Court : Delhi
Reported in : 57(1995)DLT154; 1995(32)DRJ142
Vijender Jain, J. (1) This is an application by the plaintiff under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure seeking restraint order against the defendants from exhibiting publicly or privtely, selling, entering into film festivals, promoting, advertising, producing in any format or medium, wholly or prtially, the film 'Bandit Queen' in India or else where. Another prayer is made for appointment of a Receiver/Court Commissioner to take custody and charge of the original negatives, intermediate negatives, positives in all gauges, magnetic audio tapes, mixed audio tapes, sales and publicity material relating to the film 'Bandit Queen'. (2) The case of the plaintiff on this application is that on 9.9.94 this Court directed the original version of the film as made and produced on a video cassette be filed within a week. In compliance of the same the cassette was filed by the defendants. Another order was made that day directing the defendants not to exhibit the film for public...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : 2001VAD(Delhi)245; 90(2001)DLT496
S.K. Mahajan, J.1. Despite the case having been passed over once, no one is appearing on behalf of the petitioner.2. By judgment dated 16th August, 1996 while disposing of the writ petition, the Court respondent No. 4 not to treat the petitioner under suspension on and from 25th July, 1994 and as a consequent thereto further direction was given to pay all consequential benefits to the petitioner as regards pay and allowances subject, of course, to the petitioner satisfying respondent No. 4 during that period he was not gainfully employed. The payment was not made by respondents to the petitioner which resulted in the petitioner filing the present petition for initiating proceedings for contempt against the respondents.3. The case of the respondents in reply is that in terms of undated letter received by the respondents on 10th September, 1996 the petitioner has himself admitted that he was helping his wife with tuitions from September, 1994 onwards and at the relevant time there was ab...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Sunita Gupta, J. 1. Mahinder Singh, in this intra court appeal impugns the judgment of learned Single Judge dated 13th November, 2013 passed in WP(C) No. 7875/2001 titled as M/s. AIR India Ltd. vs. Mohinder Singh and Anr. whereby the award dated 19th July, 2001 passed by the Industrial Tribunal-III directing reinstatement of appellant-workman with continuity of service and full back wages was set aside and the writ petition filed by the respondent-management was allowed. 2. The facts in detail have been set out in the judgment of the learned Single Judge. Hence, we are not repeating the same except where necessary. 3. The appellant was initially appointed as a driver on temporary basis by the respondent on 29th July, 1986. The temporary appointment was extended from time to time for a period of 1 to 3 months. By the letter dated 29th June, 1987 the appellant was given regular appointment on the post of driver pursuant to his application and subsequentinterview in a regular pay scale of...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
1. The present appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 23.12.2012 passed by the Fist Appellate Court, namely, the learned ADJ, Central-17, Delhi in RCA No.17/2011 preferred by the appellants/plaintiffs. The Fist Appellate Court dismissed the said first appeal and affirmed the judgment and decree dated 04.04.2011 passed by the Trial Court, namely, Civil Judge, Central-5, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi in Suit No.472/2010. The Trial Court had similarly dismissed the suit of the appellant/plaintiff for possession, recovery of arrears of rent, mesne profits and damages. 2. The case of the plaintiffs/appellants was that they had initially let out the suit property bearing no.1337, Ground Floor, Sector-D, Pocket-1, DDA Flats, Vasant Kunj, New Delhi to the respondent/defendant on 18.06.1988 on an initial rent of Rs.2,500/- excluding water, electricity and other charges. The said lease was for a period of three years w.e.f. 19.06.1988. Consequently, the said initial lease expired on...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : AIR1975Delhi19
1. On February 19, 1968, Smt. Krishna Wanti Puri widow of Late Dharam Pal Puri instituted an action against the Life Insurance Corporation for the recovery of Rs, 85,000/- and profits and interest on the four policies.2. Dharam Pal Puri when he was alive insured his life with the Corporation and took out four policies, particulars whereof are as under:-Date Policy Amount Policy No. 12-10-1959 Rs. 10,000/- 6081583; 12-6-1961 Rs. 25,000/- 6151357 10-3-1964 Rs. 45,000/- 6297731 15-6-1964 Rs. 5,000/- 6315544 3. Dharam Pal Puri died on 5th August 1964. The widow claims the amount of the four policies from the Corporation on the ground that she is the assignee. The Corporation resists the suit. The main ground of defense is that Dharam Pal Puri was suffering from heart disease, that he know about his ailment, that he had consulted doctors about his disease but fraudulently suppressed these facts. In the proposal forms and the personal statements he made declarations knowing them to be f...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : AIR1981Delhi171; [1982]52CompCas379(Delhi); 19(1981)DLT38a; ILR1980Delhi1305
