Court : Delhi
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Judgment Reserved on : January 08, 2015 Judgment Delivered on : February 02, 2015 + RFA (OS) 55/2014 DELUXE DENTELLES PVT. LTD. & ANR. .....Appellants Represented by: Mr.C.A.Sundram, Sr.Advocate instructed by Ms.Divvya Kesaar and Mr.Mannmohit K.Puri, Advocates versus SMT. ISHPINDER KOCHHAR .....Respondent Represented by: Mr.Sumit Bansal, Advocate with Mr.Ateev Mathur and Ms.Jagriti Ahuja, Advocates FAO (OS) 117/2014 DELUXE DENTELLES PVT. LTD. & ANR. .....Appellants Represented by: Mr.C.A.Sundram, Sr.Advocate instructed by Ms.Divya Kesar and Mr.Manmohit K.Puri, Advocates versus SMT. ISHPINDER KOCHHAR .....Respondent Represented by: Mr.Sumit Bansal, Advocate with Mr.Ateev Mathur and Ms.Jagriti Ahuja, Advocates CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP NANDRAJOG HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE PRATIBHA RANI PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J.1. Appellants were the defendants and the respondent was the plaintiff before the learned Single Judge. We shall be referring to the parti...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO.6718 OF2004M.C.D. & ANR. APPELLANTS VERSUS M/S. MEHRASONS JEWELLERS (P) LTD. ...RESPONDENT WITH CIVIL APPEAL NO.8341 OF2011CIVIL APPEAL NO.8342 OF2011CIVIL APPEAL NO.________ OF2015(ARISING OUT OF SLP (CIVIL) NO.32342 OF2011 CIVIL APPEAL NO.632 OF2013CIVIL APPEAL NO.8340 OF2011JUDGMENT R.F. Nariman, J.1. Leave granted.2. In this batch of appeals there appear to be two distinct groups dealing with two separate questions that have been raised by counsel for the Municipal Corporation of Delhi. Civil Appeal No.6718 of 2004 raises a question as to the correctness of the judgment of the Division Bench of the Delhi High Court in Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Dhunishaw Framroz Daruwala, 100 DLT679(2002), decided on 23.7.2002, whereas the other appeals raise a question as to the correctness of the judgment of the Division Bench of the Delhi High Court dated 21.4.2010 in Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Ma...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Reported in : AIR1972P& H317
1. On 9th November, 1956 vide rent note, Exhibit P-2, Banarsi Dass took a shop, situate in Faridabad, District Gurgaon, on rent from Jag Mohan son of Jai Narayan for a period of 11 months @ Rs.4/- per month. The tenancy was to commence from 1st November, 1956. Even after the expiry of the period of tenancy the tenant remained in possession of the property and continued paying rent to the landlord. On 5th January, 1959, another rent note, Exhibit P-1, was written by the tenant in favour of the landlord and this was also for 11 months and at the same rate of rent, namely, Rs.4/- per mensem. Banarsi Dass, subsequently, died on 14th December, 1965. On 11th April, 1966, a notice was issued by the landlord to his legal representatives asking them to vacate the premises, because the tenancy in favour of Banarsi Dass had come to an end and they were occupying the shop as mere trespassers, and in case, they did not do so, they would have to pay Rs.100/- per month as damages for use and occupati...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Reported in : (2008)149PLR801
K.C. Puri, J.1. Vide this judgment, I intend to dispose of R.S.A. Nos. l876 of 1984, 3498 of 1985 and 18 of 1986, titled above. However, facts are being extracted from R.S.A. No. 3498 of 1985.2. The brief facts of the case are that one Dhanpat Singh, plaintiff filed a suit for a declaration for declaring sale deeds dated 13.3.1981 and 26.5.1981 as illegal, void and ineffective against the rights of the plaintiff and in the alternative he sought possession of the suit land. It is pleaded that the plaintiff is the owner in possession of land measuring 3 kanals 6 Marlas comprised in Khasra No. 717 situated in the area of village Premgarh and land measuring 6 Kanals 9 Marias bearing Khasra No. 5122/2138 situated in the area of Sutehri. The plaintiff and defendant Nos. 3 to 17 were joint owners in possession of land measuring 24 Kanals 2 Marias situated in village Sutehri and land measuring 18 Kanals situated at village Premgarh as detailed fully in the plaint. They orally partitioned the j...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : AIR2004Delhi248; 109(2004)DLT509; 2004(72)DRJ540
RFA No.833/2003 and CM 2088/2003. 1. This is an appeal filed by the appellant against the order passed on an application under Order 12 Rule 6 filed by the appellant. 2. Briefly stating the facts of the case are that the respondent filed a suit for possession with the prayer for a decree of possession in favor of the plaintiff and against the defendants as well as a decree for recovery of arrears of rents and decree for recovery of damages/mesne profits. The appellant filed written statement. Thereafter in view of the written statement filed by the appellants, it seems that the respondent herein filed an application under Order 12 Rule 6 of the CPC praying for decree of recovery of possession on the basis of admissions made by defendants No.1 and 2. 3. Mr. Lonial, learned counsel appearing for the appellant, has contended that the trial court erred in not appreciating that the rent of the premises was Rs. 3,217/- and was not more than Rs. 3,500/- and, thereforee, it was Rent Controller...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : AIR1972Delhi236
