Skip to content


Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: mediation Court: delhi Year: 1992 Page 1 of about 87 results (0.023 seconds)

Feb 11 1992 (HC)

Ajarjeet Singh Vs. Municipal Corporation of Delhi

Court : Delhi

Decided on : Feb-11-1992

Reported in : AIR1992Delhi317

order1. this revision petition u/ s. 115 of the code of civil procedure (for short the code) is directed against the order dated 25 september 1990 of shri s. p. garg, sub judge 1st class, delhi dismissing petitioner's/ plaintiff (termed plaintiff hereinafter) application under order 6 rule 17 of the code seeking amendment of the plaint.2. the plaintiff, alleging to be an allottee doing business for over twelve years, filed the suit against the respondent-mcd for perpetual injunction in respect of stall no. 117, dewan hall road, old lajpat rai market, delhi for restraining the mcd from dispossessing or demolishing the said stall otherwise than by due process of law. the suit was instituted on 28 november 1987. written statement on behalf of the municipal corporation of delhi (termed defendant hereinafter) was filed on 3 november 1988. the defendant denied that the plaintiff was allottee or in occupation for the last twelve years or more or had any right, title or interest in the stall in question. instead, the plaintiff was termed as an unauthorised encroacher. on application under order 30 rules i & 2 of the code, filed with the suit, the trial court issued notice with exported interim stay against his dispossession, which after hearing on merit was vacated on 5 may 1990. the plaintiff filed an appeal against the said order but the first appellate court dismissed the same on 15 may 1990. the plaintiff then moved an application for review under order 47 of the code, which as .....

Tag this Judgment!

Apr 09 1992 (HC)

Baljit Singh and ors. Vs. Union of India and anr.

Court : Delhi

Decided on : Apr-09-1992

Reported in : 47(1992)DLT212

s.b. wad, j. (1) these appeals arise out of the acquisition of land belonging to claimants in village malikpur kohi/rangpuri. the notification under section 4 of the land acquisition act was issued on 23.1.1965.(2) rfa. 386/71 is filed against the judgment of shri jagdish chandraadj, in lac no. 415/67 pronounced on 29.3.1971 relating to award no. 1958.shri jagdish chandra, adj, (as he then was) had relied upon his own judgment in lac. 434/67 bhaktawar singh & another v. union of india dated 23.3.1971.in bhaktawar singh's case the learned adj, relying on the sale instance of khasra no. 1587/1, where one'bigha of land was sold for rs. 5,000.00, held that market value for block i lands was rs. 7,000.00 per bigha and for block 2 landsrs. 5,000.00 per bigha. appellants' land was classified by the learned adj as block 2 land and was awarded compensation @ rs. 5,000.00 per bigha. the land acquisition collector had awarded only rs. 600.00 per. bigha for block2 lands. the appellants/claimants had claimed in the appeal that they should have been paid compensation @ rs. 7,000.00 per bigha. the union of india has filed an appeal against the judgment of jagdish chandra. adj, viz. rfa. 452of 1971. in the said appeal the claimants have filed the cross-objections. after the decision of this court in rfa. 122/78, hoshiar singh v. union of india, the claimants have claimed rs. 14,340.00 per bigha as compensation for all categories of land.(3) there are cross-appeals filed by the union of india .....

Tag this Judgment!

May 28 1992 (HC)

Shri Kishan Lal Vs. Shri Rajan Chand Khanna

Court : Delhi

Decided on : May-28-1992

Reported in : ILR1993Delhi138

order1. this revision petition under s. 25b of the delhi rent control act (hereinafter referred to as the 'act') has been filed by the tenant-petitioner against the order dated 16-7-1991 passed by smt. sunita gupta, additional rent controller, delhi whereby she has allowed the eviction petition of the respondent-landlord under s. 14 of the act for bona fide requirement and consequently an order of eviction in respect of kothi no. 5, sri ram road, delhi has been passed.2. the relevant fads as stated in the petition are that the respondent-landlord was the owner of the premises in his capacity as the karta of the joint hindu family known as rajan chand khanna & sons comprising of the respondent-landlord himself, his wife and two sons. the premises kholi no. 5, sri ram road, civil lines, delhi were let out to the tenant on a monthly rent of rs. 198/- p.m. besides rs. 26.78 as house tax and rs.2/-p.m. as sweeper charges for residential purposes and has been used as such since the inception of the tenancy. the premises were let out in july, 1951 and no rent note was executed.3. the respondent-landlord had been working with cpa consultancy services private limited, 11/ 1-a, sarojini naidu sarani, calcutta, under a contract for a period of five years at that time, which was to expire on 30th june, 1981. at the time of institution of the eviction petition, the petitioner had been residing in calcutta, but the climate of calcutta being humid did not suit the eldest son, rajesh khanna, .....

Tag this Judgment!

