Court : Delhi
Reported in : AIR1998Delhi365; 74(1998)DLT213; ILR1998Delhi392
ORDERAnil Dev Singh, J.1. This is a petition whereby the petitioner, Eacom's Controls (India) Limited, seeks a declaration to the effect that the arbitration agreement dated May 14, 1982 between the petitioner and the respondent No. 1, Bailey Controls Company, stands frustrated and resultantly ceases to have effect. The facts giving rise to the petition, briefly, stated, are as under:-2. The petitioner and first respondent entered into an agreement dated May 14, 1982 whereby the respondent inter-alia, granted to the petitioner an exclusive, non-transferable license under the Patent Rights and know-how utilized commercially by the said respondent to make licensed products systems in India and a non-exclusive, non-transferable license to use and sell licensed products and systems in any country in the world except in countries where the said respondent established licensing arrangements for manufacturing in that country or where the said respondent had manufacturing facilities or activit...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : AIR1983Delhi377; ILR1983Delhi83; 1983RLR335
M.L. Jain, J.1. A perpetual lease was executed on 16-10-1920 between the Secretary of State for India in Council and Edward Keventer of Aligarh Dairy Farm, Aligarh, in respect of a plot of land measuring 22.95 acres situated on Kitchner now Sardar Patel Road. New Delhi, on a premium of Rs. 5738.8.00 and annual rent of Rs. 286.14.00. The lease was granted for construction of a dairy farm according to the plan approved by the Chief Commissioner, Delhi, or his delegate. The said dairy farm was accordingly built and set up. The lease was transferred to the present petitioners, namely, Edward Keventers (Private) Ltd. sometime in 1946.2. Conditions (5) and (6) of the lease provided that the lessee will not without consent of the said Chief Commissioner or a duly authorised officer appointed by the Governor-General erect or suffer to be erected on any part of the premises any buildings other than and except the dairy farm buildings, make any alteration in the plan or elevation of the said dai...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : 1985(8)DRJ337
J.D. Jain, J.(1) The facts giving rise to this revision petition, which is directed against order dated 18th December 1982 of an Additional Sessions Judge, succinctly are that way back on the night between 13/14th April 1971 a raid was conducted on premises No. 4698, Gali Umrao Singh, Pahari Dhiraj, by officials of the Customs Department pursuant to some specific secret information. Shri Phool Chand Jain, father of the respondent-Srinivas Jain was present at the house. There was a small room inside a bigger room which was found locked from outside. The father of the respondent was asked to open the lock but he told the Customs officials that the said room was in possession of a person who was known to his son Srinivas i.e. the respondent. Eventually the lock of the room was broken open and the father of the respondent when told to cooperate with the Customs officials offered to bring out the incriminating goods contained in two steel trunks and one cardboard etc. Accordingly, he went i...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : 1995IIAD(Delhi)573; 1995(34)DRJ492
R.C. Lahoti, J.(1) There are two suits filed by two sets of persons touching the same property and seeking more or less : identical reliefs, though in a bit little different backdrop of events. Two applications in the two suits seeking similar reliefs have been heard analogously and are proposed to be disposed of by this common order.(2) In the peculiar facts and circumstances of these cases, the length and the vehemence with which the matters have been argued by the learned counsel appearing for the parties require the facts being noticed in a little more details. On each and every point arising for decision, even at this preliminary stage of the suits, the parties and the learned counsel have been at divergence. The only point on which all of them have expressed consensus is that some of the issues arising for decision have far reaching implications and consequences of significance for the public at large.(3) On 19.11.1994, Anz Grindlays Bank, (hereinafter referred to as the Bank, fo...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : 127(2006)DLT535
Vikramajit sen, J.1. Keeping in perspective the urgent nature of these writ petitions, Counter Affidavits being available on the record, and arguments having been heard in full detail, the matter was taken up for final disposal. The vagaries and vicissitudes of public life and elections cannot always be visualized or predicted with precision, as these petitions demonstrate. Shri Paramjit Singh Sarna, the President and Shri Ravinder Singh Khurana, General Secretary of the Delhi Sikh Gurdwara Management Committee have intractably locked horns with each other. They have their own factions and supporters. The General Secretary had convened the annual elections of the Executive Board for 19th December, 2005 in terms of his letter dated 28.11.2005. It transpires that in that particular period the President was part of the Jatha which was on pilgrimage to Nankana Sahib, on the outskirts of Lahore, Pakistan. On his return the President took umbrage at the unilateral decision of the General Sec...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : [1996]221ITR202(Delhi)
