Delhi Court December 2010 Judgments
Home Cases Delhi 2010 Page 11 of about 211 results (0.022 seconds)Mrs. Usha Vs. Punjab and Sind Bank and anr
Court: Delhi
1. This is a suit for recovery of Rs 65,84,252/-. The plaintiff, who is carrying business in the name and style of M/s Universal Exports claims to be a commission agent who used to introduce exporters/sellers to the buyers/importers and receives commission from the seller. In the suit filed CS(OS)No. 2714.1998 Page 1 of 33 through her attorney Shri Gulshan Gandhi, the plaintiff has alleged that defendant No.2, which is a manufacturer of cotton yarn through the plaintiff as a commission agent agreed to supply yarn to M/s Exports India vide Revolving L.C. No. 44/95 for Rs 2 crores revolving three times. The plaintiff who had introduced defendant No.2 to the buyer was to receive commission at the rate of 5% FOB value of the L.C. The finalization of the deal is alleged to have been preceded by an agreement/Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) dated 22nd July, 1995 between the plaintiff and defendant No.2 for payment of commission to the plaintiff at the rate of 5% of the FOB value, after real...
Tag this Judgment!Mahinder Pal Gupta and anr. Vs. Narender Pal Mahajan and ors.
Court: Delhi
1. The appellants are aggrieved of the judgment delivered by the learned ADJ in Probate Case No.66/1995 whereby the learned ADJ has granted probate on the Will left by Late Sh. Raghubir Dass Mahajan (hereinafter referred to as the testator) dated 14.11.1985 which was duly registered in the office of Sub Registrar, Kashmere Gate, Delhi in favour of the respondents, namely, Sh. Narender Pal Mahajan, Sh. Rajender Pal Gupta, Smt. Manorma Mahajan. The testator expired on 14.03.1997 and on the date of his death, he left behind him besides the appellants, his two daughters namely Smt. Manorama Mahajan, Ms. Santosh Kumari Mahajan and a son Sh. Mahinder Pal Gupta, who is appellant No.1 in this case. By way of the Will in question the deceased bequeathed the built up property bearing No.11/32, Subhash Nagar, New Delhi in favour of two sons but excluded his other children namely Smt. Manorama Mhajan, Ms. Santosh Kumari and Sh. Mohinder Pal Mahajan. The other two sons being the beneficiary under t...
Tag this Judgment!Bhandari and Sagar Charitable Foundation Vs. P.B.Memorialcharitable Tr ...
Court: Delhi
1. This is a petition under Order 33 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure for permission to sue the respondents as an indigent person.2. Petitioner No.1 is a trust whereas petitioners No.2 & 3 are its trustees. The case of the petitioners is that respondents No.2 & 3 namely Shri Baldev Krishan Bhandari and Lt.Gen.(retired) Prem Sagar, who are the trustees of petitioner No.1 - Bhandari and Sagar Charitable Foundation as also the trustees of respondent No.1 Pran Bhandari Memorial Charitable Trust, sold land belonging to petitioner No.1 trust for a consideration of Rs.19,20,000/-. After sale of land, the money was transferred from the account of petitioner No.1 to the account of respondent No.1. It is alleged in the petition that the petitioner does not possess sufficient means of court fee and, therefore, wants to sue as indigent person.3. Order 33 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, to the extent it is relevant provides that a person is an indigent person if he is not possessed of s...
Tag this Judgment!Mayurdwaj Cooperative Group Housing Society Ltd. Vs. Delhi Development ...
Court: Delhi
1.This is a suit for recovery of Rs 61,42,790/-. The plaintiff, which is a society registered under the Delhi Co- operative Society Act, 1973, was allotted 5 acres of land by defendant-DDA, in the year 1982 at 60, Patparganj, Delhi- 110092. This land, according to the plaintiff, was sufficient for construction of only 300 flats, whereas the membership of the plaintiff-society, being 462, the defendant was required to allot land measuring 7.66 acres to it. Later, the defendant relaxed the ceiling of 5 acres and offered additional land to the plaintiff for the remaining 160 members and asked it to deposit Rs 11,87,119.80/- towards cost of the additional land. The plaintiff made payment of Rs 6,82,689.65/- vide its letter dated 01.12.1990 and asked the defendant to allot the additional land to it. The defendant, however, did not allot additional land for the remaining 160 members of the plaintiff-society which resulted in increased in the cost of construction of the flats and construction...
Tag this Judgment!Mankaran Singh Johar Vs. Smt. Satwant Kaur Johar and ors.
Court: Delhi
1. This is a suit for partition of property No. B-60, Greater Kailash, New Delhi. Admittedly, the aforesaid property was owned by late Sardar Gurbachan Singh Johar. Late Shri Gurcharan Singh Johar had nine children, six daughters and three sons, including late Shri Pratap Singh Johar. The case of the plaintiff, who claims to be the grandson of late Sardar Gurbachan Singh Johar, is that the aforesaid property was thrown by late Sardar Gurbachan Singh Johar into hotchpotch of Gurbachan Singh Johar (HUF) and, therefore, he also has a share in this property, he being the son of Pratap Singh, a pre-deceased son of Sardar Gurbachan Singh. Vide IA No. 4792/2008, the plaintiff has sought an interim injunction, restraining defendants from transferring or alienating the suit property and creating any third party interest therein.2. The case of the defendants, however, is that the aforesaid property continued to be the self-acquired property of late Sardar Gurbachan Singh Johar and was never thro...
