Court : Delhi
$~32 * + IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Decided on:09. h January, 2018 R.C. REV. 7/2018 SUN N SHADE OPTICIANS & ORS. .... PETITIONERS Through: Mr. H.K. Chaturvedi and Mr. Sagar Chaturvedi, Advocates versus SHYAM SUNDER BUDHIRAJA ..... RESPONDENT Through: Mr. Pradeep K. Bakshi, Mr. Sachin Setia and Mr. Puneet Khurana, Advocates CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.K.GAUBA JUDGMENT (ORAL) CAV132018 1. Since the learned counsel for the caveator has entered appearance, the caveat stands discharged. R.C. REV. 7/2018 and CM8842018 (stay) and CM8852018 (Exemption) 2. The petitioners are admittedly the tenants in premises described as shop bearing no.6 in property no.13/9, W.E.A. Ajmal Khan Road, Karol Bagh, New Delhi, admeasuring 9 x 25ft. (hereinafter referred to as the demised property), having been let out originally for commercial purposes by late Sh. Chaman Lal Budhiraja, the father of RCR7/2018 Page 1 of 6 the respondent, during his lifetime, in favour of Sh. Vidya Sagar Churamani, the...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
$~8 + IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Decided on:-"26th April, 2018 R.C. (REV.) 515/2011 ABDUL SATTAR (DECD.) THRU LRS. ........ Petitioner Through: Mr. S.K. Bhalla, Adv. Versus MOHD. WAKIL & ORS. Through: ........ RESPONDENTS Mr. Nikhil Malhotra & Mr. Vinod Malhotra, Adv. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.K.GAUBA ORDER (ORAL) 1. The predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners was impleaded as respondent in the eviction case (E-352/2009) instituted by the respondents herein on 13.08.1998 seeking order of eviction on the ground of bona fide requirement under Section 14 (1) (e) of Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958. The case was contested and at the stage of trial, both sides led evidence. The Additional Rent Controller, by judgment dated 24.09.2011, repelled all the defences taken by the petitioners and granted eviction order which is under challenge by the petition at hand.2. The bone of contention here concerns premises described as property bearing No.946, Haveli Azam Khan, Jama Masjid, ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
$~36 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of decision:23. d August, 2019 + CM(M) 1229/2019 and CM Appl. 37697/2019 BHAGWAN DASS ........ Petitioner Through: Mr. Deepak Sharma, Advocate (M:98689. 5967). versus USHA TYAGI ..... Respondent Through: None. CORAM: JUSTICE PRATHIBA M. SINGH Prathiba M. Singh, J.(Oral) CM Appl. 37698/2019 (exemption) 1. Exemption allowed, subject to all just exceptions. Application is disposed of. CM(M) 1229/2019 And CM Appl. 37697/2019 2. The present petition has been filed challenging the order passed by the District and Sessions Judge in an appeal under Section 38 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 wherein leave to amend the written statement by the... Petitioner-Tenant was rejected.3. The background is that a petition under Section 14D came to be filed by Smt. Usha Tyagi before the Rent Control Tribunal. The property in question is property bearing No.WZ-41, Basai Dara Pur New Delhi-110015. Ld. counsel submits that the... Petitioner herein was g...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Judgment Reserved on:15. h October, 2018 Judgment Delivered on:16. h November, 2018 + CRL.M.C. 4227/2014 & Crl.M.A.14611/2014 DSC LTD. versus DADA JEETU BUILDCON PVT LTD ........ Petitioner ..... Respondent Advocates who appeared in this case: For the... Petitioner : Mr. Rajnish Kumar, Advocate. For the... RESPONDENTS : Ms. Priya Hingorani with Mr. Parveen Kumar, Advocates. CORAM:-"HONBLE MR JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA JUDGMENT SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J.1. The petitioner seeks quashing of summoning order dated 06.03.2013 and seeks quashing of complaint filed under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (hereinafter referred to as the N.I. Act).2. The respondent had filed a complaint under Section 138 N.I. Act contending that two cheques in the sum of Rs. 75 lakhs issued by the petitioner were dishonoured for the reasons insufficient funds.3. Apart from the raising defence on merits, the petitioner has raised a technical defence to the complaint a...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : 1997IIIAD(Delhi)872; 67(1997)DLT47
K.S. Gupta, J. (1) This appeal by Rajesh Gupta, appellant-plaintiff, is directed against the order passed by learned Single Judge on August 9,1996 disposing of two applications, one under Order Xxxix Rules 1 & 2, Civil Procedure Code (I.A. 3013/96) and the other under Order Xxxix Rule 4, Civil Procedure Code (I.A. No. 3339/96). (2) Facts giving rise to this appeal lie in a narrow compass. Appellant has filed a suit seeking a decree for permanent injunction against Ajit Prasad Jain and the Commissioner, Municipal Corporation of Delhi, respondents-defendants, inter alia, on the allegations that he is a tenant in respect of shop Nos. 2 & 3 forming part of property No. F-14/17, Model Town-11, Delhi, under respondent No. 1. Respondent No. 1, who started illegal construction on the rear portion of the said property, is now trying to raise construction on the roof of said shop Nos. 2 & 3 without getting building plan sanctioned from respondent No. 2 and obtaining consent from the appellant. B...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : 1999(49)DRJ342
