Court : Delhi
Decided on : Mar-25-1998
Reported in : 1998IIIAD(Delhi)27; 94CompCas552(Delhi); 1998(45)DRJ149
..... compensatory equalisation payment to the company. parties by consent can, however, agree to a larger amount. 6. that shri p.n.khanna, retired judge is at present acting as a mediator. he will act as a commissioner, to separate 30.14% of the assets of the company to be given to shri narender nath nanda group as set out hereinbefore.10 .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on : Mar-03-1998
Reported in : (1998)(60)ECC385
..... . he denied the suggestion that bhoore khan had heard from sahadia of pakistan about his receiving gold or silver from him. he also denied the suggestion that he acted as mediator in between sahadia and achar rajad. he denied any enmity with achar rajad.he did not ask achar rajad to bring any gold for him nor he has any connection .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Delhi
Decided on : Feb-20-1998
Reported in : 1998IIAD(Delhi)305; 72(1998)DLT157; 1998(44)DRJ727
orderjaspal singh, j.1. on 4th july, 1976 mr.m.l.aggarwal, respondent no.4, as competent authority and revenue assistant delhi while acting under the delhi land holding (ceiling) act, 1960 dismissed the petition of roop kaur dated 28th may, 1976 seeking to exclude the land allegedly belonging to her from the holding of respondent no.5 tej pratap singh for the purpose of fixing the ceiling limit. this was followed by an order passed by sh.a.c.kher, additional collector, delhi on april i , 1977 by which the objections of respondent no.5 tej pratap singh under section 9 of the said act were dismissed. by that order too the contention of respondent no.5 tej pratap singh that a portion of the land belonged to the petitioner was rejected. the petitioner by way of this writ petition seeks to get these orders quashed as far as her claim in the land is concerned.2. since there has been a long drawn litigation leading to the filing of the writ petition in question i do feel that what is called for at this juncture is a glance over its history in necessary detail.3. rai bahadur narain singh owned huge chunks of land in the revenue estate of village mandoli, illaqa shahdara. sardar jagmer singh was his son. rai bahadur executed a will by which sardar jagmer singh was given life estate with regard to land measuring 428 bighas and 7 and a half biswas. after the death of the rai bahadur and while sardar jagmer singh was enjoying the life estate in consequence of the will of his father the .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Delhi
Decided on : Jul-24-1998
Reported in : 1998VAD(Delhi)693; 75(1998)DLT60; 1999(48)DRJ663
ordera.k. srivastava, j.1. this is a suit for declaration and permanent injunction with the contentions, inter alia, that the plaintiff is the real and beneficial owner of the flat at ground floor, block d-ii/3322, vasant kunj, new delhi (hereinafter referred to as the 'said flat') lease hold rights of which were purchased from the defendant no. 2 in the name of defendant no. 1 (wife of the plaintiff) for the benefit of the plaintiff out of the funds provided by the plaintiff; that the said flat was being held in trust by defendant no.1 on behalf of the plaintiff; that the plaintiff has been in lawful occupation of the flat; that the plaintiff paid a sum of rs.4 lacs to the defendant no. 2 in respect of the installments payable to defendant no. 2; that those payments were made from the accounts of the plaintiff being state bank of india, parliament street, new delhi and the state bank of indore; that the matrimonial relations between the plaintiff and defendant no. 2 deteriorated and collapsed due to cruelty on the part of defendant no. 1; that the defendant no.1 had thrown out the plaintiff from their matrimonial home at london and consequently the plaintiff came to india on december 8, 1994 and since then he has been residing in the said flat along with his widowed sister.2. the plaintiff further contends that he received a threat from defendant no.1 on december 15, 1994 that she would dispossess him forcibly; that shri vijay chakraborty, brother of defendant no.1 also .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Delhi
Decided on : Aug-28-1998
Reported in : 1998VIAD(Delhi)649; 75(1998)DLT238; 1998(47)DRJ837
