Court : Delhi
Reported in : AIR1991Delhi142; 1991(2)ARBLR127(Delhi); ILR1991Delhi360
p.k. bhari, j.(1) vide letter dated 12/06/1988, the sole arbitrator, mr. justice jaswant singh (retired judge,supreme court) had sent the award dated 8/06/1988 along with the proceedings to this court. notice of filing of the award was issued to all the parties and all the parties have filed objection petitions which are now being' disposed of by this judgment.(2) a partnership firm known as m/s. deoki nandan &sons; owned various immovable properties and other assets.this firm was in existence since 1967 but on death of hanuman prasad, the head of the family on 8/12/1972, a partnership deed dated 25/12/1972 was executed in between his sons viz., atul kumar gupta (predecessor-in-interest of respondents 2 to 5). anil kumar gupta (respondent no. 1), sushil kumar gupta (petitioner) and smt. sudhagupta (respondent no. 6), widow of pro-deceased son shrikrishan kumar gupta, the said partnership deed is ex.pw. 1/1 (existing at pages 174-177 of the arbitration file).clauses 13 and 14 of the partnership deed which are reproduced in the award were to the following effect, as they are very material for deciding the various points arising in the objection petitions .'13.that the partnership shall not be dissolved on account of retirement or death of any party. incase of retirement of a party, he/she shall cease to have any title to or right in the firm's 'name and goodwill of the business, including tenancy right quota rights and licenses which thereupon shall belong exclusively to the .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : 18(1980)DLT15; 1980RLR536
a.b. rohatgi, j. (1) this is a husband's appeal from the decree of divorce dated september 18, 1978. (2) the parties were married on may 1, 1969. both come from well- to-do families. there are two children of the marriage. a son was born on july 9, 1970 and a daughter on october 30, 1971. the husband is 34 years of age and the wife 29. (3) on july 15, 1977 the wife petitioned for divorce on the ground of cruelty under section 13(1)(ia) of the hindu marriage act (the act). the real gravement of the wife's complaint was that the husband is a drunkard and by reason of and in consequence of drinking habits cruel to her. (4) the wife made three complaints against the husband-(1) drunkenness, (2) beating and (3) suspicious nature. in her evidence she deposed that the husband drank like a fish. the particular concomitant of husband's drunkenness was his habit of beating the wife whenever she remonstrated with him that he should give up drinking. the cause of unhappiness was drunkenness. the wife in her statement said : 'i used to tell my husband that he should not drink. upon this he used to abuse me in filthy language. when j persisted in asking him not to drink, he started beating me. it so happened for about 30/40 times.'drunkenness was persistent. so was beating. the wife said 'the respondent used to beat me every third or fourth day'. the husband was alcoholic. 'he could never do without liquor', the wife said. (5) in may 1975 the husband was treated for psychotic state ( .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : ILR1981Delhi294
avadh behari rohatgi, j.(1) this is a husband's appeal from the decree of divorce dated september 18, 1978.(2) the parties were married on may 1, 1969. both come from well-to-do families. there are two children of the marriage. a son was born on july 9, 1970 and a daughter on october 30, 1971. the husband is 34 years of age and the wife 29.(3) on july 15, 1977 the wife petitioned for divorce on the ground of cruelty under section 13(1)(ia) of the hindu. marriage act (the act). the real gravamen of the wife's complaint was that the husband is a drunkard and by reason of and in consequence of drinking habits cruel to her.(4) the wife made three complaints against the husband- (1) drunkenness, (2) beating, and (3) suspicious nature. in her evidence she deposed that the husband- drank like a fish. the particular concomitant of husband's drunkenness was his habit of beating the wife whenever she remonstrated with him that he should give up drinking. the cause of unhappiness was drunkenness. the wife in her statement said 'i used to tell my husband, that he should not drink. upon this he used to abuse me in filthy language. when i persisted in asking him not to drink, he started beating me. it so happened for about 30/40 times.'(5) drunkenness was persistent. so was beating, the wife said 'the respondent used to beat me every third or fourth day'. the husband was alcoholic. 'he could never do without liquor', the wife said.(6) in may, 1975 the husband was treated for psychotic .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : I(1990)BC406; 41(1990)DLT586