Usha Mehra, J.1. Property bearing No.D-922, New Friends Colony, New Delhi was let out to respondent No.1 i.e. M/s International Amusements Ltd. (in short IAL) on a monthly rent of Rs.7,000/- vide registered lease deed dated 1st April,1987. On expiry of the lease period, petitioner herein let out the property to respondent No.1 vide registered lease deed dated 1st April,1990 on a monthly rent of Rs.16,500/-. Respondent No.2 Shri Sharat Chander Dass was the Director of respondent No.1. Hewas in occupation of the suit premises on account of being the Director of respondent No. 1. The petitioner wanted possession of the suit premises, thereforee, filed a suit against respondent No. 1 after the expiry of the lease period. Decree of possession was passed in her favor and against respondent No.1, its servants, agents and employees etc. vide decree dated 26th May,1993. Pursuance to that decree petitioner filed execution proceedings and obtained warrants of possession. Respondent No.2 filed obj...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Shiv Narayan Dhingra, J.1. By way of present petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners have assailed an order dated 26th March, 2008 passed by learned ADJ dismissing an application filed by the petitioners under Order 12 Rule 6 CPC for passing a decree of possession of the premises in question in favour of the petitioner.2. Brief facts relevant for the purpose of deciding this petition are that the petitioner had let out a premises bearing number M-15, Green Park, New Delhi to the respondent by way of a lease deed dated 25th January, 1999 for a period of two years with effect from 1st February 1999. The monthly rent reserved was Rs. 30,000/-.3. The petitioner filed a suit for recovery of possession of the premises, permanent injunction and recovery of mesne profits alleging therein, apart from other things, that the lease expired on 31st January, 2001 by efflux of time but the premises in question was not vacated. The defendant (respondent herein) was als...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Judgment reserved on :9. h February, 2015 Judgment delivered on :13th February,2015 % CS(OS) 623/2010 SURENDRA KUMAR GUPTA Plaintiff Through: Mr. Suryakant Singla with Mr. Shanto Mukerjee, Advocates Versus MUKESH KUMAR GUPTA Through: .Defendant Mr. Randhir Jain, Advocate CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE INDERMEET KAUR INDERMEET KAUR, J.1. The present suit has been filed by the plaintiff Surendra Kumar Gupta against his brother Mukesh Kumar Gupta. It is a suit for recovery of possession, mesne profits/damages and for injunction.2. The plaintiff had purchased half undivided share in House No.E-262, Greater Kailash Part II, New Delhi from Smt. Kamla Kundra vide sale deed dated 18th December, 1974. This is a registered document. It is stated to be the self acquired property of the plaintiff. It is on a plot of land admeasuring 250 square yards upon which initially there was one and a half storeyed building built upon it.3. Devinder Nath Gupta, half broth...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? No2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? No3. Whether the judgment should be reported in Digest? No 1. Both these writ petitions involve common questions and are accordingly being disposed of together by this judgment. The Petitioners were licencees of shops at the Inter-state Bus Terminal (ISBT) at Kashmere Gate. The challenge in the present petitions is to the amount of licence fee being charged from the Petitioners on the ground that it is exorbitant and arbitrary. Also, challenge is to the omission of the Respondents in allotting alternative shops to those shopkeepers at the ISBT who were dislocated on account of the project of the Delhi Metro Rail Corporation (DMRC).2. The case of the Petitioners is that in 1999 they were asked to hand over the vacant possession of the shops for the DMRC project with the assurance that they would be allotted shops at Dhaba Block and Departure Block.3. The Petitioner in Wri...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
* THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + R. C. Rev. No. 75/2012 Date of Decision:21. 12.2012 TARUN PAHWA ....Petitioner Through: Mr. M.L. Pahwa, Adv. Versus ...Respondent PRADEEP MAKIN Through: Mr. Deepak Gupta, Adv. CORAM: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE M.L. MEHTA M.L. MEHTA, J.1. The present petition has been filed under Sec. 25B (8) of the Delhi Rent Control Act against the order passed by the Ld. Additional Rent Controller, Delhi in Eviction Petition No. 25/2010, decided on 23.11.2011; whereby the Ld. ARC has allowed the application filed by the respondent for leave to defend the eviction petition.2. Briefly stating the facts, the petitioner herein is the landlord of the suit premises i.e. one hall on the ground floor, forming part of property no. 25/8, B-11, Gali No. 7, New Rothak Road, Industrial Area, Anand Parbat, New Delhi 110005. The respondent is a tenant in respect of the suit premises, under the petitioner at a monthly rent of Rs. 638/- excluding other charges. The suit premises were ...
Tag this Judgment!