Delhi Court January 2007 Judgments

Shri O.P. Kohli Vs. Shri Krishan Kumar Gaur

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 137(2007)DLT414; 2007(94)DRJ467

J.M. Malik, J.1. The parties have locked horns over the question whether the appellant/plaintiff has any cause of action against the respondent. The learned Trial Court decided the case against the appellant and dismissed the plaint. The first Appellate Court affirmed the order of the learned Trial Court. The facts of the appellant's case emanating from the record are these. The respondent/defendant Krishan Kumar Gaur entered into an agreement to sell his house bearing No.100-A/2, Gautam Nagar, New Delhi with one Gurbachan Singh on 14.05.1984. The key controversy swirls around Clause 6 of the said agreement which runs as follows :'In case the existing passage to the aforesaid plot sold to second party in which a house has been constructed by the second party is not permitted by the Delhi Administration/DDA within a period of fifteen years from this day, the first party shall provide a 6 feet passage from his own plot for the entries to the house of the second party, in case, however, t...

Nand Lal @ Nandu S/O Sh. Jadha Ram Vs. State

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2007CriLJ3300; 2007(94)DRJ393

Madan B. Lokur, J.1. These are two appeals, one filed by Nand Lal @ Nandu and the other filed by Lajpat @ Billu. Both the appeals are directed against the judgment and order dated 2nd February, 1998 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge in Sessions Case No. 141/1996. Both the Appellants were held guilty of an offence punishable under Section 392 and 397 of the Indian Penal Code (for short the IPC) read with Section 34 thereof. They were also convicted of an offence punishable under Section 300 read with Section 302 and 34 of the IPC for having caused the murder of Sunil and under Section 307 read with Section 34 of the IPC for attempting to murder Sunil's brother Mukesh. Subsequently, by an order dated 3rd February, 1998, the Appellants were sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life for the offence of murder and to pay a fine. They were also sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 7 years for attempting to murder Mukesh and for committing a robbery with a dangerous we...

Smt. Kamla Rani and ors. Vs. Texmaco Ltd.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: AIR2007Delhi147; 139(2007)DLT61

Pradeep Nandrajog, J.1. Since common questions arise for consideration in the 6 abovementioned petitions filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, they are being disposed of by a common order. 2. Facts in brief, pertaining to the 6 petitions are that a company named M/s. Birla Cotton Spinning and Weaving Mills Ltd. filed eviction petitions invoking Section 14(1)(i) and Section 22 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 alleging that the premises in question were allotted to the respondent (predecessor-in-interest of some respondents) for residential purposes as a service tenant exclusively by virtue of their being in the service and employment of the said company. 3. That it was a term of allotment that within 4 days of superannuation or cessation of employment, vacant possession would be re-delivered to the company. That, in spite of cessation of employment, vacant possession was not handed over. 4. It was further alleged that by and under a scheme of arrangement sanctioned by...

Okasa Pharma Ltd. Vs. Lilly Icos Llc

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2007(35)PTC373(Del)

ORDER1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 12.12.2006 passed by the learned single Judge allowing the amendment in paragraph 48(c) of the plaint filed by the respondent. 2. The aforesaid suit has been filed by the respondent herein praying for permanent and mandatory injunction against alleged infringement of the registered trademark along with a prayer for rendition of accounts. Written statement is yet to be filed by the appellant. Proceedings are at the initial stage. In spite of the said admitted position, learned Counsel for the appellant herein states that the amendment allowing reduction in the value of the suit for the purpose of jurisdiction from Rs. 1 crore to Rs. 20,00,050/- in respect of prayer for rendition of accounts should not have been allowed. The aforesaid opposition to the amendment is made on the ground that the same is not permissible in view of Section 4 read with Section 28 and Schedule I of the Court Fees Act. In support of the aforesa...

Rathi Bars Ltd. Vs. Deepak Casting Ltd.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: [2007]141CompCas94(Delhi); 137(2007)DLT491; 2007(94)DRJ178; [2007]77SCL168(Delhi)

Hima Kohli, J.1. The present appeal is directed against the order dated 7th January, 2003 passed by the learned Company Judge in a winding up petition filed by the respondent herein, petitioner in CP No. 201/2000 praying, inter alia, for winding up of the appellant company on account of its inability to pay the acknowledged dues of Rs. 55,88,589/- payable to the respondent . By the impugned order, the learned Company Judge has held that the winding up petition preferred by the respondent is maintainable and as an interim measure, the appellant company has been directed to deposit the principal sum of Rs. 43,75,630/- in court within four weeks from the date of the impugned order. Aggrieved by the said order, the appellant company has preferred the present appeal.2. The brief facts of the case, as culled out from the record are that the respondent issued a statutory notice dated 7th January, 2000 under Section 434(1)(a) of the Companies Act, 1956 (for short `the Act') to the appellant co...

