Delhi Court August 2001 Judgments

Smt. Shashi Kanta and Others Vs. Smt. Sadhna Midha and Others

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 94(2001)DLT111

ORDERA.K. Sikri, J.1. Two cases involve identical facts and question of law. thereforee, these were heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment. For the sake of convenience, facts of Suit no. 937/2000 are stated. The plaintiff claims herself to be the bonafide purchaser of built up property bearing no. 27/20 in Khasra no. 3630/3096/637 (min) situated at Village Chandawali alias Shahdara in the abadi of Gali no. 9, Vishwas Nagar, Shahdara, Delhi-110032 ad-measuring 100 sq. yds (hereinafter referred to as the Suit property, for short). The Suit is filed by her for declaration and perpetual injunction. She is seeking declaration to the effect that she is the lawful owner of the aforesaid property and that the defendants particularly defendants 1 and 2 have no right, title or interest of any kind whatsoever with respect to these property. Consequentially perpetual injunction is sought restraining the defendants 1 and 2 from interfering with the peaceful and physical po...

D.L.F. Universal Ltd. Vs. Union of India and anr.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 93(2001)DLT832; 2001(60)DRJ288

ORDERMadan B. Lokur, J.1. The Appellant is aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 15th March, 1979 passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court in R.F.A.No. 169 of 1975. By the impugned order, the learned Judge declined to enhance the compensation awarded to the appellant by the learned Additional District Judge.2. A notification dated 24th October, 1961 was issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (the Act) intending to acquire land belonging to the Appellant situated in a tanrs-Yamuna colony knows as Dilshad Garden. On 26th October, 1968, a declaration was issued under Section 6 of the Act acquiring the land in question. In subsequent proceedings, the Land Acquisition Collector passed an Award being Award No.8/69. On a reference under Section 18 of the Act, the learned Additional District Judge by his judgment dated 11th February, 1975 allowed an increase over the amount awarded by the Land Acquisition Collector. He held that there were six categories of land and...

Shri Ashok Kumar Dewan Vs. Lt. Governor, Delhi and Others

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 94(2001)DLT506

ORDERManmohan Sarin, J.1. The petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to allot an MIG flat bearing No. 209, Sector 24, Pocket-24, Second floor, Rohini, to the petitioner. Petitioner also seeks quashing of the impugned order dated 28.2.1995 cancelling the allotment of the flat.2. The petitioner applied for allotment of a flat under the 4th New Pattern Registration Scheme 1979. The petitioner deposited Rs.4,500/- and he was registered at No.39018 dated 18.6.1980. Petitioners in the event was allotted flat No.209, Sector 24, Pocket 24 in the draw of lots held on 2.2.1994. As per the demand-cum-allotment letter dated 23.5.1994/26.5.1994, petitioner was required to pay the amount of Rs.2.18.018/32/- by 25.6.1994 and in any case latest by 24.8.1994. The petitioner did not comply with the terms and conditions of allotment and deposit any further amount. He even failed to furnish the required documents. as per the allotment-cum-demand letter...

Mr. B.R. Anand Vs. Mr. Prem Sagar

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 93(2001)DLT370; 2001(60)DRJ445

ORDERVikramajit Sen, J.1. The present revision petition has been filed against the Order of the Rent Controller dated 5.8.2000 whereby the Tenant's application seeking Leave to Contest the eviction petition under Section 14(1)(e) read with Section 25B of the Delhi Rent Control Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the DRC Act') had been dismissed. Learned counsel for the Petitioner/Tenant has relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Inderjeet Kaur v. Nirpal Singh, : 2000(8)SCALE424 . What has been observed by the Apex Court is as follows:'We are of the considered view that at a stage when the tenant seeks leave to defend, it is enough if the prima facie makes out a case by disclosing such facts as would disentitle the landlord from obtaining an order of eviction. It would not be a right approached to say that unless the tenant at the stage itself establishes a strong case as would non-suit the landlord leave to defend should not be granted when it is not the requirement of Sec...

Societe Des Products Nestle, Sa and ors. Vs. Essar Industries and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2002VAD(Delhi)521; 2002(62)DRJ352; 2002(24)PTC156(Del)

O.P. Dwivedi, J.1. By this order I propose to dispose of application No. 1295/1997 under Section 10 read with Section 151 CPC filed by the defendants No. 4 and 5 for stayingthe S. No. 3047/1996 as earlier suit being No. 1187/1993 involving the same matter and issue between and same parties is also pending.2. Briefly stated, the facts in the background are as under :-On 21st May, 1993, the plaintiffs above named filed a suit against the defendants seeking a decree for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from manufacturing, selling, offering for sale, advertising, directly or indirectly dealing in miser grinders and juicers under the impugned trade mark MAGGI or any other trade mark as may identical to or deceptively similar with the trade mark MAGGI of the plaintiffs. Apart from permanent injunction, the plaintiff also prayed for rendition of accounts, delivery of the impugned goods including wrappers, packagings, stationery, dyes, blocks etc. of the defendants. It is allege...

