Court : Delhi
$~83 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 8482/2015 HIRA LAL SINGH & ORS. Through: Mr P.S. Bindra, Advocate. ........ Petitioners Versus ..... Respondent Through: Mr Harish Kumar Garg, Advocate. THE LAND DEVELOPMENT OFFICER, LAND & DEVELOPMENT OFFICE CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU % ORDER0808.2017 VIBHU BAKHRU, J1 The petitioners have filed the present petition, inter alia, praying as under:-""MANDAMUS Directing, Commanding and Requiring the Respondent to forthwith substitute the name of... Petitioners' in place of Late Sardar Bhag Singh Sial being his legal heirs and to allow... Petitioners' Application dated 12.12.2007 seeking conversion of leasehold rights to freehold in respect of Private Cottage No.29, West Patel Nagar, New Delhi 110 008." The controversy in the present petition relates to the mutation and 2. conversion of the leasehold property bearing No.29 West Patel Nagar, New Delhi - 110008 (hereafter 'the property'). The said property was leased to S...
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 : 1993(25)DRJ556; 1993RLR268
C.M. Nayar, J.(1) Plaintiffs have filed the suit for permanent injunction against the defendant from enforcing any order of re-entry and especially the one passed in June, 1983 and also from interfering with the peaceful use and enjoyment of the suit property.(2) The brief facts of the case are that the plaintiffs are owners of the property bearing No. 54, Motia Khan Dumb Scheme New Delhi, hereinafter referred to as 'the suit premises'. Shri Niyamatullah, plaintiff no.2 is the constituted General Attorney of the plaintiff and is authorised and competent to file the present suit and to sign and verify the plaint.(3) It is alleged in the plaint that by an agreement for lease dated November 22, 1962, the defendant, as the Lesser had agreed to demise the land of the suit premises to one Shri Krishan Chand Ohri and by an agreement of hypothecation dated November 23, 1965, Shri Kishan Chand Ohri had entered into an agreement with one Sardar Joginder Singh for the construction of a multi-stor...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
1. Criminal Writ Petition No.184 of 2011 was filed by International Asset Reconstruction Company Private Limited, who is the petitioner in the instant petition, praying that learned District Magistrates, Dadra & Nagar Haveli, Silvassa be directed to pass appropriate orders under Section 14(1) of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (for short, "the SARFAESI Act") for taking possession of the secured assets and for handing over the same to the petitioners. It was noticed by the Division Bench of this court presided over by A.M. Khanwilkar, J. that the subject matter of the application under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act had been disposed of. Learned counsel for the petitioner, however, submitted that a number of such applications are pending before the courts across the State and since public money is involved, appropriate directions need to be issued to the concerned Magistrates asking them to dispose of the said ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
JUDGMENT :- (Per Smt. Ranjana Desai, J.) 1. Criminal Writ Petition No.184 of 2011 was filed by International Asset Reconstruction Company Private Limited, who is the petitioner in the instant petition, praying that learned District Magistrates, Dadra & Nagar Haveli, Silvassa be directed to pass appropriate orders under Section 14(1) of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (for short, "the SARFAESI Act") for taking possession of the secured assets and for handing over the same to the petitioners. It was noticed by the Division Bench of this court presided over by A.M. Khanwilkar, J. that the subject matter of the application under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act had been disposed of. Learned counsel for the petitioner, however, submitted that a number of such applications are pending before the courts across the State and since public money is involved, appropriate directions need to be issued to the concerned Magist...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : [1983]53CompCas693(Cal)
ORDER (1) That all the property, rights and powers of the transferor-company specified in the first, second and third parts of the Schedule hereto and all other property, rights and powers of the transferor-company be transferred without further act or deed to the transferee-company and, accordingly, the same shall pursuant to Section 394(2) of the Companies Act, 1956, be transferred to and vest in the transferee-company for all the estate andinterest of the transferor-company therein but subject nevertheless to all charges now affecting the same [other than (here set out any charges which by virtue of the compromise or arrangement are to cease to have effect) ]. (Paragraphs 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6 are not relevant for our purpose and, as such, omitted)SCHEDULE PART I (Insert a short description of the freehold property of the transferor-company) PART II (Insert a short description of the leasehold property of the transferor-company) PART III (Insert a short description of all stocks, sh...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : AIR1993Guj5; (1992)1GLR79