Smt. Sneh Lata and ors. Vs. Shri Lalit Kumar and anr.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 139(2007)DLT447

Pradeep Nandrajog, J.1. On 24.1.87, deceased died in a road accident involving a scooter No. DEM-4984. The scooter in question was uninsured. Dependants of the deceased filed a claim petition under Section 92A and 110-A, Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 before the Tribunal.2. The accident was caused when scooter in question was hit by an unidentified truck. Unfortunately, there is nothing on record to show the manner in which the accident had taken place.3. Case of the claimants being before the Tribunal was that respondent No. 1, Lalit Kumar, was the owner of the scooter and was driving the scooter and deceased was the pillion rider at the time of accident and that accident was caused due to rash and negligent driving by respondent No. 1.4. Respondent No. 1 denied the allegations made by the claimants and contended that deceased was driving the scooter and he was the pillion rider at the time of the accident and accident was caused by an unknown truck. He also denied being owner of scooter No...

Smt. Ravi Kanta Bansal Vs. Sh. Rakesh Aggarwal

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 139(2007)DLT707

Pradeep Nandrajog, J.1. A common question arises for consideration in all above captioned petitions and thereforee they are being decided by a common order. 2. Smt. Sangeeta Goyal and Smt. Bhanu Aggarwal are the petitioners in CM (M) No. 2637-38/05.3. Smt. Ravi Kanta Bansal and Sh. Rakesh Aggarwal are the respondents in said CM (M) No. 2637-38/2005 2637-38/2005 . The former is the lone contesting respondent. The latter supports the petitioners. 4. Smt. Ravi Kanta Bansal is the petitioner in CM (M) No. 2309-05. Sh. Rakesh Aggarwal is the respondent in the said petition. 5. Smt. Sangeeta Goyal and Smt. Bhanu Aggarwal have challenged the order dated 17.8.2005 passed by Sh.Babu Lal, ADJ, Delhi rejecting their application under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC to amend the written statement filed by them. Smt. Ravi Kanta Bansal challenges the order dated 19.3.2004 passed by Sh. R.S. Arya, ADJ, Delhi allowing a similar application and the order dated 17.2.2005 dismissing the review application which was ...

Kamal Kumar JaIn and ors. Vs. Smt. Raj Kumari JaIn and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 139(2007)DLT138; 2007(95)DRJ560; (2007)146PLR52

Pradeep Nandrajog, J.1. The present petition challenges 2 orders, dated 8.12.2003 and 23.2.2004 passed by Shri Prem Kumar, ADJ, Delhi in RCA No. 11/2002. 2. The first order dismissed an application under Order 23 Rule 1(3) of the Code of Civil Procedure filed by the petitioners in RCA No. 11/2002 praying that since the suit filed by them was dismissed substantially on account of legal defects and not on the merits of the case, leave be granted to them to withdraw the suit with liberty to file a fresh suit. 3. Vide order dated 8.12.2003, the said application was dismissed. 4. A review was sought of the order dated 8.12.2003. Order dated 23.2.2004 dismissed the review application. 5. Petitioners were the plaintiffs. They had filed suit for declaration, recovery of possession and perpetual injunction. 6. I need not note the respective stand of the parties as in my opinion no useful purpose would be served in penning down a prolix judgment. Suffice would it be to note that on the basis of ...

Delhi Nagrik Sehkari Bank Ltd. Vs. Delhi Nagrik Sehkari Bank Officers ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 137(2007)DLT729; 2007(94)DRJ641

Shiv Narayan Dhingra, J.1. By this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the validity of award dated 5th November, 1996 passed by Industrial Tribunal-I( in short 'the Tribunal'), Delhi, whereby the Tribunal directed the petitioner to prepare the seniority list of Supervisors and Accountants in accordance with the assurance given to the workmen in letter Ex. MW1/2 to Ex. MW1/10 and directed that the workmen/respondent would be treated as seniors to the Supervisors and their seniority shall be protected as against employees promoted with effect from 1.4.1981. The Tribunal directed that a fresh seniority list of Accountants be prepared on the basis of vacancies which existed as on 1st October, 1990 for post of Managers. Fresh selection of Managers be made in accordance with Rule 25 of staff selection rules on the basis of revised seniority list and if the respondents are found eligible for promotions as managers in the year 1990 or in subsequent years, they will be entitled for pay...

National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Ram Gopal Sharma

Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi

Mr. Justice J.D. Kapoor, PresidentRespondent purchased a vehicle from the original owner Sh. M.S. Negi on 7.3.2003. The vehicle was insured with the appellant in the name of Sh. M.S. Negi for a period of one year from 20.7.2002 to 19.7.2003, which was stolen on 25.4.2003. A report to this effect was lodged with the police. By that time the vehicle was not transferred in the name of respondent nor was the policy. The policy remained in the name of the original owner Sh. M.S. Negi, who continued to be the registered owner in the record of the RTO. The claim of the respondent was repudiated by the appellant on the ground that since the insurable interests are not transferred in his name, he was not entitled for the benefit of the policy. Feeling aggrieved the respondent filed the instant complaint before District Forum. 2. While repelling the aforesaid stand of the appellant, the District Forum vide impugned order dated 3.10.2006, allowed the complaint of the respondent with the direction...