Harnam Singh Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

1. This application has been filed by the applicant impugning the orders issued by the respondents dated 12.10.1999 and 18.4.2000. By another letter dated 2.7.1992, the respondents informed the applicant that a trade test will be conducted on 16.7.1992 for the post of Mistry Fitter (G) which he was required to attend.2. The brief relevant facts of the case are that this is the second round of litigation by the applicant, as he had filed earlier A 2371/1992 which was disposed of by Tribunal's order dated 16.7.1999 in which one of us (Smt. Lakshmi Swaminathan, VC (J) was also a Member).By that order, it was held, inter alia, that if the applicant is eligible for promotion as Mistry (G) on the basis of his seniority, he cannot be denied promotion merely because he belongs to SC community.It was further observed that "if stand of the official respondents is to be accepted, applicant would be subject to hostile discrimination merely because he belongs to SC community which would clearly be...

Ram Lal Dogra Vs. State (Cbi)

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 95(2002)DLT535; 2002(61)DRJ763

R.S. Sodhi, J. 1. This criminal appeal is directed against the judgment andorder dated 19.11.1994 of the Special Judge in Corruption Case No. 51/93 wherebythe learned Judge was pleased to hold the appellant guilty under Sections 7 and13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short'the Act') and further by his order dated 21.11.1994 sentenced the appellant toundergo R.I. for a period of 22 months with a fine of Rs. 1,500/- under Section 7 ofthe Act and in default of fine to further undergo R.I. for 4 months, furtherR.I. for 42 months under Section 13(1)(d) of the Act with a fine of Rs. 1,500/- and indefault of payment of fine to further undergo R.I. for 4 months. Both the substantivesentences were directed to run concurrently. 2. Brief facts of the case, as noted by the learned Judge, are that:'Jitender Kumar s/o late Sh. Chunilal Sethi, r/o 5/13, Ashok Nagar, Delhi isrunning a travel agency in the name and style of M/s. Sethi Travels (Regd.),100 Am...

Shamli Distillery and Chemical Works Vs. Vijai Shree Chemicals (India) ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2001(60)DRJ109

ORDERJ.D Kapoor, J. 1. This is a suit for recovery of money on account of purchases of goods by the defendants filed under the summary procedure of Order 37 of Civil Procedure Code.The defendants were served with the summons of the suit in Form 4 of Appendix B of Order 37 by way of publication on 17th January, 2000 at all the addresses known to the plaintiff. As per procedure laid down in Rules 2 and sub-Rule(1) of Rule 3 of the Order 3 of the Order 37, the defendant is obliged to enter into appearance within ten days of the service of the summons of the suit failing which the allegations in the plaint are deemed to have been admitted and as a result, the suit is to be decreed in terms of Rule 2. Relevant provisions are as under:2. Institution of summary suits - (1) A suit to which this Order applies, may if the plaintiff desires to proceed hereunder, be instituted by presenting a plaint which shall contain:- (a) a specific averment to the effect that the suit is filed under this Order...

JaIn Society for the Protection of Orphans for India Vs. the State

Court: Delhi

Reported in: AIR2001Delhi484; 93(2001)DLT798; 2002(61)DRJ71

ORDERSanjay Kishan Kaul, J. 1. Whether the petitioner, a society registered under the Societies Registration Act XXI of 1860 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') is prohibited from obtaining letters of administration because of Section 236 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925, (hereinafter referred to as 'the Succession Act')? The answer to this question will dispose of the present reference made by the learned Single Judge vide order dated 22nd January, 1991.2. The factual matrix required to be stated for determination of the present controversy is very limited. Late Ratan Lal is alleged to have executed a Will dated 15.10.1977 bequeathing a part of this estate to Jain Bal Ashram. No executor was appointed in the Will. The said Jain Bal Ashram is managed by the Jain Society for protection of Orphans for India, a society registered under the Act. Sh. Ratan Lal died on 4.3.1978. A petition was filed under Section 276 of the Succession Act for grant of letters of Administration with the ...

Dr. V.P. Bansal Vs. Union of India and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2002(63)DRJ88

ORDERSanjay Kishan Kaul, J.1. Two writ petitions have been filed by the petitioner aggrieved by the decisions of the Central Administrative Tribunal. Civil Writ No. 4617/97 was filed against the common judgment dated 22nd March, 1997 dismissing 3 OAs and a review application filed by the petitioner and Civil Writ No. 2496/99 was filed by the petitioner aggrieved by the order dated 29th January, 1999. Since the factual matrix and the grievance of the petitioner are interwoven and inter-connected both petitions are being disposed of by a common judgment.2. Before proceeding to consider these petitions on merit it is relevant to set out some facts explaining the absence of the petitioner during the course of hearing.3. On 15th May, 2000 when the petition was listed before the court a request was made for adjournment by learned counsel for the petitioner on the ground that he is indisposed. On the next date on 3rd July, 2000 the petitioner appeared in person and stated that his counsel is ...