Delhi Court September 1999 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.
Rakesh Kumar Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-13-1999
Reported in: 1999VIAD(Delhi)129; 83(2000)DLT30; 2000(52)DRJ51
1. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, I purpose to dispose of this revision at the stage of admission itself.2. This revision is directed against the order dated 20.5.1999 passed by the Addl. Sessions Judge in Sessions Case No. 26/97 directing framing of the charge under Section 392/120-B IPC against the petitioner. 3. Briefly stated, facts giving rise to this revision are that on 19.11.1993, the co-accused Narender Kumar and Vinesh Kumar committed robbery and in the course of the commission of such robbery, they used deadly weapons and looted ornaments and cash belonging to the complainant. Investigation pursuant to the FIR lodged by the complainant culminated into submission of a charge-sheet under Sections 392/397/120-B IPC against the petitioner and the other co-accused persons. On consideration of the documents referred to in Section 207 Cr.P.C. and after hearing the parties, the learned Addl. Sessions Judge also framed the impugned charge under Sections 392/120-B IPC ...
Municipal Corporation of Delhi Vs. Angoori Devi
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-13-1999
Reported in: 1999VIAD(Delhi)201; 82(1999)DLT221; 1999(51)DRJ650
ORDERVijender Jain, J.1. Aggrieved by the order passed by the Rent Control Tribunal reversing the order of Additional Rent Controller whereby the Additional Rent Controller Rent has dismissed the petition of the landlady under Section 14(1)(f) of the Delhi Rent Control Act (for short 'DRC Act'). Municipal Corporation of Delhi ( in short 'MCD') has filed this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.2. Mr. Raman Duggal, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner-MCD, has contended that Section 20 of the DRC Act provides election by the tenant in the event of an order being passed under Section 14(1)(f) of the DRC Act. He has contended that the Rent Control Tribunal while not giving the opportunity of an election as contemplated under Section 20 of the DRC Act has committed a serious jurisdictional error. Mr. Duggal has further contended that on the analogy of Section 14(1)(a) where an order being passed by the Additional Rent Controller for any payment of arrears of ren...
Rudra Dutt Sharma Vs. Shri Som Nath Ghosh
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-13-1999
Reported in: 1999VIAD(Delhi)277; 82(1999)DLT203
ORDERVijender Jain, J.1. By a separate order I have disposed of CR No. 612/1998. Both the cases pertain to same premises. Aggrieved by the dismissal of the petitioner by the Additional Rent Controller, the petitioner has filed the present revision petition. Eviction petition was filed against the respondents under Section 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act (for short 'DRC Act'). According to the petitioner, one room was let out to the respondent on 8.9.1981 @ Rs. 190/= per month on the first floor. It is the case of the petitioner that on 7.3.1982 a verandah was also let out to the respondent-Som Nath Ghosh and rent from Rs. 190/= was increased to Rs. 290/=. Respondent did not make the payment of rent after February 1983.2. Respondent-Som Nath Ghosh filed a suit on 31.3.1983 claiming that he was the tenant not only in respect of one room and verandah but also another room in which Shobha Ghosh was a tenant. In the said proceedings, Sub Judge held that 'The suit premises is wrongly ...
Raj Kumar Vs. State and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-13-1999
Reported in: 2000IAD(Delhi)185
ORDERCrl. R. No. 356/971. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, I propose to dispose of the revision at the stage of admission itself. 2. This revision is directed against the order dated 20.5.1997 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Delhi discharging respondents No.2 to 4 of the offences charged under Sections 308/452/34 IPC. 3. Briefly stated, facts giving rise to this petition are that on 20.3.1993 at about 11 P.M. while complainant Raj Kumar was going to sleep in the house of Satish, the respondent Rajinder met him on the way and threatened him. As per prosecution case while the complainant Raj Kumar was inside the house, respondents 2 to 4 secured their entry in the said house, and at that time, the respondent Rajinder was armed with hockey stick while respondent Laxmi Kant was armed with a lathi. It is alleged that respondent Jagdish caught hold of Raj Kumar and the remaining respondents belaboured him with their respective weapons, as a result whereof, he sustained...
Marriott International Inc. and Others Vs. Ansal Hotels Ltd. and Anoth ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-13-1999
Reported in: 1999VIAD(Delhi)340; AIR2000Delhi377; 82(1999)DLT137
ORDERDalveer Bhandari, J.1. The petitioners have entered into a number of agreements with the respondents, for the construction of a five star hotel at Saket, NewOMP No. 91 of 1999. Delhi. It is alleged by the petitioners that during the pendency of the agreement, the respondents have entered into an agreement with ITC, in total contravention of the agreements with the petitioners. It is further alleged that the petitioner's agreements with the respondents are subsisting and without requisite notice of termination, the respondents have entered into agreement with ITC, which is in contravention with the respondents' agreement with the petitioners. Consequently, respondent No. 1 be retrained from terminating the Technical Services Agreement, Hotel Operating Agreement, Advisory Services Agreement, License and Royalty Agreement, Pre-Opening Technical Assistance Agreement & International Sales and Marketing Agreement dated 8th March, 1997. 2. It is also prayed that the respondents be restr...