orderc.m. nayar, j.1. this revision petition is directed against the order dated february 22, 1997 passed by shri j.r.aryan, additional rent controller, delhi.2. the respondent filed a petition under section 14(1)(e) read with section 25-b of the delhi rent control act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as 'the act'). the point of contest was that the respondent could not be considered holding any independent right and title in the suit property so as to establish one of the essential ingredients of section 14(1)(e) of the act. it was, thereforee, examined as to whether the respondent could be held entitled to relief of seeking petitioner's eviction from the tenanted premises when her bona fide was not in question. the other plea which was raised before the rent controller as well as before this court related to the interpretation of the provisions of section 14(6) of the act which will be taken up for discussion at a later stage.3. the property bearing no.87, jor bagh, new delhi is the subject matter of the tenancy and comprises of entire ground floor consisting of two bed rooms, one drawing-dining, kitchen, store, two bathrooms, one wc, one box verandah, open platform, open court-yard at the back and front along with servant quarter and garage. the same was purchased by the respondent's father k.n.sharma in his own name as well as in the name of his wife smt. puran wati sharma and three sons g.n.sharma, n.n.sharma and u.n.sharma. shri k.n.sharma passed away on january 14, 1971 .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Delhi
Decided on : Oct-06-1998
Reported in : 1999IAD(Delhi)18; 1(1999)CLT560; 76(1998)DLT681; 1999(48)DRJ138
orderdr. m.k. sharma, j.1. this suit was instituted by the plaintiffs against the defendants seeking for cancellation of the documents specifically mentioned in the plaint under the provisions of section 31 of the specific relief act.2. the present suit relates to a plot of land situated at e-255, greater kailash, part-ii, new delhi, which was developed by dlf housing and construction limited. the said company sold various residential plots of land of different sizes and the plot in question was sold by the said company to smt. gurdial kaur wife of shri umrao singh vide registered sale deed dated 27th july, 1964. said smt. gurdial kaur further sold the said plot to shri thakur singh and shri lashkar singh vide a sale deed duly registered with the sub-registrar on 21st march, 1966. the said co-owners namely, shri thakur singh and shri lashkar singh sold the said plot of land to shri satinder singh vide a sale deed duly registered with the sub-registrar, new delhi, on 14th december, 1970. said shri satinder singh sold the said plot of land to the plaintiffs and their late father by executing a sale deed in favor of them for a total consideration of rs.7,85,000/-. the aforesaid sale deed was also duly registered in the name of the plaintiffs and their late father with the sub-registrar, new delhi, on 2nd may, 1986.3. after registration of the said sale deed and the payment of the entire sale consideration, shri satinder singh handed over the physical, peaceful and vacant .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Delhi
Decided on : Sep-22-1998
Reported in : 1998VIIAD(Delhi)315; 76(1998)DLT805; 1999(48)DRJ382; 241ITR97(Delhi); 1999RLR92
c.k. mahajan, j.1. by way of this writ petition the petitioner seeks a declaration that the sale of property bearing no. c(c)-18, kalkaji, new delhi, purchased by the petitioner from the president of india by way of registered sale deed dated 5.4.1989 after its acquisition under sections 269ud and 269ue of the incometax act, 1961 (hereinafter 'the act', for short) is a first sale and full ownership rights, title and interests vest in the petitioner and further seeks quashing of paras 3, 4 and 5 and portion of a, 2a in para 1 of the letter dated 11.1.1991, issued by the assistant settlement commissioner for and on behalf of the president of india demanding enhanced ground from rs. 9/- to rs.72,409/- per annum. the petitioner further seeks a declaration that the ground rent demanded is in abuse and excess of authority and offends articles 14 and 300a of the onstitution.2. one surjit singh sahni s/o sh. jai singh acquired rights in immovable property bearing plot no.18 block no. c (c) kalkaji, new delhi measuring 866 square yards from the central government through settlement commissioner, government built property, new delhi vide auction held on 4.12.1955. a lease deed dated 6.8.1959 was executed between the president of india and surjit singh sahni and registered in the office of the sub registrar on 19.8.1959. for the purpose of the present petition the relevant clauses of the lease deed are extracted and reproduced as under :(b) the lessee shall before any assignment or .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Delhi
Decided on : Jul-09-1998
Reported in : 1998IVAD(Delhi)691; 74(1998)DLT208; 1998(46)DRJ298; (1998)120PLR39