May 28 1992 (HC)

Krishan Lal Vs. Rajan Chand Khanna

Court : Delhi

Decided on : May-28-1992

Reported in : AIR1993Delhi1; 48(1992)DLT75; 1992(24)DRJ327; 1992RLR347

p.n. nag, j. (1) this revision petition under section 25-b(8) of the delhi rent control act (hereinafter referred to as the 'act') has been filed by the tenant-petitioner against the order dated 16.7.1991 passed by smt. sunita gupta, additional rent controller, delhi whereby she has allowed the eviction petition of the respondent-landlord under section 14(l)(e) of the act for bonafide requirement and consequently an order of eviction in respect of kothi no. 5, sri ram road, delhi has been passed. (2) the relevant facts as stated in the petition are the respondent-landlord was the owner of the premises in his capacity as the karta of the joint hindu family known as rajan chand khanna & sons comprising of the respondent-landlord himself, his wife and two sons. the premises kothi no. 5, sri ram road, civil lines, delhi were let out to the tenant on a monthly rent of rs. 198.00 p.m. besides rs. 26.78 as house tax and rs. 2.00 p.m. as sweeper charges for residential purposes and has been used as such since the inception of the tenancy. the premises were let out in july, 1951 and no rent note was executed. (3) the respondent-landlord had been working with c.p.a. consultancy services private limited, 11/1-a, sarojini naidu sarani, calcutta, under a contract for a period of five years at that time, which was to expire on 30th june 1981. at the time of institution of the eviction petition, the petitioner had been residing in calcutta, but the climate of calcutta being humid did not .....

Tag this Judgment!

Feb 11 1992 (HC)

Amarjeet Singh Vs. Municipal Corporation of Delhi

Court : Delhi

Decided on : Feb-11-1992

Reported in : 46(1992)DLT483

d.k. jain, j.(1) this revision petition under section 115 of the code of civil procedure (for short the code) is directed against the order dated 25 september 1990 of shri s p. garg, sub judge 1st class, delhi dismissing petitioner's/ plaintiff (termed plaintiff hereinafter) application under order 6 rule 17 of the code seeking amendment of the plaint. (2) the plaintiff, alleging to be an allottee doing business for over twelve years, filed the suit against the respondent-mco for perpetual injunction in respect of stall no. 1 17, dewan hall road, old lajpat rai market, delhi for restraining the mcd from dispossessing or demolishing the said stall otherwise than by due process of law. the suit was instituted on 28 november 1987. written statement on behalf of the municipal corporation of delhi (termed defendant hereinafter) was filed on 3 november 1988. the defendant denied that the plaintiff was allottee or in occupation for the last twelve years or more or had any right, title or interest in the stall in question. instead, the plaintiff was termed as an unauthorised encroacher. on application under order 39 rules 1 & 2 of the code, filed with the suit, the trial court issued notice with ex parte ad-interim stay against his dispossession, which, after hearing on merit was vacated on 5 may 1990. the plaintiff filed an appeal against the said order but the same was dismissed by the first appellate court on 15 may 1990. the plaintiff then moved an application for review under .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jul 06 1992 (HC)

Chaman Lal Vs. Shyam Lal Mehra

Court : Delhi

Decided on : Jul-06-1992

Reported in : 47(1992)DLT703

p.n. nag, j. (1) this is an appeal under section 39 of the delhi rent control act, 1958, (hereinafter referred to as 'the act') against the appellate order of the rent control tribunal dated 12/02/1987whereby the rent control tribunal has reversed the judgment and order of the additional rent controller dated 2 2/05/1986 and has dismissed the petition for eviction.(2) the facts giving rise to the present appeal are that the appellant/petitioner filed a petition in the court of the additional rent controller,delhi under section 14(1)(a) of the act for ejectment of the respondent on the ground of non-payment of rent. the additional rent controller having found that the respondent has not paid the arrears of rent and further that he has not complied with the order passed under section 15(1) of the act,ordered ejectment of the respondent from the premises in question.(3) being aggrieved against this order, the respondent filed an appeal before the rent control tribunal, which was allowed by him and thereby the petition for ejectment of the appellant/petitioner was dismissed.(4) being aggrieved against this order, the present appellant has filed this appeal under section 39 of the act. it may be noticed here that at the relevant time when the appeal was filed, the same was maintainable under section 39 of the act. however, at present the act stands amended.(5) the notice was ordered to be issued to the 'respondent but the respondent did not appear. this court then allowed .....

Tag this Judgment!

Oct 28 1992 (HC)

Kamla Marwah Vs. Kapur Fabrics

Court : Delhi

Decided on : Oct-28-1992

Reported in : 48(1992)DLT636; 1992RLR545

santosh duggal, j.(1) the appellant, who is owner/landlady of the demised premises, comprising of drawing-cum-dining room, two bed rooms with attached toilets, kitchen, garage on the ground floor, bed room with attached toilet and servant room above garage on the first floor, built on plot no. d-29, defense colony, new delhi, had sought eviction of the respondent no. i/tenant by invoking the provisions of clauses (e), (d), (h) and (k) of the proviso the section 14(1) of the delhi rent control act, 1958 (for short the act). as per averments in the eviction petition, the tenancy premises formed part of a residential house, and had been let to the respondent for residential purposes, but no one was residing in the premises and further that the tenant had acquired vacant possession of a quarter for residence, and had converted the letting purpose of residential into commerical, by using the demised premises as a show-room of furnishing fabrics .and boutique, without prior and written consent of the landlady, and that this user was otherwise detrimental to the interest of the landlady as she had received notices from d.d.a. threatening action under section 29 of the delhi development act, and the , land and development office also threatened to levy penalty for converting, the user, .and the municipal corporation had threatened to levy additional house tax. besides, it was alleged that the premises were let to the tenant for residence of one ashok kapur, but neither the tenant nor .....

