Court : Delhi
Reported in : 94(2001)DLT572; 1(2002)DMC56
A.K. Sikri, J.1. The suit No.2075/2000 has been filed by the plaintiff under Section 18 of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act(for short 'Act') for decree for personal maintenance as well as for damages against her husband(defendant No.1) and father-in-law(defendant No.2) for allegedly ruining her life. It has been filed as indigent person. The plaintiff claims herself to be a helpless, poor, educated girl of middle class family who had dreamt of a happy married life. However, her dreams stand shattered and in the process she lost everything i.e. status, service, dignity and peace. It is also stated that her father was an Assistant Editor in Directorate of Extension under the Ministry of Agriculture, Government of India who retired on 31st May, 1994 and spend all his life savings on the marriage of his daughter i.e. plaintiff with the defendant No.1 in USA in the hope that she would lead a happy married life. The plaintiff is a post graduate diploma holder in management, a citizen ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : (2009)ILLJ63Del
A.K. Sikri, J.1. The appellant herein is a workman employed with M/s. State Farms Management of India Ltd. and had challenged his termination by raising industrial dispute. He has witnessed luck of his pendulum shifting from one end to another inasmuch as the Labour Court has given the Award in his favour holding termination to be illegal and directing reinstatement into service with back wages. The said Award is upturned by a learned single Judge of this Court in writ petition filed by the respondent herein (hereinafter referred to as 'the Management') vide judgment dated April 28, 2006 and. quashing the Award of the Labour Court. The appellant has preferred the present appeal against the said judgment of the learned single Judge. What is in store for him would be unfolded in these pages, as we are proposing to decide this appeal by this judgment.2. The appellant herein was appointed as Apprentice by the Management w.e.f. July 19, 1983. Two years period as an Apprentice came to an end...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : 1996IAD(Delhi)749; 1996(36)DRJ558; 1996RLR140
ORDER In partial modification of office order No. 38/Bldg. dated 5. 9. 1977, priorities of demolition of unauthorised construction will be as under: FIRSTPRIORITY; A) Cases of unauthorised construction of commercial nature such asmarkets, offices, godowns which have been dismissed/remanded from the courts. B) Unauthorised construction of commercial nature including, cases. where unauthorised structure was demolished and has beenreconstructed. C) All cases of commercial as well as residential nature where sanction ofbuilding plans is revoked. D) Unauthorised construction of new colonies on green agricultural land/private land. E) Unauthorised construction of residential nature which has been dismissed from the court, including the cases of unauthor is edconstruction which affect rights (light, ventilation, passage etc. ofneighbors) . SECONDPRIORITY A) Cases of unauthorised construction effected by any structure or coming in the right of way of the road. B) Unauthorised constructio...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : 2003VAD(Delhi)281; 106(2003)DLT164; 2003(70)DRJ357
Sanjay Kishan Kaul, J.1. The petitioners are the owners of property No. 4-E/11, Ward No. 15, Jhandewalan, New Delhi and are aggrieved by the assessment order dated 02.02.2001 fixing the rateable value of the property at different values from 01.12.1988 onwards. The petitioner have also impugned the consequent bill dated 15.06.2001 raised in pursuance to the order of assessment.2. The petitioners acquired rights to the property in question in pursuance to a perpetual lease deed executed on 16.11.1973 in favor of petitioners No. 1 and 2 and the husband of petitioner No. 3, who subsequently passed away. The petitioners entered in to a contract with M/s. Indraprastha Builders Pvt. Ltd. for development and construction of a building on the said property. It is stated that in terms of the said agreement, an area of 20000 sq. ft. had to be constructed and the petitioners agreed to lt out 10000 sq. ft. of the area to the said builders on a monthly rent of Rs. 3/- per sq. ft. and the remaining ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : 2004(72)DRJ244
R.C. Jain, J. 1. Is a lessee of Public Premises who continues in possession after the expiry of lease by efflux of time must necessarily be served with a notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, before initiating the proceedings for his eviction and recovery of damages under the provisions of Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971? is the important question which arises for consideration in this batch of matters.2. The common order passed by Sh. Raghubir Singh, learned Additional District Judge, Delhi dated 14th February, 2002 thereby disposing of several appeals under Section 9 of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') against the orders of eviction and recovery of damages passed by the Estate Officer under Section 5 and under Section 7 of the Act, are the subject matter of Civil Miscellaneous (Main), Petitions under Article 227 of the Constitution of India filed by the pe...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : 2002IIIAD(Delhi)980; 95(2002)DLT893
