Court : Delhi
Decided on : Dec-02-2016
$~1 * % + IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of Decision: December 02, 2016 RSA3462016 GYAN CHAND ..... Appellant Through: Mr.N.K.Aggarwal & Ms.Nupur Sachdeva, Advocates with appellant in person versus ..... Respondent Through: Mr.Deepak Gupta, Advocate with Mr.Ankush Sharma & Mr.Gaurav Dhakar, Advocates KAMLESH CORAM: HONBLE MS. JUSTICE PRATIBHA RANI JUDGMENT (Oral) 1. This Regular Second Appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure has been filed against the concurrent judgment of the Courts below i.e. of the First Appellate Court dated 16th September, 2016 and of the trial Court dated 11th December, 2014 whereby the suit of the plaintiff in respect of the possession has been decreed under Order XII Rule 6 CPC.2. After the notice of the appeal was sent to the Respondent, LCR was also requisitioned.3. At the stage of hearing, the thrust of argument on behalf of the appellant was that instead of passing a decree under Order XII Rule 6 CPC on the basis of admission ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Dec-21-2016
* HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + RC. Revision No.504/2015 & CM APPL.20171/2015 Reserved on:27. h November, 2015 Pronounced on:21. t December, 2015 SAROJ BALA SAPRA & ORS. ... Petitioners Through: Mr. R. S.Sharma, Advocate. Versus AMAR PREET SINGH CHADHA & ANR. ... RESPONDENTS Through: Mr. Praveen Kumar Singh, Advocate with Mr. Rajeev Gupta, Advocate CORAM: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE V.K. SHALI V.K. SHALI, J.1. This is a revision petition filed by the petitioners against the order dated 19.05.2015 passed by the learned Additional Rent Controller, (Central), Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi in an Eviction Petition No.E- 1titled Amar Preet Singh Chadha & Anr. v. Smt. Saroj Bala Sapra & Ors. by virtue of which the leave to defend application of the petitioners-tenants has been rejected and an order of eviction was passed.2. Briefly, stated the facts of the case are that the respondents- landlords are claiming themselves to be the owner of property RC. Rev. No.504/2015 Page 1 of 10 bearing No.18-B/3, D...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Decided on : Dec-22-2016
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ORIGINAL SIDE Present: The Honble Justice Shivakant Prasad CS No.288 of 2007 Saraf Agencies Private Limited Versus Kanoria Jute and Industries Limited For the plaintiff : Mr. Maloy Ghosh, Advocate Mr. Aniruddha Mitra, Advocate Mr. Ajay Gaggar, Advocate Mr. A. Bose, Advocate Mr. S. Sarawgi, Advocate For the defendant : Mr. Sarathi Dasgupta, Advocate Mr. Sidhartha Sharma, Advocate Mr. Joydeep Dutta, Advocate Heard on :22. 11.2016 C.A.V. on :22. 11.2016 Judgment on :22. 12.2016 This is a suit for eviction mesne profits valued at Rs. 17,51,804.64 p. Plaint case in brief is that by an agreement for tenancy dated April 17, 1979 Rahul Investment Ltd. let out the covered area measuring about 7500 sq. ft. at the Second and Ground Floor of the Premises No.4/1, Red Cross Place, Kolkata-700 001 to Gujarat Cotton Mills Pvt. Ltd. now known as Kanoria Jute & Industries Limited, being the defendant herein, was a monthly tenant of a por...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Apr-05-2016
1. The petitioner who is landlord before this Court is aggrieved by the order passed by the Rent Control Tribunal (RCT) vide which the order passed by the Additional Rent Controller (ARC) dated 24.05.2008 had been reversed. The impugned judgment had held that the sub-tenant i.e. Chaman Lal Bajaj is a valid sub-tenant and his right was protected under the provisions of Section 18 of the Delhi Rent Control Act (hereinafter referred to as the 'said Act'); the premises having been validly sub-let to the sub-tenant, the sub-tenant could not be evicted. The appeal of the sub-tenant was accordingly allowed. 2. Record shows that an eviction petition had been filed by the landlord (Padam Chand Vaish) seeking eviction of his tenant (Madan Gopal Har Gopal). The eviction petition was founded u/s 14 (1)(b) of the said Act. The submission of the landlord was that a sub-tenancy had been illegally created by the tenant which had entitled the landlord to seek an eviction order. This petition was decree...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Mar-23-2016
1. Heard the counsel for the parties. 2. The present second appeal arises out of judgment and order dated 30.01.2016 passed by the Additional District Judge-2, South West District, Dwarka Courts, Delhi in RCA No.34/2015 whereby the judgment and decree of the Trial Court dated 30.09.2015 in CS(OS) No.133/2015, allowing the suit of the respondent No.1 under Order12, Rule 6 of the CPC, thereby entitling respondent No.1 to recover possession of the suit property from the appellant, was affirmed and upheld by the Appellate Court. 3. The respondent No.1 filed a suit bearing CS(OS) No.133/2015 for a decree of possession and eviction in his favour and against the appellant/defendant No.2 and respondent No.2 (husband of the appellant) in respect of suit property No.F-71, DG(S) Apartments, Plot No.6, Sector 22, Dwarka, New Delhi as well as for mesne profits. The case of the respondent No.1/plaintiff before the Trial Court was that he is the landlord and absolute owner of the property referred to...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Jharkhand