Tag this Judgment!

Nov 03 1992 (HC)

Sultan Singh and anr. Vs. Union of India

Court : Delhi

Decided on : Nov-03-1992

Reported in : 49(1993)DLT478; 1992(24)DRJ647a; 1993RLR1

gokal chand mital, c.j. (1) in order to appreciate the controversy, the following pedigree table may be kept in view: banwari lal = roop devi | | | +---------------------------------------------+ | | | murari lal = memo devi amar nath dewan chand | +------------------+ | | | | sultan singh shiv raj singhbanwari lal was the karta of the joint hindu family and the joint hindu family had substantial joint hindu property and business. on 27th march, 1942, banwari lal died, leaving behind, his widow, smt. roop devi and three sons, namely, murari lal, amar nath and dewan chand. murari lal was the eldest son and, thereforee, he became the karta. on 10th july, 1942, the coparcenaries was dissolved and on 26th june, 1943 added of settlement/partition was executed between the coparceners and their mother, smt. roop devi, as on partition of joint hindu family, besides some cash, she was given the ownership of a three strayed house on plot no.49, block g, lekhram road, darya ganj, delhi. in plot, the erstwhile, hindu undivided family had held perpetual lease hold rights. the translation of the relevant recital is reproduced herein below: 'the property which have fallen in the share of smt. roop devi - party no.4 that cannot be mortgaged, sold, gifted etc. and cannot be put-in the surety etc.. i.e. the same cannot be alienated in any way by the said smt. roop devi. all the four parties shall reside in the abovementioned house. the present and the future electric, house-tax, water bills .....

Tag this Judgment!

Nov 03 1992 (HC)

Sultan Singh and anr. Vs. Amar Natjh and anr.

Court : Delhi

Decided on : Nov-03-1992

Reported in : 49(1993)DLT244; 1992(24)DRJ647

gokal chand mital, j. (1) in order to appreciate the controversy, the following pedigree table may be kept in view : banwari lal = roop devi murari lal = memo devi amar nath dewan chand sultan singh shiv raj singh (2) banwari lal was the karta of the joint hindu family and the joint hindu family had substantial joint hindu property and business. on 27th march, 1942, banwari lal died, leaving behind, his wodow, smt. roop devi and three sons, namely, murari lal, amar nath and dewan chand. murari lai was the eldest son and, thereforee, he became the karta. on 10th july, 1942, the coparcenary was dissolved and on 26th june, 1943 a deed of settlement/partition was executed between the coparceners and their mother, smt. roop devi, as on partition of joint hindu family, besides some cash, she was given the ownership of a three storeyed house on plot no. 49, block g, lekhram road, darya ganj, delhi. in plot, the erstwhile, hindu und'vided a family had held perpetual lease hold rights. the translation of the relevant recital is reproduced herein below : 'the property which have fallen in the share of smt. roop devi-party no. 4 that cannot be mortgaged, sold, gifted etc. and cannot be put in the surety etc. i.e., the same cannot be alienated in any way by the said smt. roop devi. all the four parties shall reside in the abovementioned house. the present and the future electric, house-tax, water bills and other taxes regarding the said building shall be paid by the first, second and .....

Tag this Judgment!

May 01 1992 (HC)

Shiela Sethi Vs. Mohd. Naseem and ors.

Court : Delhi

Decided on : May-01-1992

Reported in : 47(1992)DLT698; 1992(23)DRJ75

arun kumar, j.(1) as. 3723/86 & 4465/86(2) the plaintiff has filed the present suit for permanent injunction praying that defendants 1 and 2 be restrained from carrying out any construction on the plot bearing no.a-197, new friends colony, new delhi. in the amended plaint, further prayer has been made that defendants 1 and 2 be restrained from occupying the building raised on the said plot and the plaintiff be allowed to occupy the same. along with the suit the plaintiff filed an application being i.a. no. 373/86 under order xxxix rules 1 and 2 of the code of civil procedure praying for an interim injunction restraining defendants 1 and 2 from carrying on any construction on the said plot. an ex parte interim order was passed on the said application.(3) on 30th may, 1986 restraining the said defendants from carrying on any construction activity on the plot inquestion. soon thereafter the plaintiff filed not her application under order 39 rules 1 and 2 being i.a. 4465/86 praying that defendants 1 and 2 be restrained from occupying the structure existing on the said plot. on the said application, an ex parte interim order was passed on 6th august,1986 restraining the defendants 1 and 2 from occupying the whole or any part of the structure on plot no.a-197, new friends colony, new delhi. the said ex parte order was modified on 11th august,1986 and defendants 1 and 2 were permitted to carry on the construction on the ground floor of the said plot but the said defendants were .....

Tag this Judgment!


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //