipt inter alias mentioned 'Contractual amount for removal of dead animals of Group 'B' for the year 1996-97 and 1997-98' and thereafter also deposited the security amount of Rs.81,000/ =. However, the respondents-MCD on 19.9.1996 informed the petitioner that the bi...
M.C. Sharma Vs. Union of India
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-01-1997
Reported in: 1997IIAD(Delhi)883; 1997(41)DRJ554
Dalveer Bhandari, J.(1) Major M.C. Sharma has approached this court with the prayer that the adverse remarks given by respondent no.4 to the petitioner be quashed. He has also prayed that the respondents be directed to consider and promote the petitioner to the rank of Lt. Colonel from the due date. He has also prayed that the orders dated 24.4.96 trans ferrying the petitioner from Delhi to Baramula be also quashed as the same is punitive and actuated with ulterior motives and mala fide considerations. The petitioner has also prayed that he be given consequential and other monetary benefits arising out of his promotion with interest at the rate of 18 per cent per arnnun. (2) Brief facts which are necessary to dispose of this petition are recapitulated as under:- The petitioner was commissioned in the Indian Army in June, 1976 and is presently holding the rank of a Major. It is alleged that the petitioner was approved for promotion to the rank of Lt. Colonel vide letter dated 30th March...
C. Lal and Sons Vs. Wasudhir Foundation
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-01-1997
Reported in: 1997IIIAD(Delhi)460; 66(1997)DLT766; 1997(41)DRJ327
S.N. Kapoor, J.(1) The petitioner has challenged an order dated 12th December, 1984 passed by Learned Sub-Judge, Delhi rejecting an application U/O. 14 R. 2 praying for decision on the issue 'Whether the plaintiff has any cause of action?' (2) 1. The petitioner-defendant used to store their Lpg gas cylinders as its distributor for Indian Oil Corporation at the premises of respondent No. 1. The Indian Oil Corporation recommended to the D.D.A. to allot land to petitioner for the purpose of Gas cylinder godown. Respondent filed a suit seeking reliefs referred to hereinafter. But in the meanwhile on the recommendations of the Indian Oil Corporation, a plot of land had been allotted and the petitioners have constructed thereafter a godown taking possession of land allotted by Delhi Development Authority and started storing Lpg gas cylinders in the said godown. 2.2. The plaintiff/respondents landlord of the petitioners sought following reliefs in the aforesaid civil suit: (i) Mandatory injun...
K.S. Mankotia Vs. Union of India
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-01-1997
Reported in: 1997IIIAD(Delhi)105; 1997(41)DRJ477
Dalveer Bhandari, J.(1) The petitioner was commissioned as an Emergency Commission-1 Officer on 30.6.1993 in the Indian Army Infentry. He underwent training for 18 months and the same was excluded and the seniority of the petitioner and of his batch mates was fixed as 15.1.1965. (2) The petitioner had N.C.C. 'C' certificate and was given seniority of six months accordingly another period of six months was added to his seniority and the date of seniority was raised to 15.7.1964. As a result of this Court's order in the case of Col. S.P. Aggarwal fifteen days' benefit was given to the petitioner and to all those similarly placed officers and consequently, the petitioner's seniority was finally fixed w.e.f. 30.6.1964. (3) It is submitted that the petitioner was considered for selection for the post of Brigadier Along with other officers of 1964 batch. The result was declared in December, 1989. The petitioner was, however, not selected in the first attempt. According to the policy dated 11...
Ramesh Kumar Vs. Union of India
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-01-1997
Reported in: 1997IIIAD(Delhi)116; 1997(42)DRJ182
Dalveer Bhandari, J.(1) The petitioner has approached this court with the prayer that the charge sheet dated 26.5.92 is bad in law and consequently be quashed. He has further mentioned that the conviction and sentence awarded on the basis of the charge sheet by the Summary Court Martial held from 1.6.92 to 3.6.92 by the Commandant, Reserved Supply Depot, Lucknow was perverse, biased and illegal. It is further prayed that the orders dated 16.11.93 and 21.12.93 passed on the statutory complaint of the petitioner are illegal. It is also prayed that the entire proceedings of the aforesaid Summary Court Martial, including orders dated 16.11.93 and 21.12.93 be quashed, and the petitioner be reinstated in service with consequential benefits.(2) This petition was filed in February, 1994 and came up for admission hearing before the Division Bench of this Court on 23.2.1994 in which Rule was issued.(3) The minimum basic facts which are necessary to dispose of this petition are recapitulated as u...
- ‹ Prev
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 16
- 17
- 18
- 19
- 20
- 22
- Next ›
- Last »