Court : Delhi
Decided on : Jan-18-2018
$~15 * + IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Decided on:18. h January, 2018 CM(M) 391/2016 NIRMAL DEVI ........ Petitioner Through: Mr. J.C. Mahindro, Advocate versus POONAM & ORS ........ RESPONDENTS Through: Respondent no.1 in person CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.K.GAUBA ORDER (ORAL) 1. The petitioner admittedly is the landlady qua the respondents in respect of the demised premises described as property bearing no.L- 26/8, Laxmi Nagar, Delhi-110 092. It appears the premises were let out initially in the name of Mr. Kamal Kumar at the agreed monthly rent of Rs.400/-. Mr. Kamal Kumar having died on 15.02.2005, the respondents have stepped into his shoes and have become the tenants under the petitioner.2. The petitioner issued a legal notice on 07.08.2007, through counsel, demanding payment of arrears of rent, inter alia, stating that by virtue of the discretion vested in him under Section 6A of Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958, he was entitled to increase the rent. He also alleged that ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Jun-01-2018
$~ * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Reserved on :28th May, 2018 Date of Decision:1. t June, 2018 + RFA2492017 SANJAY KUMAR ..... Appellant Through: Mr. Ghanshyam Thakur, Advocate (M:85868. 6803). RAJESH KUMAR versus ..... Respondent Through: Mr. Ravi Bassi and Mr. Sanyam Malik, Advocates (M:98100. 1293). CORAM: JUSTICE PRATHIBA M. SINGH Prathiba M. Singh, J.JUDGMENT1 Smt. Laxmi Devi was the owner of property bearing Nos. Y-316 and Y-317 which is a land measuring 50 sq. yds. (25 sq. yds. each) situated in J.J.Colony, Camp No.1, Nangloi, Delhi-110041 (hereinafter, suit property).2. The Respondent/Plaintiff - Mr. Rajesh Kumar (hereinafter, Plaintiff) and the Appellant/Defendant - Mr. Sanjay Kumar (hereinafter, Defendant) are the sons of Smt. Laxmi Devi. A mutual agreement was duly signed by her by which she fixed the share amongst her three sons i.e. the Plaintiff, the Defendant and the Sh. Ajay Kumar. The manner in which the division was made by her is contained in the said mutu...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Jan-09-2018
$~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
Decided on : Apr-26-2018
$~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
Decided on : Nov-16-2018
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
Decided on : Jul-19-2018
* % + IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of decision:19. h July, 2018 RSA892017 & CM No.10607/2017 (for stay) KULDEEP SINGH ..... Appellant Through: Mr. Arun Kumar, Adv. Versus KHAZANCHI PRASAD CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW Through: Mr. V. Shukla, Adv. ..... Respondent 1. This Regular Second Appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) impugns the judgment and decree (dated 22nd December, 2016 in RCA No.of the Court of Additional District Judge -02 (NE)]. allowing the First Appeal under Section 96 of the CPC preferred by the respondent/plaintiff against the order [dated 18th April, 2016 in CS No.44of the Court of Administrative Civil Judge, North East]. on an application of the appellant/defendant under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC rejecting the plaint in the suit filed by the respondent/plaintiff for declaration as null and void and an outcome of fraud and misrepresentation, the irrevocable General Power of Attorney executed by the resp...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Nov-14-2018
$~ * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Reserved on:27. h September, 2018 Pronounced on:14. h November, 2018 + CM(M) 292/2009 YOUNG FRIENDS & CO. & ORS. ........ Petitioners Through: Mr. Abhijat & Mr. Abhishek Agarwal, Advs. versus PURI INVESTMENTS ..... Respondent Through: Mr. Dayan Krishnan, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Jeevesh Nagrath, Mr. Chitvan Singhal & Mr. Sanjeevi Seshadri, Advs. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.K.GAUBA1 ORDER The petitioner, feeling aggrieved by the judgment dated 29.08.2007 of the Additional Rent Control Tribunal (ARCT) granting an order of eviction in favour of the respondent under Section 14(1)(b) of Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (for short, DRC Act) had approached this court by the present petition presenting it initially as a second appeal under Section 39 of the DRC Act. The provision contained in Section 39, however, having been repealed by Section 17 CM(M) 292/2009 Page 1 of 35 of Delhi Rent Control (Amendment) Act, 1988 brought in force from 01.12.1988, upon ob...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Mar-23-2018
