Delhi Court December 2010 Judgments
Home Cases Delhi 2010 Page 10 of about 211 results (0.010 seconds)Shri Naresh JaIn Vs. Smt Krishna Rani
Court: Delhi
1. The instant suit has been filed to claim reliefs of specific performance and possession. The specific performance is sought by the plaintiff qua an agreement to sell dated 25.09.1995 (Ex. P-1) in relation to an immovable property situate at 58, Block B, Dera Ismail Khan Co-operative Housing Building Society Limited, Delhi consisting of basement, ground floor, first floor, second floor alongwith roof, admeasuring 173.33 sq. yds. (hereinafter referred to as the said property). In addition to the above, the plaintiff has made consequential prayers requiring appointment of a court official to execute the sale deed in his favour in the event the defendant refuses to comply with the decree of specific performance in order to effectuate the sale. Similarly, prayer is also made to the effect that the defendant be directed to pay arrears of water, electricity and house tax upto the execution of the sale deed or in the alternative, the plaintiff be permitted to adjust the amount against the b...
Tag this Judgment!AshwIn Lal Vs. Aruna Lal
Court: Delhi
1. The captioned application has been filed by the plaintiff under the provisions of Order 12 Rule 6 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (in short Code). The plaintiff/ applicant has filed a suit for partition and recovery of possession qua an immovable property bearing no. BB-21-A, Ground Floor, DDA MIG Flat, Janakpuri, New Delhi 110 058 (hereinafter referred to as Janakpuri Flat). The suit is instituted by the plaintiff against his own wife, who is the only defendant in the suit. In the suit the plaintiff has claimed one-half share in the Janakpuri Flat.2. The brief facts, which apparently led to the filing of the present suit and, to the extent they are relevant for the disposal of the present application are set out hereinbelow: 2.1 The plaintiff and the defendant evidently got married on 13.12.1985. They were blessed with two sons; Abhinav Lal and Ankit Lal, presently aged 23 years and 19 years respectively. It appears that the marriage soured and, consequently, the plaintiff filed ...
Tag this Judgment!Vijay Kumar Aggarwal Vs. Union of India and anr.
Court: Delhi
1. The six captioned writ petitions are being decided by a common judgment for the reason the factual matrix is inter- twined and one event led to the other resulting in various orders being passed. Unfortunately for the petitioner the joy of being inducted as a member of the Indian Administrative Service was short-lived and before he came out of his infancy in the service he got embroiled in litigation after litigation. Except for a short stint of service spanning about five years he discharged no duties, being suspended, and ultimately got dismissed from service on 2.4.2007. Having successfully cleared the Central Civil Services Examination and being allocated Maharashtra Cadre, as a Member of the Indian Administrative Service, the petitioner joined service in the State of Maharashtra on 1.9.1982.2. Claiming that he became eligible to be granted the senior time-scale on 1.1.1986 and alleging that the same was illegally denied to him, the petitioner filed before the High Court of Bomb...
Tag this Judgment!State Bank of Patiala Vs. M/S Rohini Times and Others
Court: Delhi
1. By the present appeal under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, the appellant-Bank challenges the impugned judgment and decree dated 19.10.1996 whereby its suit for recovery of Rs.3,68,178.89 along with pendente lite and future interest was dismissed by the Trial Court. The defendants/respondents were ex parte in the Trial Court and have also not appeared in the present proceedings in spite of service by publication.2. The Trial Court has dismissed the suit on the ground that the documents have not been duly proved and also the main case. The relevant para of impugned judgment is para 4 which reads as under:- "I have heard the ld. Counsel for the plaintiff and perused the evidence led by pltff by way of affidavit as well as the documents filed by the plaintiff during the evidence, and I find that the evidence of Sh. R.K. Sagar cannot be taken into consideration in view of the fact that he has given his evidence only in a general way. Documents filed by the plaintiff hav...
Tag this Judgment!Anil Vs. State
Court: Delhi
1. This appeal is filed by the accused-appellant challenging his conviction under Sections 363 and 376 of the Indian Penal Code(IPC in short) vide judgment dated 3rd March, 2007 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Rohini as also the order of the same date whereby the accused- appellant was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten years and also to fine of Rs. 2000/-, with a default stipulation, under Section 376 IPC.2. The prosecution case, briefly stated, is that on 15th December, 2005 PW-2 went to the police station Keshav Puram at about 1 a.m. and lodged a report that his five years old daughter(PW-3) had left the house at 8.30 p.m. for going to his shop but thereafter had not returned back. He had searched her but could not trace her. He expressed his suspicion that somebody had enticed away his daughter. Accordingly the police registered a case u/s 363 IPC vide FIR No. 632. Then the police also tried to trace out the girl alongwith the complainant but she was not found....