..... term of the policy was that in the event of death of either of them before the date of maturity the sum assured was payable to the survivor. (2) sita rani died on june 22, 1957. the plaintiff made a claim on the defendant, life insurance corporation of india, (corporation), which took over the assets of the sun light insurance by virtue of act. 31 of 1956. the corporation by their letter dated 20/21st november, 1959 repudiated the claim on the ground that the plaintiff was guilty of fraudulent misrepresentation and that there was no valid contract ..... for a higher premium [see mutual life insurance co. v. onterio metal products 1925 ac 344 . rules of universal application are not thereforee to be expected. one illustration can usefully be given from an american case. it is not a false representation for a pregnant woman to state that she is in sound bodily health, and she is not required to inform the company of her pregnancy. (merriman v. grand lodge, 77 neb 544) (4). (25) section 45 lays down in unmistakable language ..... it is not open to the company to say that it might have been indirectly material as leading to the discovery of other matters.'(43) although this was said in a dissending judgment which was not upheld by the judicial committee of the privy council, this part has been accepted as a correct statement of law in a recent case in australia : babatsikos v. car owners' mutual insurance co. ltd. (1970) 2 l r 314 (ii). (44) i am not satisfied on the evidence of the expert .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : ILR1979Delhi346
Avadh Behari Rohatgi, J. (1) This is a claim against the Railways. The plaintiffs, Life Insurance Corporation of India and Lakshmi Udyog (Udyog) have brought this suit for the recovery of Rs. 53,722.50 against the Union of India and the Railways on account of the loss of goods. (2) Three cases of printing machinery were booked at Wadi Bunder, Bombay on 19th December, 1967 for Varanasi. The Railways issued a railway receipt to the consignor of the goods. On their arrival at Varanasi on 24th January 1968 the goods were offered for delivery to the consignee. The consignee asked for open delivery. Open delivery was given to him. Out of three cases one case was found broken and contents missing. The remaining two cases were in sound condition. Within six months a claim for loss was lodged with the Chief Commercial Superintendent. The Railways repudiated the claim. On 26th February 1971, after serving a notice under s. 80 Civil Procedure Code ., the present suit was brought against the Railw...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : [2001(91)FLR138]; (2001)IILLJ982Del
ORDER1. A large number of Letters Patent Appeals have been filed against the judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 22.2.1992 by which a large number of writ petitions were disposed of. The questions of law involved in these appeals are exactly identical, thereforee, we propose to dispose of these appeals by one common judgment. The learned Single Judge also disposed of all the writ petitions by a common judgment. 2. The learned Single Judge has dealt with the facts of one writ petition. We also deem it appropriate to reiterate the facts of only LPA No. 58/1992 arising out of writ petition No.1110/89 in order to appreciate the controversy involved in the case. 3. Respondent No.1 joined the appellant company on 1st June, 1943. On 2.1.1964 he was allotted a residential quarter in the premises of the appellant mill. The respondent retired from service on 6.6.1983. The respondent was allotted a quarter on leave and license basis on the specific condition that he would vacate the accomm...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
1. On 3rd July, 2015, after commencing hearing in W.P.(C) No.4535/2015 which alone was before this Court till then, the following order was passed:- 1. The nine petitioners are the parents of seven children out of the total of 149 studying in respondent no.2 The Mirambika Free Progress School at Sri Aurobindo Ashram, Sri Aurobindo Marg, New Delhi established by the respondent no.4 Sri Aurobindo Education Society. They have filed this petition seeking quashing of the decision of the respondent no.1 Management of the said school and the respondents no.2and4, of shifting of the said school from where it has existed for 25 years. Order, prohibiting the school from so shifting and prohibiting the use of the property where the school was earlier functioning for establishing a college, is also sought. 2. Notice of the petition was issued and vide order dated 6th May, 2015, ex parte so far as the respondents no.1,2and4 are concerned, inspection by the respondent no.3 Directorate of Education (...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
1. Whether the Reporters of local papers may Yes be allowed to see the judgment?2. To be referred to Reporter or not? Yes3. Whether the judgment should be reported Yes in the Digest?ORDER.1. By this petition filed under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner seeks to set aside the order dated 23.09.2006 passed by the court of Additional District Judge, Delhi whereby the eviction order passed by the Estate Officer against the petitioner has been upheld.2. Brief facts of the case relevant for deciding the present petition are that the petitioner was a tenant of the respondent in respect of the property bearing Shop No.11, Punjab National Bank Building, Arya Samaj Road, Karol Bagh, New Delhi. The petitioner was a habitual defaulter in payment of rent of the said premises and hence a legal notice dated 3.6.87 was served upon the petitioner terminating the said tenancy with effect from 30.6.87. Thereafter the Estate Officer served a show cause notice dated 23.7.198...
Tag this Judgment!