..... 2017 & 4789/2017 page 2 of 15 3. provided that in respect of any land or building the standard rent of which has been fixed under the delhi rent control act, 1958 (59 of 1958) the rateable value thereof shall not exceed the annual amount of the standard rent so fixed. (2) the rateable value of any land which is not built upon but ..... validity of section 116(b) of the act as arbitrary.2. the new delhi municipal council (ndmc) is a statutory local/municipal body constituted under the act. as part of its functioning, it is entitled to assess and collect municipal property taxes in respect of each kind of property. the punjab municipal act, 1911 was the precursor to the act; section 416(1) of the act repealed that act (of 1911). section 63 of the act authorizes ..... landholders made any application for restoration of land in their favour.39. in view of the matter, we hold that the suit being filed beyond the reasonable period was fit to be dismissed. the additional collector rightly dismissed the suit being barred by limitation. 14. in the present case, the finalization of assessment list or its revision, after over 12 years in all the ..... let from year to year.12. it was submitted that this expression was the subject matter of considerable litigation and finally decided by the supreme court in stc of india v. ndmc air2016sc1269which upheld the ndmc s plea that the arm s length rent which can be fetched in respect of any given premises forms the basis for the fixation of the rateable value. .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Apr-27-2018
$~6 + IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Decided on:-"27th April, 2018 R.C. REV. 5/2011 and CM No.17571/2013 MIRAJUDDIN & ORS ..... Appellants Through: Mr. Saif Islam Israily and Mr. M. Mohsin Israily, Advs. versus KABIR UL HAQUE (SINCE DECEASED) THR.LRs. ..... Respondent Through: None. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.K.GAUBA ORDER (ORAL1 The eviction petition in which the impugned order dated 21.09.2010 was passed by the Additional Rent Controller was instituted on 30.09.2005 by Kabir-Ul-Haque, an ordinary resident of Kanpur in Uttar Pradesh. He had presented the said eviction petition (E-210/2009) against the petitioners in respect of premises described as first floor of property bearing municipal No.6394, Gali Ishwari Prasad, Bara Hindu Rao on the ground of bona fide need of the same for residence of self and members of the family under Section 14 (1) (e) of Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 claiming to be the owner-cum- landlord qua the petitioners in respect of the said premises. RC ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : May-08-2018
$~12 + IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Decided on:-"8th May, 2018 R.C. REV. 273/2015 & CM Nos. 10261/2015, 7031/2017 AMRIK SINGH ........ Petitioner Through: Mr. R.S. Sahni, Adv. versus BRAHAM PRAKASH YADAV (DECEASED) THRU LRs. Mr. S.K. Sharma, Adv. ..... Respondent Through: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.K.GAUBA ORDER (ORAL) 1. The petitioner admittedly is a tenant in premises described as shop admeasuring 10 feet x 15 feet on ground floor forming part of property No.5-B (private number) 1/3rd of property No.5, Krishan Kunj Colony, Laxmi Nagar, Main Market, he having been inducted therein by the erstwhile owner Sohan Lal Yadav during his lifetime. On the case (E-81/2012) instituted on 16.07.2012 by Braham Prakash Yadav (since deceased), now represented by his legal heirs, against the respondent, eviction order has been passed against him by the additional rent controller on 30.01.2015 whereby the application for leave to contest of the petitioner was dismissed. It may be mentio...
Tag this Judgment!