Delhi Court September 1999 Judgments
Home Cases Delhi 1999 Page 11 of about 308 results (0.018 seconds)Rakesh Gupta Vs. M/S Om Prakash Gupta and Sons
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-22-1999
Reported in: 1999VIAD(Delhi)280; 82(1999)DLT213; 1999(51)DRJ433
ORDERVijender Jain, J.1. Aggrieved by the orders passed by the Executing Court as well as by the Rent Control Tribunal declining the prayer of the petitioner, the petitioner has filed the present petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.2. Mr. Maheshwar Dayal, learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the objections under Section 25 of the Delhi Rent Control Act have been filed by the petitioner on 18th August, 1988 and till the objections of the petitioner are decided the Executing Court was bound to protect the possession of the petitioner. Mr. Maheshwar Dayal has contended that so many hearings have taken place before the Executing Court, evidence was led as per the orders passed by the Executing Court to adjudicate upon the objections filed by the petitioner and, thereforee, till the evidence is concluded, objections are decided, the possession of the petitioner has to be protected. In support of his contention Mr. Maheshwar Dayal has cited Sh. Chhottey a...
Tag this Judgment!Om International and Others Vs. Teen Murti Chit Fund (P) Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-22-1999
Reported in: 1999VIAD(Delhi)300; 1999(51)DRJ734
ORDERDr. M.K. Sharma, J.1. This revision petition is directed against the order dated 29.8.1998 passed by the Additional District Judge, Delhi in Execution Case No. 76/95 dismissing the objection petition filed by the petitioners herein. 2. An award was passed on 15.7.1994 in favor of the respondent and against the petitioners. On an application filed for making the award a rule of, the court by order 9.12.94 made the award a rule of the court and a decree was passed for a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- payable within one month from the date of the award, failing which the petitioners were to pay interest @ 18% p.a. from 5.4.1993 till realisation. As the decretal amount was not paid by the petitioners, an execution application for recovery of the decretal amount was filed by the respondent on which warrants of attachment were issued. When the aforesaid warrants of attachments were taken for execution, petitioner No.3 who is the wife of petitioner No. 2 herein, made payment of the decretal amount...
Tag this Judgment!NaraIn Singh Vs. M/S. Ansal Properties and Industries Ltd. and Another
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-22-1999
Reported in: 1999VIAD(Delhi)394
ORDERDr. M.K. Sharma, J.1. This revision petition has been preferred by the petitioner against the order dated 8.10.1996 passed by the Civil Judge, Delhi in Suit No. 6/1996 dismissing the application filed by the petitioner/plaintiff seeking for amendment of the plaint.2. The plaintiff filed a suit for permanent injunction contending inter alias that the petitioner and respondent No. 2 booked a commercial flat bearing No. 8-H, measuring about 400 Sq. Ft. at the 8th floor at STATESMAN HOUSE at Barakhamba Road, New Delhi. It is alleged that the said flat was booked for a total consideration of Rs. 9,22,000/- and an agreement-cumallotment letter dated 5.7.1990 was issued. It is further alleged that they jointly paid Rs. 1 lacs i.e. Rs. 50,000/- each by the petitioner and respondent No. 2 through bank draft to respondent No. 1. It is alleged that the respondent No. 10 started threatening the petitioner to allot and transfer the flat in the name of respondent No. 2 only after completion of ...
Tag this Judgment!Aman Gulyani Vs. Praveen Kumar
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-22-1999
Reported in: 1999VIAD(Delhi)525; 82(1999)DLT806; (2000)124PLR16
ORDERDR. M.K. Sharma, J.1. This revision petition is directed against the judgment and order dated 15.9.1994 passed by the Sub-Judge, Delhi in Suit No. 1077/1993 dismissing the application filed by the petitioner for leave to defend and thereafter passing a decree for a sum of Rs. 94,400/- Along with interest @ 18% per annum from the date of filing of the suit till realisation. 2. The respondent instituted a suit under Order 37 CPC for recovery of Rs. 94,400/ Along with pendente lite and future interest. On being served with the summons of the suit the petitioner/defendant entered appearance and thereafter on being served with the summons for judgment filed an application for leave to defend Along with an affidavit. In the said application it was alleged that the suit was liable to be dismissed as it did not conform to the mandatory provisions of Order 37 of the Code of Civil Procedure. It was also contended that the pronote on the basis of which the suit was filed, did not bear the si...
Tag this Judgment!Union of India and anr. Vs. Praful Bhai Patel and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-22-1999
Reported in: 1999VIAD(Delhi)57; 1999(51)DRJ453
ORDERMadan B. Lokur, J.1. Rule D.B. in both the writ petitions.2. On the request of learned counsel for the parties, and keeping in view the fact that these petitions concern the future of more than 40 employees, we decided to take them up for final disposal at the admission stage. Accordingly, we heard learned counsel for the parties on 17th August and 1st, 7th and 13th September, 1999 when judgment was reserved. We have also perused the written submissions filed by learned counsel for the parties.3. In Civil Writ Petition No. 3392 of 1999, the Union of India and others (hereinafter referred to as the CBI) have challenged the order dated 5th April, 1999 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal) in O.A. No. 779/1998 and O.A. No. 795/1998. In Civil Writ Petition No. 6137 of 1998, the petitioners have challenged the order dated 10th November, 1998 passed by the Tribunal in O.A. No. 872/1998. Since both the writ pet...
