Delhi Court August 2001 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.
Shri Kanwal Kishore Manchanda Vs. Ms. Raksha Arora and Others
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-27-2001
Reported in: 93(2001)DLT579
ORDERJ.D. Kapoor, J.1. The Division Bench vide order dated 24th August, 1999 specifically observed that the instant application filed by the defendant shall be decided on merits alone and will not be dismissed on account of delay or for any other reason. 2.This is a suit for partition filed by the brother against the sister on the premise that the suit property was the exclusively owned property by the deceased father and was not the property of the partnership firm. Admittedly the plaintiff was one of the partners of the firm of which the deceased father and the defendant's sister were the other partners. The plaintiff at subsequent period of time ceased to be the partner of the firm and the firm thereforee continues to be comprised of the deceased father and the defendant.3. It is also not in dispute that the deceased had left a Will dated 23rd February, 1990 whereby the suit property was bequeathed in favor of the plaintiff as well as the defendant.4. Through the instant application...
Shri Girdhari Singh Negi Vs. New Delhi Municipal Council and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-27-2001
Reported in: 2002(61)DRJ161
ORDERVikramajit Sen, J. 1. In this writ petition filed in September 1999 the Petitioner has prayed for the regularisation of his services as an Office Attendant and for the payment of equal pay for equal work. Admittedly, he was appointed in this capacity on 22.12.1997 for a period of six months against a newly created post. He was posted at Sandhya (Home for Senior Citizens), Netaji Nagar, New Delhi, with the prior approval of the Secretary, N.D.M.C./Member-Secretary, New Delhi Palika Parishad, Samaj Kalyan Samiti by Office Order dated 2.7.1998, at a consolidated monthly salary of Rs. 1677/-. On 2.7.1998 this appointment was extended for 'a further period of six months with effect from 24.6.1998 on the existing terms and conditions. These facts are not in controversy. This will be evident from a reading of the following extracts of the Counter, which contain the defense of the Respondents in the present petition: '2. That a post of Room Attendant was created on temporary basis. The Pe...
Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. Vs. International Building and Company (Pv ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-27-2001
Reported in: 93(2001)DLT566
ORDERArun Kumar, J.1. The appellant/defendant is aggrieved by the impugned order dated 23rd July, 2001 by which he learned Single Judges had dismissed his application under Order 6 Rule 17 read with section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure for amendment of the written statement so as to include a prayer for set off. The appellant/defendant is contesting a suit field by the respondent for the recovery of money on account of execution of some work in terms of an agreement dated 22nd July, 1993. By way of amendment of the written statement the appellant/defendant seeks to raise a plea of set on account of risk purchase i.e., it had to get the work done through another contractor at a higher cost and as such he is entitled to the difference in the amount that was payable to the respondent/plaintiff in terms of the agreement and the amount actually paid by the appellant/defendant to another contractor. In addition to the claim for set off on account of risk purchase the appellant/defendan...
Sony Kabushiki Kaisha Vs. Mr. R. Chand
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-27-2001
Reported in: 94(2001)DLT490; 2001(60)DRJ336
ORDERJ.D. Kapoor, J. 1. Plaintiff is a renowned manufacturer and merchant of a large variety of electronic goods under the trademark SONY. The trade mark SONY of the plaintiff has been registered as detailed in para 2 of the plaint. Registration certificates are Ex.P2 to P4. This trademark is registered in 177 countries of the world. Worldover sales of SONY branded goods runs into several millions of US Dollars each year. 2. Despite import restrictions the plaintiff's specialised electronic equipment including broadcasting equipment and audio and video products under the trademark SONY continue to be sold in India. The plaintiff export to India of SONY branded goods run into several million Yean each year. 3. While scanning the market in February 1992 it was revealed to the plaintiff that the defendants are selling and offering for sale dual cone speakers bearing the trade mark SONY which speakers have no connection with the plaintiff. The plaintiff also purchased SONY branded speakers...
Maj. Gen. Rajinder Singh Chowdhary Vs. Sardar Manjit Singh Chowdhary a ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-27-2001
Reported in: AIR2002Delhi135; 95(2002)DLT302; 2002(61)DRJ135
ORDERVijender Jain, J. 1. This suit has been filed by the plaintiff for partition of the properties on the ground that Sardar Mohan Singh Chowdhary, father of the parties left a Will dated 22.2.1978 by which he bequeathed all his movable as well as immovable properties including house No.9707/XVI, 2C/23, New Rohtak Raod, New Delhi in favor of his wife Smt. Ved Kaur absolutely with full powers of disposal in any manner she liked. The written statement was filed by defendant nos.1 and 2 i.e.. Sardar Manjit Singh Chowdhary and Dr. Mohinder Pratap Singh Chowdhary, inter alia, contending that the Will of their deceased father only created a life estate and no absolute bequest was made in favor of Smt. Ved Kaur, mother of the parties.2. On the pleadings of the parties, on 28.8.1998 and issue was framed to the following effect :(i) Whether on the death of Shri Mohan Singh Chowdhary, his widow Smt. Ved Kaur became an absolute owner of all the properties mentioned in Schedule-B to the plaint by...