Citibank N.A. Vs. Mr. Dinesh Aneja
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-13-1999
Reported in: 2000IIAD(Delhi)242
ORDERMukul Mudgal, J. 1. This is a suit under Order xxxvII CPC on behalf of the plaintiff, praying for recovery of a sum of Rs. 5,75,166.66/-.2. The plaintiff is a body corporate, constituted under the laws prevail-ing in USA and having its Registered office in New Delhi. 3. The Plaintiff has entered into a Loan Agreement dated 28.8.1996 with the defendant who is running a manufacturing unit under the name M/s. Sheel Auto Industries 73-B, Sector-31, HSIDC, Faridabad & sanctioned a loan of Rs. 4,00,000/- to the defendant. The loan of Rs. 4,00,000/- was disbursed to the defendant on 11.9.1996. 4. By virtue of the Agreement dated 28.8.96, the defendant agreed to undertake to repay the loan in 48 equated monthly installments of Rs. 12,821/- each. 5. It is averred in the plaint on behalf of the plaintiff that pursuant to receipt of the loan, the defendant failed to adhere to the financial discipline of repayment of loan amount Along with interest despite the plaintiff's giving several remin...
Rudra Dutt Sharma Vs. Smt. Shobha Ghosh and Another
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-13-1999
Reported in: 1999VIAD(Delhi)54; 82(1999)DLT201; 1999(51)DRJ646
ORDERVijender Jain, J.1. Aggrieved by the dismissal of the petition by the Additional Rent Controller, the petitioner has filed the present revision petition. Eviction petition was filed against the respondents under Section 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act (for short 'DRC Act'). According to the petitioner, one room was let out to the respondent on 1.1.1983 @ Rs. 400/- per month on the first floor, however, respondent paid rent for two months i.e. January, 1983 and February', 1993 and thereafter stopped paying rent. In the same premises, one room on the first floor was let out initially to one Som Nath Ghosh, respondent No. 2 herein. I will also be disposing of the revision petition bearing CR No. 571/1998 filed against Shri Som Nath Ghosh by a separate order. Respondent No. 2 Som Nath Ghosh was inducted as a tenant on 8.9.1981. Some of these facts are important for the disposal of present revision petition as well as CR 571/1998. It is the case of the petitioner that on 7.3.198...
Lloyd Finance Ltd. (M/S.) Vs. Arvind Saraf and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-13-1999
Reported in: 2000IIIAD(Delhi)319
ORDERMukul Mudgal, J.1. This suit is filed by the plaintiff for recovery of Rs. 2,98,39,505/- together with pendentelite and future interest under Order xxxvII CPC. 2. Defendants were served on 21st August, 1998 with summons in the form No. 4 prescribed under Order xxxvII. Till today no application for leave to defend has been filed. 3. The suit is based on a written contract and is maintainable under Order xxxvII. Hence the plaintiff is entitled to a decree under Order xxxvII Rule 2(3) CPC. The plaintiff shall also be entitled to pendentelite and future interest. 4. The suit as prayed for is accordingly decreed against defendant No. 1 for Rs. 2,98,39,505/- as principal amount with interest @ 24% per annum from the date of the suit i.e. 27th July, 1998 till the date of decree and @ 8% per annum from the date of decree till the date of realization. The plaintiff shall be entitled to costs. 5. The suit is decreed accordingly. Decree sheet be drawn up in the above terms. ...
Krishna Chopra and Another Vs. Smt. Raksha and Others
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-13-1999
Reported in: 1999VIAD(Delhi)51; 82(1999)DLT360
ORDERVijender Jain, J.1. Aggrieved by the order passed by the Additional Rent Controller on 10th October,1995, the petitioner has preferred this revision petition. It has been pending in this Court since 1996. 2. The eviction petition was filed by the respondent landlady under Section 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act. The size of the family of the respondent is not disputed. The family of respondent consists of herself and her grown up son who is 29 years old. The extent of accommodation available with the respondent is only one room on the ground floor. There is no dispute with regard to the purpose of letting. However, the petitioner has disputed the relationship of tenant and landlord. Respondent brought on record a Will in favor of the respondent executed by the father of the respondent. It was contended before the Additional Rent Controller that there may be other brothers and sisters of the respondent and, thereforee, respondent was not the absolute owner of the property in...
Arun Kumar Singh Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-13-1999
Reported in: 1999VAD(Delhi)716; 81(1999)DLT622
ORDERM.S.A. Siddiqui, J. 1. A Motion has been moved before this Court by the State to quash the order dated 23.7.1999 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Delhi. 2. The backdrop of the above order can be summarised thus: On the FIR No.259/99 lodged by the petitioner's wife Smt. Smita chaudhry, a case under Sections 498-A/406 IPC was registered against the petitioner. In the course of the investigation that followed, the petitioner was arrested by the Delhi Police in Moradabad and was produced on the same day before the Chief Judicial Magistrate for remand. At the time of arrest, the petitioner was admitted in the Hospital at Moradabad. The petitioner filed an application before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Moradabad for grant of bail. By the order dated 12.5.1999, the Chief Judicial Magistrate granted bail to the petitioner under Section 81 Cr. P.C. with a direction to appear before the Court concerned after discharge from the hospital. On 25.6.1999, the petitioner filed a petiti...
- ‹ Prev
- 16
- 17
- 18
- 19
- 20
- 22
- 23
- 24
- 25
- 26
- Next ›
- Last »