Tag this Judgment!Kamal Dhawan Vs. the State and Another
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-22-1999
Reported in: 1999(51)DRJ329; ILR1999Delhi490
ORDERM.S.A. Siddiqui, J.1. The petitioners have filed two separate petitions under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing the criminal proceedings arising out of the FIR No.267/92 registered under Sections 498-A/406 IPC, at Police Station Vinay Nagar, New Delhi and pending on the file of Ms. Sunita Gupta, Metropolitan Magistrate, New Delhi as well as the criminal proceedings arising out of the FIR No.248/92 registered under Sections 341/506 IPC at Police Station defense Colony, New Delhi and pending on the file of Ms. Neena Bansal Krishna, Metropolitan Magistrate, New Delhi. I propose to dispose of both the petitions by this common order. 2. The preamble of the prosecution reveals that on 18.1.1991 the respondent No.2, Smt. Sangeeta Dhawan was married to the petitioner, Kamal Dhawan. The petitioners were not satisfied with the dowry given at the time of marriage, which projected a shadow on marital life of the petitioner No.1 and respondent No.2. The married life respondent No.2 became gloom...
Tag this Judgment!Om International and Others Vs. S.K. Nanda
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-22-1999
Reported in: 1999VIAD(Delhi)790; 82(1999)DLT428; 2000(53)DRJ1
ORDERDr. M.K. Sharma, J.1. This revision petition is directed against the order dated 29.8.1998 passed by the Additional District Judge, Delhi in Execution Case No. 75/95 dismissing the objection petition filed by the petitioners herein.2. An award was passed on 15.7. 1994 in favor of the respondent and against the petitioners. On an application filed for making the award a rule of, the court by order 9.12.94 made the award a rule of the court and a decree was passed for a sum of Rs. 1,50,000/- payable within one month from the date of the award, failing which the petitioners were to pay interest @ 18% p.a. from 5.4.1993 till realisation. As the decretal amount was not paid by the petitioners, an execution application for recovery of the decretal amount was filed by the respondent on which warrants of attachment were issued. When the aforesaid warrants of attachments were issued . When the aforesaid warrants of attachments were taken for execution, petitioner No.3 who is the wife of pe...
Tag this Judgment!international Meditek Private Ltd. Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-22-1999
Reported in: 1999VIAD(Delhi)836; 82(1999)DLT676; 1999(51)DRJ746; (2000)124PLR32
ORDERVikramajit Sen, J.1. This is a suit for recovery filed against the Union of India, the Director General of Health Services and Dr. Ram Manohar Lohia Hospital. The suit states that certain medicines had been supplied by the Plaintiff to the Defendants the price of which had not been received by the Plaintiff. A resolution of these disputes does not fall for decision at this stage since the learned counsel for the Defendants has pressed the present application under Order 7, Rule 11(d), for the rejection of the plaint. The grounds urged are that in their Written Statement the Defendants have raised a preliminary objection that the notice contemplated by Section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure had not been served by the Plaintiff and, thereforee, the suit was not maintainable. 2. The relevant averments in the plaint are to be found in para 10, which is reproduced below : 'That despite the supply of the goods by the plaintiff and receipt thereof by the defendant No. 3 for the total ...
Tag this Judgment!N.G. Kulkarni (Dr.) Vs. Union of India
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-22-1999
Reported in: 1999VIAD(Delhi)797; 82(1999)DLT405; 1999(51)DRJ571
ORDERUsha Mehra, J.1. Appellant, Dr. N.G. Kulkarni challenged the order of his termination by way of writ petition in the High Court . The learned Single Judge by the impugned judgment dated 27th May, 1985 dismissed the same . Aggrieved by the same, the present appeal had been preferred, inter alia, on the grounds (i) that the learned single Judge failed to appreciate that the appellant was appointed on regular basis in permanent capacity to a permanent post of chemist (Research & Laboratory) Grade-I, in the Bank Note Press, Dewas (M.P), whereas in the impugned judgment his case had been considered as a temporary Government servant. (ii) Adverse material was used against him, the basis of his termination was neither supplied to him nor was he afforded any opportunity to explain the same. Still the learned Single Judge relying on the adverse remarks held that termination was not punitive. (iii) On the basis of allegations leveled against him his a service could not have been terminated ...
Tag this Judgment!Laga Exporters India (Pvt.) Ltd. Vs. Sh. Rajinder Kumar Sachdeva
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-22-1999
Reported in: 1999VIAD(Delhi)98; 82(1999)DLT477
ORDERVijender Jain, J. 1. Aggrieved by the order of dismissal of an application under Section 19 (1)and (2) of the Delhi Rent Control Act by the Additional Rent Controller on 23rd November, 1998, the petitioner has preferred an appeal before the Rent Control Tribunal which was also dismissed vide an order dated 9th August, 1989, the petitioner has filed the present petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 2. Mr. Rohtagi, learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the Rent Control Tribunal decided that the application under Section 19(2) of the Delhi Rent Control Act was maintainable, however ultimately held that the provisions of Section 21 of the Delhi Rent Control Act was not applicable retrospectively as the cause of action accrued to the respondent in 1981 when he filed a suit on the basis that the petitioner was in arrears of rent from 1st December, 1981 and the suit was filed for the recovery of possession of the premises on the termination of period of...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 16
- Next ›
- Last »