ORDERC.K. Thakkar, J.1. This group of petitions is filed against the order dated May 30, 1987 passed by the District Judge, Bhavnagar in various appeals filed before him under Section 9 of the Gujarat Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Public Premises Act').2. The facts giving rise to the present controversy may now be shortly stated.'The petitioner is a 'Board' i.e. the Housing Board constituted under Section 3 of the Gujarat Housing Board Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Housing Board Act'). The respondent in each petition is an allottee of a tenament either in Middle Income Group (MIG for short) or in Lower Income Group (LIG for short) Scheme of Housing Board at Bhavnagar. It is the case of the petitioner-Board that the allottees had not paid rent equivalent to amount of instalments due and payable under the agreement to sell entered into between the Housing Board on one hand and the allottees who are tenants of ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : AIR1989Raj24; 1988(2)WLN197
S.C. Agrawal, J.1. This second appeal filed by the defendant Gopal Krishan Singhal, arises out of a suit for ejectment and arrears of rent filed by the respondent, Ram Lal Goyal, against the appellant, in respect of the property bearing No. AMC 32/123B(Old), now renumbered as 24/134 (new) situated in Kaiserganj, Ajmer. The case of the plaintiff-respondent was that the said property was let out to him by Shri N. N. Tondon on a monthly rent of Rs. 27/-. Shri N. N. Tondon had filed a suit (Civil Suit No. 229/64) for eviction against the plaintiff-respondent and in the said suit a decree for eviction was passed by the Munsiff Ajmer City, Ajmer on 20th August, 1965. The case of the plaintiff-respondent was further that the appellant was in occupation of the suit premises as tenant of the plaintiff-respondent. The plaintiff-respondent sought the ejectment of the appellant on two grounds, namely, (i) that the appellant had not paid the rent for the premises from 1st July, 1966 to 31st May, 19...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : 44(1991)DLT678; 1991(21)DRJ122
Santosh Duggal, J. (1) This is landlord's revision petition filed under Section 25-B(8) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (for short 'the Act'), assailing the judgment of the Additional Rent Controller, Delhi passed on 19th July, 1985 whereby his petition filed under Section 14(1)(e) read with Section 25-B of the Act was dismissed.(2) The petitioner had approached the Rent Controller with the aforesaid eviction petition filed on 23rd January, 1981 for order of eviction against the respondent Surinder Kumar Sharma, a tenant under him in respect to premises consisting of one room, one kitchen and a common bath room and latrine on the ground floor of premises bearing No. 2-E, Kamla Nagar, Delhi, of which the petitioner claims to be the owner/landlord. The petition was based on the plea that the petitioner had a large family consisting of himself, his wife, aged mother, six sons-two of whom were married, and a married daughter, living in Delhi and the accomodation which he had in his occ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : AIR2002Bom456; 2002(6)BomCR409; (2002)3BOMLR892; 2002(3)MhLj666
D.Y. Chandrachud, J.1. This Civil Revision Application arises out of an order passed by the Small Causes Court on 11th February, 2002 in three Revision Applications. The three Revision Applications sought to impugn an order passed by the Small Causes Court, dismissing three interim notices which were taken out on behalf of the Applicant herein, raising objections to the execution of the decree for eviction under Section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.2. Briefly stated, the factual background of the case is that a suit for eviction came to be filed in the year 1990 by the landlord and eviction was sought on the ground, inter alia, of a change of user and of subletting, these being statutory grounds which were available under the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947. The suit for eviction was decreed on 21st December, 1996 both on the ground of change of user and of subletting. The appeal which was filed by the Applicant was dismissed on 25th February, 2...
Tag this Judgment!