M/S Dewan Chand Vs. Indian Welfare Railway Organisation
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-27-2001
Reported in: 94(2001)DLT563; 2001(60)DRJ705
ORDERVijender Jain, J. 1. This is a petition for appointment of an Arbitrator on various grounds as mentioned in the petition. However, the same are not important as learned counsel for the petitioner has confined her arguments only on one aspect that if No Claim Certificate was given by the petitioner to the respondent still the question whether there was an accord of satisfaction between the parties has to be referred to the Arbitrator. Ms. Sanghi, learned counsel for the petitioner has cited various authorities of this Court as well as of the Supreme Court in support of her contention. She has contended that whether there is an accord of satisfaction between the parties is a question which has to be decided by the Arbitrator and not by this Court. In support of this contention, she has cited M/s Navbharat Dal Mills vs . Food Corporation of India and another : AIR1993Delhi87 , M/s Bharat Heavy Electrical Limited vs . M/s Amar Nath Bhan Prakash : (1982)1SCC625 , Mehta and Co. vs. Unio...
Shri Lalan Parshad Vs. Municipal Corporation of Delhi and Another
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-27-2001
Reported in: 94(2001)DLT807
ORDERV.S. Aggarwal, J. 1. The present suit has been filed by Lalan Parshad (hereinafter described as 'the plaintiff') seeking permanent injunction to restrain the defendants from interfering with the peaceful possession and occupation of the plaintiff over property bearing Khasra No. 249, Village Khichri Pur, Delhi, where the plaintiff is carrying on the business in the name and style of M/s. Gupta Building Material Suppliers'. 2. The facts alleged are that plaintiff is the owner in possession of property measuring 616 sq. yds. forming part of Khasra No. 249, referred to above. He had purchased the same from the previous owners Narender Kumar and Anil Kumar vide agreement to sell dated 8.3.2000 followed by General Power of Attorney and a Will, executed by Narender Kumar and Anil Kumar. At the time of purchase of the property, the same was encircled by a boundary wall about seven feet in height with a gate fixed therein and a room had also been constructed. The possession of the entire ...
Smt. Champa Arora and Others Vs. Shri Shiv Lal Arora and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-27-2001
Reported in: 94(2001)DLT658; 2001(62)DRJ601
ORDERV.S. Aggarwal, J.1. Ram Rakha Mal was the father of Om Prakash. Plaintiff NO. 1 Smt. Champa Arora and plaintiffs No.2 and 3 are the heirs of Om Prakash Ram Rakha Mal earlier was living in Pakistan. After the partition of the country., Ram Rakha Mal along with his two brothers, were registered as refugees. A claim had been lodged with the Regional Settlement Commissioner, Jam Nagar House, New Delhi. Application was field for compensation. Out of the compensation received, Shri Ram Rakha Mal along with other money earned with the sons, purchased two quarters, namely D-102 and D-104, Karwala, B.K.Dutt Colony, New Delhi. He also purchased plot No.R-795, New Rajender Nagar, New Delhi and payment was made out of the adjustment of compensation amount awarded by the Regional Settlement Commissioner. Shri Ram Rakha Mal, even purchased tow residential plots in Sector 15-A, Chandigarh, No.101 and Plot No.3.2. The present suit has been filed by the widow of the son of Ram Rakha Mal, Shri Om P...
N. Alagarisamy Vs. the National Seeds Corporation and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-27-2001
Reported in: 94(2001)DLT884
ORDERJ.D. Kapoor, J.1. Brief facts leading to the remand of the case by the Division Bench need to be recapitulated.2. The plaintiff filed claim before the arbitrator who was an officer of the defendant Corporation as a result of its disputes arising out of the contract. The learned arbitrator passed the award rejecting all the claims of the plaintiff. The plaintiff assailed the findings of the arbitrator. The learned Single Judge vide judgment dated 17.7.1998 not only set aside the award but also passed a decree against the defendants in terms of the claim of the plaintiff.3. Feeling aggrieved the defendant challenged the judgment of the learned Single Judge by way of an appeal. The Division Bench set aside the order of the Single Judge and remanded the petition for deciding it afresh with the observations that instead of deciding the objections of the plaintiff on merit whether the award is liable to be set aside on any of the grounds as contemplated in Section 30 of the Act 1940 the...
Jagdish Rai Vs. Tek Chand and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-27-2001
Reported in: 94(2001)DLT719; 2002(61)DRJ821
V.S. Aggarwal, J. 1. Jagdish Rai (plaintiff) seeks partition of the property in dispute. The present suit has been filed against Tek Chand who is the brother of the plaintiff besides other defendants 2 to 6 who are not contesting the civil suit.2. It has been alleged that in a civil suit for partition between late Ram Prasad (father of the plaintiff) and his brother Deep Chand have one of the property no. 7/5285-86, Krishan Nagar, Karol Bagh, New Delhi, fell to the share of Ram Prasad and other to the share of Deep Chand. Ram Prasad Had executed a will dated 24th September, 1982 whereby he bequeathed his share in the said house to the plaintiff and defendant no.1 in equal share. It was also provided in the will that his other heirs, namely defendants 2 to 6 shall have no concern whatsoever with the said house. Ram Prasad died in Delhi on 4th October, 1982. Thereafter the said suit for partition between Ram Prasad and Deep Chand was settled between the parties. One half portion of the h...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »