Delhi Court May 1998 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.
Sapna Singh Pathania Vs. Shri Jagdish Chander Mehta and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-14-1998
Reported in: 4(1998)CLT407; 75(1998)DLT725; (1998)120PLR61
ORDERJ.B. Goel, J.1. By this order I.A. No. 6479/97 under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short 'the Code') of the plaintiffs and I.A. No. 7831/97 under Order 39 Rule 4 of the Code, of the defendants for vacating the interim order passed on August 1, 1997 are being disposed of.2. The plaintiffs have filed a suit seeking injunction against the defendants No. 1 and 2, mandatory injunction against defendants No. 3 and 4 and a declaration of tenancy against defendant No. 1.3. Briefly, the averments made in the plaint are that plaintiff No. 1 is a tenant in property No. J-341, Sarita Vihar, New Delhi, having been in-ducted by defendant No. 1 w.e.f. 1.4.1996 at a monthly rent of Rs. 2,500/-. Plaintiff NO. 2 is her husband living with her; at the time the premises were let out, father of plaintiff NO. 1 late Shri Prem Nath Ghai had paid Rs. 33,000/- by means of two cheques dated 26.3.1996 each of Rs. 16,500/- towards security and out of which Rs. 7,500/- were paid t...
Radhey Shyam Gupta and anr. Vs. D.D.A. and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-14-1998
Reported in: 1998IVAD(Delhi)672; 76(1998)DLT915; 1998(46)DRJ833; 1998RLR400
1. Plaintiffs have filed application under Order XXIX Rules 1 & 2 read with Section 151 CPC inter-alia alleging that in the present suit filed for declaration and injunction, is No. 4/97 under Order XXXIX Rules 1 & 2 read with Section 151 CPC was filed by them and notice thereof was issued to the defendants for 17th January, 1997. In the meantime, status quo regarding title of the suit land was ordered to be maintained by the Court. In reply to the said is defendants 3 & 4 alleged that defendant No. 3 had already been allotted the suit land by defendant No.1 and a registered perpetual lease deed had also been executed on 4th November, 1996. Since there was threat of demolition of the existing structure and raising of fresh construction on the suit land by defendants 3 & 4, the plaintiffs filed yet another application being is No. 1117/97. Notice of this application was accepted by the counsel of defendants 3 & 4 and he was allowed two weeks' time to file the reply and the case was orde...
S.R. Kulkarni Vs. Birla Vxl Limited
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-14-1998
Reported in: 1998RLR519
ORDERY.K. Sabharwal, J.1. The appellant in this appeal is defendant in the suit filed against him for recovery of over Rs. 5 lakhs under the summary procedure provided for in Order 37 Code of Civil Procedure. The application filed by the appellant in the suit seeking condensation of delay of re-filing the application for leave to defend has been dismissed and consequently the application for leave to defend the suit has also been dismissed without going into the merits and on the basis of allegations made in the plaint, the suit has been decreed. These are the circumstances under which the defendant has filed the present appeal assailing the decision of learned Single Judge declining to condone the delay in refiling application seeking leave to defend.2. There was also a delay of 7 days in filing the application seeking leave to defend. The appellant had filed is 3268/96 seeking condensation of said 7 days delay. This application was not opposed by counsel for the plaintiff who is resp...
Czech Ocean Shipping Vs. M.M.T.C
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-14-1998
Reported in: AIR1998Delhi402; 76(1998)DLT447
ORDERK.S. Gupta, J.1. Petitioner filed application under Section 28 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 alleging that it is a joint stock company and, inter alia, carries on business as carriers by sea. Respondent is a limited company and carries on business as can alysing agents for import and export of minerals and metals including rock phostate. By a charter party dated 10th October, 1988 petitioner's vessel m.v. 'Mir' was let out for carriage of bulk rock phosphate of the quantity not exceeding 13,650 M.Ts and not less than 12,350 M.Ts. from 1/2 Safe Berths Aqaba to 1 to 2 Safe Berth(s) or 2 Safe Port(s) Anchorages India. Disputes having arisen between the parties regarding computation of allowable time at load port and discharge port, the matterwas referred for arbitration. Petitioner appointed K.P. Patel while the respondent appointed G.N. Saxena as the arbitrators. Arbitrators held a preliminary hearing on 14th March, 1992 in New Delhi on which date they issued directions to the partie...
Deoki Nandan Sharma Vs. Union of India
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-14-1998
Reported in: 1998VAD(Delhi)990; 73(1998)DLT531; 1998(45)DRJ653
ORDERK. Ramamoorthy, J.1. The petitioner has challenged the order of removal by the respondent bank by order dated the 8th of February, 1985. 2. Disciplinary action was initiated against the petitioner. Inquiry was held. The inquiry officer submitted his report on the 22nd of June, 1984. 3. On Charge No.1, the inquiry officer gave find that the charge stood partially proved. The charge 'Yes purchased cheque from certain traders for substantial amounts without ascertaining genuineness of transactions.(Details of transactions in excess of Rs.10,000/-Annexure-A). 4. On Charge No.2, the inquiry officer held:- 'Charge No.2: 'You allowed overdrafts to various parties unautho- risedly.(Details of transactions in excess of Rs.10,000/- Annex- ure-B). Prosecution Case: Shri O.P.Chaudhary (P.W.3) after seeing ledger sheets of M/s.Vikas Tea Company (Exb.P.D.5) and M/s.Keshav Motors (Exb.P.D.3) has deposed that Shri Sharma(OPA) had been granting overdrafts to aforesaid parties unauthorisedly and h...