V.S. Aggarwal, J. 1. Plaintiff, Mrs. Savitri Devi, has filed the present suit for recovery of Rs. 7,99,500/- besides possession of the premises No. A-51/1 Phase-I, Naraina Industrial Area (for short the premises in dispute) and for permanent and mandatory injunction. 2. The relevant facts alleged are that Gian Chand was the husband of the plaintiff. He was carrying on business of printing press at Premises No. 5397 Arya Samaj Road, Karol Bagh, New Delhi in the name and style of M/s. Kissoo Mal Gian Chand. Gian Chand was also the owner in possession of the premises in dispute. He died on 18.12.1977 leaving behind his widow and an unmarried daughter Suman besides a son Girish. The entire property after the death of Gian Chand was mutated in the name of the plaintiff. He had left behind a will dated 13.12.1977 in which he bequeathed his property in favor of the plaintiff as the absolute owner. 3. It is further alleged that Gian Chand deceased was a friend of the husband of Mr. Asha Makkar...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : AIR2002Delhi192; 96(2002)DLT41
Anil Dev Singh, J.1. This order will dispose of Letters Patent Appeal Nos. 49/89 and 13/97. Brief facts giving rise to these appeals are as follows.2. The appellant, National Institute of Immunology, is a society registered under the Societies Registration Act (No. XXI) of 1860, with the Registrar of Societies, Delhi Administration, Delhi. It is claimed by the appellant that it was promoted and established by Government of India for undertaking charitable activity in the field of basic and applied immunology. At present, the appellant is engaged in important research projects relating to immunological approaches to contraception and the development of vaccines for the cure of leprosy. The funding of the appellant comes from the Government of India in the shape of grants-in-aid and from various institutions like the International Development Research Centre of Canada, The United Nation Development Programme (UNDP), The Rockefeller Foundation of U.S.A, The United States Agency for Intern...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : AIR2009Delhi58
S. Ravindra Bhat, J.1. The petitioner, a senior counsel practicing in this Court, has questioned the levy and recovery of amounts by the Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD) the respondent in these proceedings, towards parking charges.2. It is claimed that the petitioner purchased a 'Getz' car, manufactured by the second respondent. When he sought its registration, an amount of Rs. 4000/- was recovered on the footing that it was payable on account of 'MCD Parking charges'. The recovery has been impugned as unauthorized, and impermissible in law. The petitioner avers that his vehicle is parked within his premises, and whenever he parks it outside, on MCD land, parking charges, as per policy of the MCD, are paid, for the duration of the service rendered. thereforee, it is submitted that there is no occasion to extract such an amount as 'parking charges' payable to the MCD, at the stage of purchase of the car. It is also claimed that there is no corresponding service rendered by the MCD, ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
1. Whether the Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment No2. To be referred to Reporters or not No3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest YesRAJIV SHAKDHER, J1. I propose to dispose of the captioned suits by a common judgment for the reason that not only are all parties in the captioned suits [except the Delhi Development Authority (hereinafter referred to as DDA)] members of one family but also that the court, by order dated 05.09.1990 passed in FAO (OS) 280/1989, directed consolidation of the said suits, and the evidence by observing that evidence will be led in suit No. 2996/1988. In addition to this, property being: 17, Ashok Vihar Community Centre, Delhi 110 052 (hereinafter referred to as the Ashok Vihar Property), over which the core dispute centres, is common to the captioned suits. It is perhaps with this background that the court, by order dated 02.07.1996, passed in suit no. 2996/1988 framed common issues.2. The first two suits, that is, ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : 1997VIAD(Delhi)357; 69(1997)DLT36
K. Ramamoorthy, J.(1) The builders Skipper Sales Pvt. Ltd. and Skipper Towers Pvt. Ltd. had not acted in accordance with the business ethics and that had resulted in number of persons instituting suits in this Court. The fact that the premises bearing Door No. 22, Barakhamba Road, New Delhi was owned by the following persons as co-owners is not disputed. The share of each of the persons is also given below: (i) Shri 0m Prakash 1/6th (ii) Shri Atam Prakash 1/6th (iii) Shri Vijender Singh 1/6th (iv) Shri Rajinder Singh 1/25th ShriJi tender Singh 1/25th Shri Anil Gupta 1/25th Smt. Kushal Wati 1/25th Smt. Pushpa Gupta 1/50th (v) Shri Padam Singh 1/24th Smt. Gayatri Devi 1/24th Shri Madhukar Singh 1/24th Shri Diwakar Singh 1/24th (vi) Smt. Savitri Devi 1/30th Smt. Vimla Devi 1/30th Smt. Memo Devi 1/30th Smt. Vidya Wati 1/30th Smt. Santosh Bala 1/30th (2) In the first instance Skipper Sales Pvt. Ltd. entered into an agreement with the owners on 24.6.1977 for the purchase of the property. Tha...
Tag this Judgment!