orderd.k. jain, j.1. by this application under order vi rule 17, cpc defendant no.2, hereinafter referred to as the applicant, seeks leave to amend the written statement filed sometime in september 1985, by incorporating two new paragraphs mentioned in the application. in substance, the applicant wants to raise a plea that he has become absolute owner of the back portion of the property bearing no.7/32, roop nagar, delhi by virtue of a will dated 27 october 1983 executed by late sh.sant singh, co-owner of the suit property and defendant no.1 herein.2. the application has emerged under the following circumstances :-the suit property originally belonged to one sh.man singh, father of the plaintiff and defendant no.1. he had executed a will on 1 september 1956, bequeathing the property to his wife, smt.jeevan dei. sh. man singh died on 22 june 1972 and his will was probated on 30 august 1973. smt. jeevan dei, on her part, executed a will on 5 september 1974, bequeathing specific portions of the suit property to her two sons namely, sh. dalip singh-the plaintiff and sh.sant singh-defendant no.1. a site plan was also attached with the will specifying the respective portions of two brothers. smt.jeevan dei died on 29 june 1977 and on a joint application by the plaintiff and defendant no.1, high court of malawi, central africa, granted probate in respect of the said will. on the strength of the said probate the property was mutated by the dda in the joint names of the plaintiff and .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Delhi
Decided on : Oct-16-1998
Reported in : 1998VIAD(Delhi)689; 76(1998)DLT197; 1998(47)DRJ789
orderc.m. nayar, j.1. the present petition is directed against the judgment dated october 18, 1997 passed by the additional rent controller, delhi, allowing the petition of the respondent for eviction under section 14d read with section 25b of the delhi rent control act, 1958 hereinafter referred to as 'the act').2. the tenancy premises comprises of one room and kitchen which is part of property no.iv-c/21, old lajpat nagar, new delhi. the petitioner is a tenant in the premises since 1969. the husband of the respondent expired on november 17, 1994 and the petition for eviction was, thereforee, filed under section 14d of the act on the ground of bona fide requirement. the respondent does not possess any other residential accommodation except the suit premises where she is living with her elder son vijay kapoor whose family consists of his wife and three growing children. the accommodation in their possession comprises of only one room and a kitchen. the petitioner filed his leave to defend application and raised various pleas and contended that the matter raises triable issues. the premises were let out for commercial purposes by previous landlord jai raj nath and were being used for such purpose with his consent and knowledge. the said jai raj nath had filed eviction petition under section 14(1)(e) of the act in the year 1980 where similar plea was taken by the respondent. the premises were purchased by the respondent vide sale deed dated december 14, 1991. thereforee, it is .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Delhi
Decided on : Aug-14-1998
Reported in : 75(1998)DLT496; 1999(48)DRJ283
s.n. kapoor, j.1. this order shall dispose of is nos. 8449/88, and 2024/93 for granting injunction restraining defendants no.1 to 4 and their agents from in any manner raising any construction, structure or any development or digging any tubewell in the suit land and from in any manner selling, alienating any vegetable, fruits or plants to any one till the disposal of the suit. is no. 7095/95 under order 39, rule 4 for vacating the order of granting ad interim injunction by defendant no. 1 as of necessity is required to be disposed of along with the above said application.2. first the relevant facts in brief. the plaintiff filed a suit for specific performance on the basis of an agreement dated 17th july. 1987 to sell 9 bighas 12 bids was 2 acres of land in village samalka, tehsil mehrauli within the union territory of delhi at the agreed rate of rs.3.57 lacs per acre of 4,840 sq. yds. and in the alternative, recovery of rs.25,36,000/- as well as for injunction against transfer etc. it is claimed that defendant no.1 through defendant no.2 represented himself to be the full-fledged owner of the above said land. defendant no.2 in addition to the representation made had sworn and compensated affidavit dated 17th april, 1987 swearing, inter alia, to the effect that such a general power of attorney has been executed by defendant no.1 in his favor on may 8, 1987 and had been duly registered with the sub-registrar of assurance at chandigarh on may 11, 1987. he has also produced a .....Tag this Judgment!