Rajni Vohra Vs. Union of India
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-14-1998
Reported in: 1998VIAD(Delhi)9; 73(1998)DLT562; 1998(45)DRJ676
ORDERK. Ramamoorthy, J.1. The petitioner, the widow of Late Lt.Col.N.K.Vohra, has challenged the order dated 27.3.1991 and the order dated 18.11.1991 rejecting her claim for the grant of special family pension.2. The facts necessary for the purpose of disposal of the case can be noticed thus:3. The petitioner's husband had undergone pre-commission training and was absolutely fit and suitable to hold permanent commission in the Army and he was taken in on the 30th of June, 1963. In 1976, he was admitted in the hospital and it was diagnosed by the doctors that he was suffering from the disease of inferior infarction and was placed in low medical category and it was opined that he was not to be employed in high altitude and in extreme cold climate areas. Before this, the deceased was employed in high altitude in J & K areas till the year 1975.3A. According to the petitioner, her husband suffered the above disability on account of his service with active unit in the field areas, in high al...
Raj Kumar Vs. Municipal Corporation of Delhi
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-14-1998
Reported in: 1998VAD(Delhi)996; 73(1998)DLT601; 1998(45)DRJ528
ORDERK. Ramamoorthy, J.1. The petitioner has sought the quashing of the letter dated the 9th of November, 1995 by which the request for compassionate appointment was rejected by the MCD. According to the petitioner, his father, who was working in the Horticulture Department of MCD,died while in service on the 18th of January, 1993. On the 21st of June, 1993, the petitioner applied for suitable job on compassionate grounds. On the 15the of December, 1995, the petitioner received a letter dated the 9th of November, 1995 from the Administrative Officer, MCD rejecting his application. The impugned letter reads as under:- 'You have been hereby informed that regarding your application for job on compassionate ground was duly considered by the competent authorities. But your appointment on compassionate ground does not come with in purview of scheduled policy. thereforee, your application has been rejected accordingly.'2. In paragraph 3 of the preliminary objections of the counter-affidavit, ...
Vijay Kumar Vs. Municipal Corporation of Delhi
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-14-1998
Reported in: 1998VAD(Delhi)994; 73(1998)DLT634; 1998(46)DRJ214
K. Ramamoorthy, J.1. The two petitioners have challenged the selection made by the MCD to 48 temporary posts of trained telephone operators. The case of the petitioners is: Respondents 3 to 15, who are not qualified, had been selected and the petitioners were not subjected to any trade test, as mentioned in the employment notice. According to petitioners, the employment notice was for inviting applications from departmental candidates and also outsiders through employment exchange. According the petitioners, though in the employment notice it is stated that the recruitment was for 48 temporary posts, about 47 candidates in general category and 17 candidates in reserved categories have been selected.2. The learned counsel for MCD, Mr.Jayant Nath, submitted that MCD had considered the case of the applicants and on the basis of the due assessment of their merits had allotted marks and a selection list had been issued on the basis of rank which was according to the marks obtained by the ca...
Vinay Kumar Vs. Management, Birla Cotton Spinning and Weaving Mills Lt ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-14-1998
Reported in: 75(1998)DLT221
K. Ramamoorthy, J. 1. The writ petitioner has challenged the award of the Labour Court adjudicating the reference made by the Delhi Administration. The dispute between the petitioner and the workman is regarding employment.2. The case of the petitioner was that he was always ready and willing to work and when he reported for duty he was not given employment and, thereforee, he complained of non-employment by the employer. The case of the Management was that it was always giving him work. The petitioner was not willing to work and he was given particular work and he was not willing to do as well as he was not trained to do the particular work and, thereforee, he absented himself.3. The Management also took another plea before the Labour Court that the petitioner instituted a suit for injunction with reference to the same cause of action and that suit was dismissed and, thereforee, the petitioner cannot agitate the matter before the labour Court. A plea was taken before the Labour Court ...
Vinay Kumar Vs. the Management, the Birla Cotton Spinning and Weaving ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-14-1998
Reported in: 1998(47)DRJ424
K. Ramamoorthy, J. 1. The writ petitioner has challenged the award of the Labour Court adjudicating the reference made by the Delhi Administration. The dispute between the petitioner and the workman is regarding employment. 2. The case of the petitioner was that he was always ready and willing to work and when he reported for duty he was not given employment and, thereforee, he complained of non-employment by the employer. The case of the Management was that it was always giving him work. The petitioner was not willing to work and he was given particular work and he was not willing to do as well as he was not trained to do the particular work and, thereforee, he absented himself. 3. The Management also took another plea before the Labour Court that the petitioner instituted a suit for injunction with reference to the same cause of action and that suit was dismissed and, thereforee, the petitioner cannot agitate the matter before the labour court. A plea was taken before the Labour Cour...
- ‹ Prev
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 16
- 17
- Next ›
- Last »