Tag this Judgment!Uco Bank Vs. M/S. Joshika Agencies
Court: Delhi
1. By the present appeal, the appellant/defendant seeks to challenge the impugned judgment and decree dated 12.8.1997 passed by the trial court whereby the suit filed by the respondent/plaintiff for recovery of Rs.26,080/- with proportionate cost and interest at the rate of 12% per annum pendent lite and future till realization was decreed.2. The facts of the case are that the respondent/plaintiff filed a suit for recovery on account of the fact that the appellant-Bank wrongly debited the amount of Rs.24,000/- in its account. Ordinarily, banks debit an account by means of cheques or other printed forms, however, in this case, debit was stated to be done on the basis of a letter `Exb.PW-1/2' dated 19.9.1969.3. After the pleadings were complete, the trial court framed issues and the main issues were issues No.1 and 2 which read as under:- "1. Whether there was no authority from the pltff. To the defendant to transfer the sum of Rs.24,000/- to M/s. Plastikot (Sundersons) Industries? If so...
Tag this Judgment!Haider Ali Vs. Hassan Ahmad and Sons
Court: Delhi
1. This appeal arises out of an order passed by the learned ADJ on an application filed by the appellant under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 CPC in a suit filed by the appellant for declaration and permanent injunction against the Respondents No 1 & 2 whereby the appellant wanted a declaration that he is the owner and in possession of the suit property on account of having purchased the suit property from Shri Hasan Ahmed respondent No.1 on the basis of agreement to sell, registered GPA, receipt etc against both respondents No 1 & 2.2. By the impugned order the learned ADJ has dismissed the application of the appellant The relevant portion of the order passed by the learned ADJ, reads as under:" As mentioned above, the plaintiff has also sought an order of this court to stay judgment/decree passed by High Court of Delhi without challenging legality of it. I find force in the plea of Ld. Counsel for defendant stating that this court has no power to stay the execution of judgment/decree passed b...
Tag this Judgment!Sh. Prem Sagar Vs. Sh. Qamruddin
Court: Delhi
1. By means of the present appeal under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC), the plaintiff/appellant challenges the impugned judgment and decree of the trial court whereby the suit for possession of the appellant/plaintiff was dismissed with respect to Plot, Khasra No. 38, Gali No. 1, Aram Park, Shastri Nagar, Delhi admeasuring 100 sq. yards.2. The case of the appellant/plaintiff was that the sale deed of the subject plot was in his name and the defendant was a trespasser and, therefore, liable to be evicted in the suit for possession. The case of the defendant/respondent was that he had purchased the property pursuant to an agreement to sell dated 28.9.1983 entered into between him and the father of the appellant Sh. Sarda Ram. Further the case was that on the failure of the father of the plaintiff to execute a sale deed, a suit for specific performance was filed and which was ultimately decreed in favour of the respondent and in enforcement of the decree, a sale dee...
Tag this Judgment!Union of India Vs. Satyavir Singh
Court: Delhi
1. This is an appeal filed by the appellant under Section 23 of the Railways Claim Tribunal Act, 1993 for setting aside the order dated 13.08.2007 passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Principal Bench, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as "the Tribunal"), whereby the learned Tribunal has awarded a compensation of ` 3,60,000/- along with interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of the order till the date of the actual payment to the respondent under Section 124 A of the Railways Act, 1989.2. The facts relevant for the appraisal of this Court are that the respondent herein filed a claim petition under Section 16 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act against the appellant for payment of compensation of an amount of ` 4,00,000/- under Section 124 A of the Railways Act for the injuries alleged to have been sustained by him in an untoward accident which occurred on 14.09.2004 at Sahibabad Railway Station involving the train GDNI-EMU. The case of the respondent before the learned Tribunal was that the res...
Tag this Judgment!Aktiebolaget Volvo and ors Vs. Kishore Purohit and ors
Court: Delhi
1. This is a suit for permanent injunction, mandatory injunction, grant of damages and delivering up of infringing material. The plaintiffs, are three separate companies, all registered in Sweden and the plaint has been signed and verified and suit instituted by their attorney Mr. J.K. Sharma. It is alleged in the plaint that plaintiff No.1 Aktiebolaget Volvo commenced the business of assembling cars in April 1927 and of trucks in the year 1928. Since the business of Volvo Group of Companies grew substantially, plaintiff No.1 on 26th February 1999, by way of a Global Deed of Assignment, assigned its right, title and interest in the word Volvo along with its goodwill to plaintiff No.2. This was followed by a supplementary deed of assignment dated 23rd March 2001 so as to comply with the requirement of Indian Trade and Merchandise Marks Act, 1958. On 28 th February 1999 vide Global License Agreement, plaintiff No.2 licensed plaintiffs No.1 and 3 to use the aforesaid mark for their respec...
Tag this Judgment!