ORDER1. The petitioner (landlady) had filed a petition to evict the late Chetan Dass on the ground of personal necessity and non-payment of rent in April, 1965. The application was dismissed on 15-3-1966, but the landlady had filed an appeal. During the pendency of that appeal Chetan Das died and his legal representatives were brought on record. The appeal was accepted on 9-3-1967 and eviction was ordered on the ground of personal necessity. The second appeal preferred to this Court was dismissed on 10-3-1970 two months time having been granted for vacating the property.2. An application was presented to the Competent Authority under the slum Areas (Improvement and Clearance) Act, 1956 on 5-5-1970. The same was dismissed on 12-3-1971 on the ground that the respondents could not get alternative accommodation. An appeal which was preferred to the Financial Commissioner by the landlady was also dismissed on 17-5-1971.3. Though a number of points were taken in the petition the main argumen...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : 2001IIAD(Delhi)810; 90(2001)DLT49; 2001(58)DRJ89
ORDERA.K. Sikri, J.1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 7th March, 2000 passed by learned Trial Court in Suit No.239/93. By the impugned judgment and decree, learned Additional District Judge has decreed the suit of the plaintiff/respondent herein for possession of suit premises being Property bearing No.16, Najafgarh Road, New Delhi situated in Najafgarh Industrial Area. Further decree is passed in favor of respondent directing the defendant/appellant herein to pay mesne profit and damages at the rate of Rs.400/- per day from the date of termination of the license till the date of filing of the suit and thereafter at the rate of Rs.300/- per day. 2. Respondent is admittedly the owner of the suit property. license Deed dated 1st April, 1979 was executed between the parties which mentions that at the request of licensee (appellant), licensor (respondent) has agreed to grant the license to use some portion (specifically shown in the attached plan) for running ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : AIR1976Delhi316; 1976RLR204
1. This is a defendant's Second Appeal filed under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, against the appellate judgment and decree of the Additional District Judge, Delhi, dated 14th January, 1975, by which he has dismissed the appeal with costs and affirmed the decree of the court of first instance dated 6th February, 1974, for recovery of possession of the premises in dispute2. The premises in dispute consist of a portion of the ground-floor in house No. 4766, Partap Street, 23, Darya Ganj, Delhi. This property was and still is owned by the respondent. Prem Sarup Kapoor, deceased, (father of the lst appellant) was a tenant in respect of the said premises. He died on 8th August 1969. The respondent has instituted the suit on 5th November 1969, on the allegations that a notice dated 24th May 1968, terminating the contractual tenancy had been served on the deceased tenant on 27th May 1968, and the tenancy stood determined with effect from 30th June 1968. Thereafter the deceased be...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : ILR1973Delhi667
V.S. Deshpande, J. (1) This review application which purports to be made under section 114 read with section 151 Civil Procedure Code has really to be treated as one made under Order Xlvii rule I Civil Procedure Code. For, section 151 has no application to this case. A review under section 151 is made to avoid the abuse of the process of the court and to correct some palpable error which the court committed by mistake. (Shivdeo Singh v. State of Punjab Air 1963 Sc 1909), (2) The only ground on which the application could be considered under Order Xlvii rule 1 Civil Procedure Code is whether the order dated 1st September 1972 which is sought to be reviewed disclosed 'error apparent on the face of the record' on 1st September 1972 when it was passed. (3) The present petitioners had contended before me in S.A.O. 178 of 1972 (Nathu Khan and others v. Mohd lsmail) that the order of eviction passed by the Controller under section 14 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 against the legal repre...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : 2002IVAD(Delhi)432; 97(2002)DLT687
Vikramajit Sen, J.1. In this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of Indian the grievance of the petitioner, namely Smt. Reeta Sahney, is that she has been unfairly and illegally passed over for the allotment of residential accommodation in the campus of Gargi College (Respondent No. 2). It is her contention that she is the senior most in the teaching faculty of Gargi College, having been in the service of the College for almost 35 years. Her grievance is that she has been denied allotment on the specious ground that she owns residential property within a radius of ten kilometres from the College and stand disentitled under the College Scheme. Attention has been forcefully drawn on her behalf to a notice dated 7.11.1991 calling upon the members of the staff to furnish an affidavit stating that - 'I or may spouse do not own a house or has acquired one and/or power of Attorney arrangements within a radius of 10 Kms. from the College.' Mr. Varma Learned Counsel for the peti...
Tag this Judgment!