DR. M.K. Sharma, J. 1. This writ petition is directed against the notices under ss. 148 and 142 of the IT Act issued to the petitioner relevant to the asst. yrs. 1968-69 to 1971-72, 1981-82 and 1982-83. 2. Lands measuring about 4,200 bighas was acquired by the then Chief Commr. of Delhi by notification dt. 6th March, 1966 and 6th Sept., 1966, issued under s. 6 of the Land Acquisition Act. By judgment dt. 20th May, 1980, the then Addl. District Judge held the petitioner to be entitled 1/32nd share of the compensation awarded under the awards. As a consequence thereof the petitioner received a compensation of Rs. 1,33,810. On a reference application filed by the petitioner under s. 18 of the Land Acquisition Act the Addl. District Judge, Delhi, by his judgment dt. 31st July, 1991, passed his award. Consequently, the petitioner was paid a sum of Rs. 1,10,20,624 which amount represented towards principal amount at Rs. 41,96,496 and interest at Rs. 76,84,829 up to 18th May, 1992. According ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : 95(2002)DLT545; 2002(61)DRJ848
Devinder Gupta, J.1. Defendants have filed this Regular First Appeal under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure against the judgment and decree passed by Shri R.K. Sain, Additional District Judge, Delhi in Civil Suit No. 129/80 decreeing the suit of plaintiff/respondent and thereby granting a decree for specific performance of agreement to sell directing defendant/appellant to execute necessary sale deed within a period of two months during which period the defendants were asked to take necessary steps for completing necessary formalities towards execution of sale. 2. Facts in brief are that on 12.12.1979 plaintiff filed the suit claiming decree for specific performance of agreement to sell dated 24.3.197, inter alia, alleging that Delhi Development Authority had granted a lease of a big plot of land in favor of New Friends Co-operative House Building Society and the Society had granted sub lease in favor of its members. Durga Nath Sharma, defendant No. 1 being one of the members ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : 2003(69)DRJ751
A.K. Sikri, J. 1. These three appeals are filed by the Union of India the Delhi Development Authority and the Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi respectively against the same judgment/order dated 1st August, 2001 rendered by the learned Single Judge in CWP No. 923/97 which was filed by the unofficial respondents herein.2. The unofficial respondents herein had filed the aforesaid writ petition herein direction was sought to the appellants herein (official respondents) to decide representations dated 4th November, 1996, 6th December, 1996 and 24th January, 1997 of the respondents for releasing from acquisition the lands situated in Village Okhla Mahigiran, Mehrauli. They also made a prayer to the effect that the appellants herein should be directed to implement the National Housing Policy 1994 ('NHP-94' for short) as adopted by both the Houses of Parliament. However, during the pendency of the writ petition, certain significant developments took place. A decision was taken...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : 1994IIAD(Delhi)937; AIR1994Delhi255; 1994(28)DRJ680
P.N. Nag, J. (1) The plaintiff has Filed the suit for ejectment against the defendant from property known as flat No.9-B.Hansalaya Building. 1.5, Barakhamba Road, New Delhi-110001 and for recovery of Rs.4,26,560.00 on account of damages & mesne profits for use and occupation of the premises from the date of termination of the tenancy till the date of the suit and for mesne profits. (2) The facts set out in the plaint are that the plaintiff is the owner of the properly knownasflatNo.9-B,Hansalaya Building, 15,BarakhambaRoad,NewDelhi-l 10001. The aforementioned premises, which has a covered area of 1333 sq. ft. on the 9th floor in Hansalaya Building, as marked 'B' in the plan was let out by the plaintiff to the defendant as monthly tenant initially at the rate of Rs.5.50 per ft. per month i.e. Rs.7331.50 per month from 30.4.1976 on the terms reduced in writing vide registered lease dated 6.6.1977. vide Registered No.2261, book No-3816 on pages 84-87 dated23.6.1977. The said lease deed co...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : 2007(97)DRJ223
J.P. Singh, J.1. In this Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India it is prayed that the Notification dated 4.8.1967 under Section 4, Declaration dated 20.11.1967 under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act and the Award No. 12/83-84 dated 17.6.1983 in respect of property No. 8, Raj Niwas Marg (Ludlow Castle Road), Delhi be quashed and the possession which was taken in May, 2000 be restored to the Petitioner. Corrigendum dated 27.10.1967 is also challenged and de-notification under Section 48 of the Land Acquisition Act is prayed for.2. The Petition has been filed through attorney, by son of Late Goswami Brij Bhushan Lal Jee Maharaj. It is alleged that on 27.8.1931 the property in question was purchased by the father of the Petitioner, for the temple, from Sh. Hari Narain and Sh. Laxmi Narain for a total sale consideration of Rs. 14,148.08p vide a Registered conveyance deed.3. Details regarding decree of a suit against Sh. B.Nand Kishore @ Nandu Babu; the consequenti...
Tag this Judgment!