Decided on : Oct-06-2016
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(C) No. 2027 of 2016 With W.P.(C) No. 2207 of 2016 With W.P.(C) No. 2515 of 2016 M/s Shah Brothers --- --- --- Petitioner [in WPC20272016] Anil Khirwal --- --- --- Petitioner [in WPC22072016] Padam Kumar Jain --- --- --- Petitioner [In WPC25152016] Versus 1. The Union of India through the Ministry of Mines and Steel 2. The State of Jharkhand through the principal Secretary, Department of Mines and Geology 3. The Joint Secretary, Department of Mines and Geology, Government of Jharkhand 4. The Deputy Commissioner, West Singhbhum, Chaibasa 5. The District Mining Officer, West Singhbhum, Chaibasa 6. The Assistant Mining Officer, West Singhbhum, Chaibasa --- --- --- Respondents [in all the cases] --- Coram: Honble Mr. Justice Aparesh Kumar Singh --- For the Petitioners: M/s Amarendra Sharan, Sr. Advocate, Krishanu Ray, Advocate (in WPC20272016) M/s Indrajit Sinha, Krishanu Ray, Vijay Kant Dubey, Advocates (in WPC22072016 & WPC25152016) For the Re...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Jharkhand
Decided on : Oct-06-2016
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(C) No. 2027 of 2016 With W.P.(C) No. 2207 of 2016 With W.P.(C) No. 2515 of 2016 M/s Shah Brothers --- --- --- Petitioner [in WPC20272016] Anil Khirwal --- --- --- Petitioner [in WPC22072016] Padam Kumar Jain --- --- --- Petitioner [In WPC25152016] Versus 1. The Union of India through the Ministry of Mines and Steel 2. The State of Jharkhand through the principal Secretary, Department of Mines and Geology 3. The Joint Secretary, Department of Mines and Geology, Government of Jharkhand 4. The Deputy Commissioner, West Singhbhum, Chaibasa 5. The District Mining Officer, West Singhbhum, Chaibasa 6. The Assistant Mining Officer, West Singhbhum, Chaibasa --- --- --- Respondents [in all the cases] --- Coram: Honble Mr. Justice Aparesh Kumar Singh --- For the Petitioners: M/s Amarendra Sharan, Sr. Advocate, Krishanu Ray, Advocate (in WPC20272016) M/s Indrajit Sinha, Krishanu Ray, Vijay Kant Dubey, Advocates (in WPC22072016 & WPC25152016) For the Re...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Jharkhand
Decided on : Oct-06-2016
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(C) No. 2027 of 2016 With W.P.(C) No. 2207 of 2016 With W.P.(C) No. 2515 of 2016 M/s Shah Brothers --- --- --- Petitioner [in WPC20272016] Anil Khirwal --- --- --- Petitioner [in WPC22072016] Padam Kumar Jain --- --- --- Petitioner [In WPC25152016] Versus 1. The Union of India through the Ministry of Mines and Steel 2. The State of Jharkhand through the principal Secretary, Department of Mines and Geology 3. The Joint Secretary, Department of Mines and Geology, Government of Jharkhand 4. The Deputy Commissioner, West Singhbhum, Chaibasa 5. The District Mining Officer, West Singhbhum, Chaibasa 6. The Assistant Mining Officer, West Singhbhum, Chaibasa --- --- --- Respondents [in all the cases] --- Coram: Honble Mr. Justice Aparesh Kumar Singh --- For the Petitioners: M/s Amarendra Sharan, Sr. Advocate, Krishanu Ray, Advocate (in WPC20272016) M/s Indrajit Sinha, Krishanu Ray, Vijay Kant Dubey, Advocates (in WPC22072016 & WPC25152016) For the Re...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Oct-18-2016
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL No.8194 OF2016|RAJENDER BANSAL & ORS. |.....APPELLANT(S) | | | | |VERSUS | | | |.....RESPONDENT(S) | |BHURU (D) THR. LRS. & ORS. | | JUDGMENT A.K. SIKRI, J.The appellants in this appeal are the landlords who had filed suit for eviction of the respondents herein, their tenants. Suit was filed in the Civil Court. The premises in-question were outside the ambit of rent legislation. It is because of this reason that civil suit for possession/ejectment was filed. However, during the pendency of the suit and before it could be finally decided, the area in question was brought within the sweep of rent legislations by requisite notifications. The effect of such coverage was to give protective umbrella to the tenants. As a fortiorari, the landlord can now evict the tenant only by taking recourse to the rent legislation, that too, by filing the petition for eviction under the Rent Act before the Rent Controller/Tr...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Decided on : Aug-23-2016
(Prayer: Plaint filed under Order VII Rule 1 of C.P.C and Order IV Rule 1 of the Original Side Rules read with Sections 27, 28, 29, 105, 106, 107 of the Trade and Merchandise Marks Act, 1958 read with Sections 51, 55 and 62 of Copyright Act. a) A perpetual order and injunction restraining the defendants by themselves, their partners, heirs, legal representatives, successors-in-business, assigns, servants, agents, distributors, stockists, representatives or any of them from in any manner infringing the plaintiffs' registered Trade Marks CASTROL, CASTROL GTX, CASTROL CRB and CASTROL LOGO by use of Trade Marks identical or deceptively similar thereto; b) Granting a perpetual order and injunction restraining the defendants by themselves, their partners, heirs, legal representatives, successors-in-business, assigns, servants, agents, distributors, stockists, representatives or any of them from in any manner passing off or enabling others to pass off the defendants' lubricants, oils, and gre...
Tag this Judgment!