Tag this Judgment!Satender Pal Vs. Union of India and Others
Court: Armed forces Tribunal AFT Principal Bench New Delhi
1. The petitioner filed W.P (C) No. 5662 of 2000 before the Delhi High Court challenging the Summary General Court Martial (SGCM) proceedings, whereby he was held guilty of the offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code for causing the death of Capt. Manish Tiwari (the deceased, hereinafter) and sentenced to death, which was subsequently converted by the Central Government on statutory representation to imprisonment for life and to be dismissed from service. On formation of the Armed Forces Tribunal, the writ petition was transferred to this Tribunal and is being disposed of by this judgment, treating it as an appeal under Section 15 of the Armed Forces Tribunal Act 2007. 2. Before appreciating the rival contentions of the parties, it would be appropriate to briefly state the facts. In the month of December 1996, the appellant was admitted to 402 Field Ambulance as he was suffering from fever and severe stomach pain. He was discharged from the hospital on 28.12.1996. On 10.1.1...
Tag this Judgment!Defence Colony Association Block a and ors. Vs. Union of India and Oth ...
Court: Delhi
Both these writ petitions WP(C) 1288 of 1984 and WP(C) 1342 of 1984 are disposed of by a common order as facts involved are similar and the relief claimed are also similar except that the Municipal Corporation of Delhi has also been impleaded as a party in the WP(C) 1342 of 1984. First petition is by the association of residents of `A Block whereas the second petition is filed by some of the residents of `A Block of Defence Colony. The petitioners seek transfer of land admeasuring about 2.8 acres at nominal price in Defence Colony in their favor and cancellation of allotment/sale of land in favor of Delhi Childrens Theatre Group and not to construct any theatre building on the land allotted to them.1. The petitioner is a society duly registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860 and is a representative body of the residents of Block A of Defence Colony, New Delhi. Sh. N.S.Suri, General Secretary of the petitioner is alleged to be duly authorized and empowered to WP(C) 1288/1984...
Tag this Judgment!Sub. Major Ishar Dass Suri and Others. Vs. Union of India and Others.
Court: Delhi
Both these writ petitions WP(C) 1288 of 1984 and WP(C) 1342 of 1984 are disposed of by a common order as facts involved are similar and the relief claimed are also similar except that the Municipal Corporation of Delhi has also been impleaded as a party in the WP(C) 1342 of 1984. First petition is by the association of residents of `A Block whereas the second petition is filed by some of the residents of `A Block of Defence Colony. The petitioners seek transfer of land admeasuring about 2.8 acres at nominal price in Defence Colony in their favor and cancellation of allotment/sale of land in favor of Delhi Childrens Theatre Group and not to construct any theatre building on the land allotted to them.1. The petitioner is a society duly registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860 and is a representative body of the residents of Block A of Defence Colony, New Delhi. Sh. N.S.Suri, General Secretary of the petitioner is alleged to be duly authorized and empowered to WP(C) 1288/1984...
Tag this Judgment!Yasmeen Parveen and anr. Vs. State of Nct of Delhi
Court: Delhi
1. The petitioners in this case have sought anticipatory bail who have been booked under Sections 406/420/447/448/453/468/471 read with Section 34 IPC.2. It is submitted by the counsel for the petitioners that the petitioners were falsely implicated in this case and the co-accused Mst. Nargis was granted anticipatory bail.3. The anticipatory bail application of the petitioners was earlier dismissed by this Court. After dismissal of the anticipatory bail application, the petitioners had been absconding and were not available to the police for interrogation. The petitioners have claimed that they were the bonafide purchaser of the property about which trespass has been alleged by the complainant. However, the investigation has revealed that possession of the property in question was handed over to the complainant by the Bail Appln. 1187/2010 Page 1 Of 2 accused persons after receiving a sum of Rs.7,20,000/- and the complainant immediately started residing in the property. He along with h...
Tag this Judgment!Gauri Shanker Vs. Union of India and anr
Court: Delhi
1. Aggrieved by the non-return of 6 kgs of gold and Indian currency amounting to Rs. 1,49,000/- seized from the business premises of the Petitioner on 11th July 2005 by the Officers of the Enforcement Directorate (ED) the Petitioner has approached this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution.2. The case of the Petitioner is that he is a Director of M/s. J.P. Goel & Sons Pvt. Limited. On 11th July 2005 the business premises of the Petitioner were searched by the Officers of the ED. During the course of search, 6 kgs of gold and Indian currency in the sum of Rs. 1,49,000/- were seized. A copy of the panchnama dated 11th July 2005 has been enclosed. It is submitted that thereafter, despite numerous representations of the Petitioner for release of the gold as well as the Indian currency, there was no response from the ED. The Petitioner contends that the seizure was illegal since Section 3 of the Foreign Writ Petition (Civil) No. 3908/2008 Page 1 of 9 Exchange Management Act, 1999 (FEM...
Tag this Judgment!