Delhi Court November 2001 Judgments
Home Cases Delhi 2001 Page 11 of about 103 results (0.023 seconds)Allied Equipment and Services and ors. Vs. Debt Recovery Tribunal and ...
Court: Delhi
Reported in: AIR2002Delhi201
Mahmood Ali Khan, J.1. These two petitions filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India have impugned the orders of Debt Recovery Tribunal passed in Original Applications No. 547/1997 and 550/1997, both dated 8.6.1999 by which the claim of the applicant (respondent No. 2 herein) has been accepted and the petitioners were directed to pay money and the recovery certificates have been drawn and issued in terms of the orders. Except the amount claimed which is different in two cases, other questions of facts and the law involved in them are common. They are, thereforee, being disposed of by this common order.2. The parties and the facts related in the order will be as they are applicable in Civil Miscellaneous (Main) No. 719/1999, but the judgment will govern the decision in both the cases.3. C.M.(M) No. 719/1999 has been filed to assail the order of the Debt Recovery Tribunal dated 8.6.1999 by which in OA No. 547/1997 filed by the respondent No. 2-Indian Bank against the petitione...
Tag this Judgment!Surjeet Kaur Tuli Vs. Union of India
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 95(2002)DLT322; 2002(61)DRJ562
Mahmood Ali Kha, J. 1. This civil revision filed under Section 115 of Civil Procedure Code raises a short but important question. The question raised may be formulated as follows:'Whether the Union of India loses the protection of Delhi Rent Control Act (in short DRC Act) after the contractual lease entered into by it with landlord has been determined by efflux of time or otherwise determined in terms of Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act (in short T.P. Act)? Implied in it is the question whether Section 50 of DRC Act bars the jurisdiction of civil court for eviction of Union of India.' 2. The facts, shorn of unnecessary details, are succinctly set out. The petitioner leased out her premises bearing No. 34, New Market, West Patel Nagar, New Delhi to respondent No. 1 - Union of India for use as a post office by its postal service department under a lease agreement dated 29.6.1982, bearing Rs. 2000/- per month as rent, for a period of five years. The lease deed was duly register...
Tag this Judgment!Unipack Industries Vs. Subhash Chand JaIn and ors.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 94(2001)DLT710; 2002(61)DRJ586
V.S. Aggarwal, J.1. Petitioner, Unipack Industries, is a partnership firm and has filed the present petition under Section 12 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short the Act). It has been prayed that respondent No. 2 (Jagan Nath) who has been appointed as the Arbitrator should be removed from holding the office of Arbitrator with respect to alleged claims of respondent No. 1 (Subhash Chand Jain).2. It has been pleaded that petitioner and respondent No. 1 had business dealings. The petitioner alleges that he was making regular payment to respondent No. 1 on bill to bill basis and no dispute was raised with respect to full and final settlement of account. Respondent No. 1 through his advance sent a notice dated 5th July, 2001 calling upon the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs. 16,37,312.99 with interest. A reply was sent to the Counsel that no amount was outstanding. Thereafter respondent No. 2 acting as Arbitrator is alleged to have sent notice dated 9th August, 2001 to app...
Tag this Judgment!