Court : Delhi
Decided on : Jan-31-2013
* + IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI RFA (OS) NO. 118/2011 & CM No. 6572/2012 Reserved on:18. h December, 2012 Date of Decision:31. t January, 2013 % FAB INDIA OVERSEAS PRIVATE LIMITED ..... Appellant Through Mr. Raman Kapur, Sr. Advocate. Mr. Ajay Kapur, Sr. Advocate with Mr. R.K. Mehta, Mr. Virender Mehta, Mr. Kunal Mehta and Mr. Gautam Mehta, Advocates. Versus S.N. SHEOPORI ..... Respondent Through Mr. Rajeev Sharma, Mr. Sanjiv Sindhwani, Mr. Sahil Bhalaik and Mr. Uddyam Mukherjee, Advocates. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.P.GARG SANJIV KHANNA, J: This judgment disposes of the first appeal filed by Fab India Overseas Private Limited and the cross-objections filed by Janak Mushran against the judgment and decree dated 4th July, 2011 passed by the single Judge in CS(OS) No. 246/2009 titled S.N. Sheopori and Janak Mushran v. Fab India Overseas Private Limited.2. Before dwelling into the disputed questions, we deem it appropriate to state the undis...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Aug-30-2013
.* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Judgment pronounced on: August 30, 2013 + RC. Rev. No.26/2013 FEROZE ENTERPRISES Through ..... Petitioner Mr.Mohammad Abid, Adv. with Mr.Shariq Mohammad, Adv. versus MOHD. IQBAL & ANR Through + ..... Respondents Mr.Amit Gupta, Adv. with Ms.Sumati Jumrani, Adv. RC. Rev. No.27/2013 FEROZE AHMED Through ..... Petitioner Mr.Mohammad Abid, Adv. with Mr.Shariq Mohammad, Adv. versus MOHD. IQBAL & ANR Through ..... Respondents Mr.Amit Gupta, Adv. with Ms.Sumati Jumrani, Adv. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN SINGH MANMOHAN SINGH, J.1. The abovementioned two petitions are filed by the petitioners under section 25B (8) of the Delhi Rent Control Act against the eviction orders dated 12th September, 2012 passed by the learned Addl. Rent Controller (Central), Delhi, dismissing the leave to defend applications of the petitioners. As the facts in both the matters are common, both the petitions are decided by the common order.2. The respondents filed evic...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Dec-17-2013
* % + IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Judgment reserved on:27. 08.2013 Judgment delivered on:17. 12.2013 CS(OS) No.1019/2009 and I.A. No.5351/2011 DR. SHASHI RANJAN GUPTA Through: ..... Plaintiff Mr. Vijay K. Gupta, Mr. Mehul Gupta & Mr. Sandeep Kaushik, Advocates. versus M/S SPRAYLAC PAINTS CORPORATION ..... Defendants Through: Mr. Sudhanshu Batra, Senior Advocate along with Ms. Kamlesh Mahajan, Advocate for defendant No.1. Mr. Peeyoosh Kalra, Advocate for defendant No.2. CORAM: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE VIPIN SANGHI JUDGMENT VIPIN SANGHI, J.1. The two plaintiffs, namely, Dr. Shashi Ranjan Gupta and Mr. Sunil Kumar Gupta, have filed the present suit to seek a declaration that defendant No.1 M/s Spraylac Paints Corporation a partnership firm of four partners who are named in the memo of parties (hereinafter referred to as Spraylac) has impliedly surrendered the lease in respect of premises bearing Municipal No.M-42, Connaught Circus, New Delhi, having an approximate area of 1000 sq...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Oct-25-2013
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CS (OS) No.574/2010 Reserved on:3. d September, 2013 Decided on:25. h October, 2013 % M/S ATMA RAM PROPERTIES (P) LTD ..... Plaintiff Through: Mr. Amit Sethi and Mr. Mukesh Ranjan, Advocates. versus DELHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION ..... Defendant Through: Mr. J.S. Bhasin, Mr. Gurpreet Singh, and Ms. Rashmi Priya, Advocates. CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MUKTA GUPTA1 On 5th March, 2013 issues were framed by this Court wherein Issue No.4, which reads as under, was treated as a preliminary issue. 4.2. Whether the present suit is barred under the Delhi Rent Control Act?. (OPD) The objection of the Defendant is that the Plaintiff has filed the present suit seeking decree of possession, recovery of a sum of Rs. 1.20 crores, damages and cost of the suit in respect of property situated at Atma Ram Mansion, Scindia House, Connaught Place, New Delhi. The Defendant has been a tenant in the building since 14th May, 1948 pursuant to Rent Deed executed between th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Oct-29-2013
THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % + Judgment delivered on:29. 10.2013 W.P.(C) 1424/2011 & CM No.3043/2011 M/s. S.H. ASSOCIATES ....Petitioner versus RAJASTHAN FINANCIAL CORPORATION LTD. AND ORS. . Respondents Advocates who appeared in this case: For the Petitioner : Mr Pallav Saxena. For the Respondents : Mr Shyam Moorjani for R-1. Mr Nikhil Jain for R-2. Mr Suresh Dutt Dobhal for R-3. AND + W.P.(C) 2294/2011& CM No.4891/2011 IFCI LIMITED .... Petitioner versus RAJASTHAN FINANCIAL CORPORATION LTD. AND ORS. . Respondents Advocates who appeared in this case: For the Petitioner : Mr Suresh Dutt Dobhal. For the Respondents : Mr Shyam Moorjani for R-1. Mr Nikhil Jain for R-4. Mr Pallav Saxena for R-6. CORAM:HONBLE MR JUSTICE BADAR DURREZ AHMED HONBLE MR JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU JUDGMENT VIBHU BAKHRU, J1 These writ petitions have been filed challenging the order dated 20.12.2010 passed by the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as the Appellate Tribunal) in Appeal No....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Oct-29-2013
THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % + Judgment delivered on:29. 10.2013 W.P.(C) 1424/2011 & CM No.3043/2011 M/s. S.H. ASSOCIATES ....Petitioner versus RAJASTHAN FINANCIAL CORPORATION LTD. AND ORS. . Respondents Advocates who appeared in this case: For the Petitioner : Mr Pallav Saxena. For the Respondents : Mr Shyam Moorjani for R-1. Mr Nikhil Jain for R-2. Mr Suresh Dutt Dobhal for R-3. AND + W.P.(C) 2294/2011& CM No.4891/2011 IFCI LIMITED .... Petitioner versus RAJASTHAN FINANCIAL CORPORATION LTD. AND ORS. . Respondents Advocates who appeared in this case: For the Petitioner : Mr Suresh Dutt Dobhal. For the Respondents : Mr Shyam Moorjani for R-1. Mr Nikhil Jain for R-4. Mr Pallav Saxena for R-6. CORAM:HONBLE MR JUSTICE BADAR DURREZ AHMED HONBLE MR JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU JUDGMENT VIBHU BAKHRU, J1 These writ petitions have been filed challenging the order dated 20.12.2010 passed by the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as the Appellate Tribunal) in Appeal No....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Nov-25-2013
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Order delivered on: November 25, 2013 + C.R.P. No.17/2013 POOJA SHARMA Through ..... Petitioner Mr.Mohit Gupta, Adv. with Ms.Megha Gaur & Ms.Alka Chojar, Advs. versus GURMEET KAUR Through ..... Respondent Mr.R.P.Singh, Adv. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN SINGH MANMOHAN SINGH, J.1. The petitioner (plaintiff before the learned trial Court) has assailed the order dated 18th September, 2012 whereby the application filed by the petitioner under Order XII Rule 6 read with Section 151 CPC was dismissed.2. The case of the petitioner before the learned trial Court was that one Sh.Harbans Lal son of Late Sh.Komal Ram Arora was the earlier owner of Flat No.22, situated on first floor in Surair Co-operative Group Housing Society, plot No.7, Sector-15, Rohini, Delhi-110085 (hereinafter referred to as the suit property) and inducted the respondent (defendant in suit proceedings) as his tenant on a monthly rent of `2000/- excluding other charges vide a...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Aug-26-2013
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Judgment reserved on: August 07, 2013 Judgment pronounced on: August 26, 2013 + C.R.P. No.36/2013 DEEPAK THIRWANI AND ANR ..... Petitioners Through Mr.Rajesh Banati, Adv. with Ms.Manisha Yadav, Adv. versus LACHMAN DAS MANSHARMANI ..... Respondent Through Mr.Gulab Rai Chabria, Adv. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN SINGH MANMOHAN SINGH, J.1. The present petition is filed against the order dated 22nd December, 2012 passed in Civil Suit No.51/2012 whereby the learned Civil Judge dismissed the application filed by the petitioners/plaintiffs under Order XII, Rule 6 CPC.2. Undisputed facts between the parties are that the petitioners are the joint owners of the property bearing No.4/19, Ground Floor, Vikram Vihar, Lajpat Nagar-IV, New Delhi (in short, called the Suit Property) by virtue of a registered sale deed dated 17th June, 2011. When the said property was purchased, the respondent was already a tenant of ground floor in the suit property wh...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Nov-22-2013
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Order delivered on: November 22, 2013 + CM(M) 952/2013 & C.M. No.14389/2013 SH SUSHIL ANSAL Through ..... Petitioner Mr.Awatar Singh, Adv. with Mr.Gurinder Pal Singh, Adv. versus SHRI CHARANJIT SINGH SOLE PROPRIETOR, CHARMIS ENTERPRISES ..... Respondent Through None CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN SINGH MANMOHAN SINGH, J.1. By way of the present petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has assailed order dated 26th August, 2013 passed by the learned Civil Judge in Civil Suit No.227/2013.2. Brief facts for the purpose of adjudication of the present matter are that the petitioner filed a suit against the respondent for ejectment and recovery of arrears of rent as also damages for illegal use and occupation of the suit premises i.e. Mezzanine Floor, Sandhya Deep Building, 15, Community Centre, East of Kailash, New Delhi. It was stated in the suit that the respondent was under a tenancy of the petitioner at a mo...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Aug-06-2013
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Judgment delivered on: August 06, 2013 + RC.REV. 520/2011 & C.M. No.22506/2011 HARISH KUMAR Through ..... Petitioner Mr.Rahul Sharma, Adv. versus KRISHNA Through ..... Respondent Mr.B.Mohan, Adv. with Ms.Shashi Saxena & Mr.Sudhir Kr.Suneja, Advs. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN SINGH MANMOHAN SINGH, J.1. By way of the present petition under Section 25B (8) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) the petitioner assails the eviction order dated 13th September, 2011 passed by the learned trial court whereby his application for leave to defend was dismissed.2. The respondent had filed an eviction petition under Section 14 (1)(e) read with Section 25 of the Act against the petitioner in respect of the tenanted property i.e. one room and a kitchen at the ground floor of the property at C-4, Gali No.5, Majlis Park, Delhi which was let out to the petitioner by the husband of the respondent.3. The respondent, a sen...
Tag this Judgment!