leila seth, j.(1) by this appeal, the appellant is challenging the order dated 4th april, 1986 passed by mr. justice b.n. kirpal. (2) we set out the relevant facts. the company was ordered to be wound up by an order of the company judge dated 13th december, 1977 in company petition no. 95 of 1976. the official liquidator, attached to the high court of delhi, mr. s.c. mittal was appointed as liquidator of the company and directed forthwith to take charge of all the property and effects of the company. from the date of the order of winding up the assets of the company came to be in the custody of the court and under its supervision and control in view of sections 456 and 529(2) of the companies act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as the act). (3) the u.p. financial corporation (hereinafter referred to as the corporation) was a secured creditor of the company. it is a statutory corporation incorporated under the state financial corporation act 43 of 1951. it applied for permission/leave under section 446 (537) of the act 'to continue with the petitioner's r.c. for recovery of rs. 26,61,005.79 and interest against the company...'. this petition was numbered as c.a. 232 of 1978. it was averred in the said petition that the corporation was a secured creditor of the company and had not been made a party to company petition 95 of 1976 and consequently it did not come to known of the proceedings before the court. it further averred that it had advanced a sum of rs. 20,00,000.00 to the .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : AIR1981Delhi391; ILR1982Delhi404
b.n. kirpal, j. (1) the petitioners are the auction-purchasers of land measuring 983 square yards out of khasra nos. 173. 174 and 175 of sadhora kalan, subzi mandi, delhi and in this writ petition are seeking to challenge the order of the rehabilitation authorities whereby the said sale in their favor has been set-aside. (2) the aforesaid property was held by the custodian of evacuee properties under the provisions of administration of evacuee property act, 1950. as an evacuee property, subsequently respondent no. 4, aftab ahmed multani, claimed that he had 1/6th share in the said property and that share was not an evacuee property. the custodian accepted this plea. he held that 1/6th share of the aforesaid land on which land superstructure had been constructed, was not an evacuee property and the remaining 5/6th share, however, belonged to the custodian as evacuee property. (3) the said composite property, in which there were evacuee and non-evacuee interests, had to be dealt with, for the purposes of separation of the said interests, under the provisions of the evacuee interest (separation) act, 1951 (hereinafter referred to as 'the said act'). the competent officer by- his order dated 22nd june, 1966, on information having been received from the custodian, of evacuee property, also held that respondent no. 4 had l/6th share in the property. steps were thereafter taken for the separation of the evacuee interest. (4) the competent officer, at the first instance, called for a .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : AIR1990Delhi1
santosh duggal, j.(1) the appellant in this letters patent appeal is the wife, who was respondent in the petition filed by the husband, seeking divorce by decree of dissolution of marriage, between the parties under section 13(l)(ib) of the hindu marriage act, as amended by the marriage laws (amendment) act, 1976. (2) the facts, in so far as are relevant for the disposal of this appeal, are that the petition was brought on the allegation that the marriage between the parties was solemnised on 20th february, 1977, according to hindu rites and ceremonies, and out of tin-, wedlock, a female child named poonam was bora on 24th january, 1978. according to the petitioner (husband), he was residing with his parents, brothers and sister at the time of marriage in flat no. 40, sarojini nagar market, new delhi, and that the respondent in the proceedings; namely, the wife started pestering him to live separately from his parents after 10/12 days of the marriage, and he was so harassed by her on account of her misbehavior with him and his family members that he was compelled, alter a few months, to take a separate house on rent in safdarjang enclave being b-3/49. it was, however, stated that the younger brother of the petitioner deen dayal also shifted with him as he (husband) did not find it possible to afford the high rate of rent and that his brother agreed to share the same with him. he alleged that after shifting to the new house, the wife started insisting that he render monetary .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : 1986(11)DRJ58
g.c. jain, j. (1) mst. shaukat bano, the landlady, has filed this revision petition against the order of the controller, dated may 9, 1985 dismissing her application for eviction of the tenant (respondent herein).(2) smt. sushila devi was the owner of the property no. p-13, n.d.s.e. part ii, new delhi. she let out its ground floor to the respondent u.p. co-operative federation ltd. on a monthly rent of rs. 725.00 vide lease deed dated july 1, 1969. afterwards she sold this property to the petitioner by means of a sale deed dated march 30, 1970. the petitioner consequently became the landlady.(3) on august 25, 1980 she brought a petition seeking eviction of the tenant from the said premises. according to the averments made in the petitioner she was the owner of the premises and the same had been let out only for resident(4) the tenant resisted the petition. the pleas raised were that the premises had been let out for residential-cum-commercial purposes and were being used for both purposes with the consent and knowledge of the landlady. the landlady was residing in the defense colony house of her husband which was a palatial house and did not bonafide require the premises in dispute. allegations retarding illness of her husband and the agreement to sell defense colony house were denied in the alternative it was pleaded that the said agreement and the act of shifting to the second floor of this property were a devise to get the premises in dispute vacated.(5) learned controller .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : AIR1984Delhi389; 1984(7)DRJ19
j.d. jain, j. (1) this appeal springs from judgment dated 30th september 1982 of an additional district judge whereby he dismissed the petition of the appellant/husband for divorce on the grounds of desertion and cruelty as being without merit. (2) the carriage between the parties was solemnised on 7th october 1964 at sonepat, to which place the parents of the respondent/wife belonged, in accordance with hindu rites and ceremonies. thereafter, they lived together as husband and wife at 123/2, rouse avenue, new delhi, uptil january 1966. the said house had been allotted to the father of the appellant as a railway employee and as such the parties were living with him as members of his family. a son was born to the respondent in december 1965. however, the appellant does not own his paternity). since january 1966 onwards the respondent has been living at sonepat with her parents. the contention of the appellant is that she left her matrimonial home on 19th january 1966 for sonepat without his consent and against his wishes and she has not returned to her matrimonial home despite repeated efforts having been made by him i.e. the appellant, from time to time to bring her back to her matrimonial home. hence, he seeks divorce on the ground of desertion by the respondent without any just cause. (3) it may be pertinent to give here the past history of litigation which had been going on between the parties prior to filing of this petition on 28th november 1981. the appellant had .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : 44(1991)DLT631; 1991(20)DRJ367
s.c. jain, j. (1) the charge against the appellant is that on 16-3-1986, in the afternoon around 5 p m., he committed rape on urmila devi wife of shri om parkash in a room in the basement of the building called items building at rafi marg, new delhi, within the jurisdiction of p s. parliament street, new delhi. he was prosecuted and tried turn an offence under section 3761pc. the trial court found him guilty for the said offence and convicted him under section 376 indian penal code and sentenced him to undergo ri for seven years and to pay a fine of rs. 10,000.00 and in default to further undergo si for three months.(2) shri bhatia, learned counsel for delhi administration, argued that no lady would involve herself in such a case of rape without any basis or foundation. according to him, the appellant has not given any justification as to why he was given beating by the husband and other relations of the prosecutrix on the point of lodging fir after four days, mr bhatia submitted that as far as possible the relatives of the prosecutrix and the prosetcutrix would not like to lodge a report with the police for such an offence to avoid humiliation and thereforee, the delay in lodging fir cannot be said to be fatal in such cases. regarding the contradictions in the statement of the prosecutrix, mr bhatia stated that she is an illiterate lady and such type of contradictions arc bound to be there in the statement of an illiterate lady. mr. bhatia defended the judgment given by the .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : 49(1993)DLT380; 1992(24)DRJ484
d.p. wadhwa, j.(1) this writ petition has been filed against four respondents. first respondent mahanagar telephone nigam limited (mtnl) is a government company within the meaning of section 617 of the companies act, 1956; second and third residents are respectively united india periodicals ltd. (uip) and united database (india) private limited (udi) [udi is a wholly owned subsidiary of uip] and were given the contract for the publication of telephone directories for delhi and bombay under an agreement dated 14 march 1987; and the fourth respondent is sterling computers limited (sterling). the agreement dated 14 march 1987 was entered into between the mtnl and uip, but then on the request of uip its subsidiary company udi was allowed to execute the job under the agreement on behalf of uip. (2) an agreement dated 26 september 1991 called 'supplemental agreement' was executed between all the respondents whereby sterling got associated with uip and udi for publication of the directories for delhi and bombay. as to what are the terms of the original agreement and the supplemental agreement we will examine a little later as a great deal of arguments had been addressed on the effects and purport of these agreements and particularly the supplemental agreement which is being challenged. (3) the petitioner pray as under :- (a)issue a writ and or order and or direction declaring that the sub contract dated 26.9.91 entered into by mtnl with back date with 2nd, 3rd and 4th respondents .....
Tag this Judgment!