Court : Delhi
Decided on : Jul-16-2004
Reported in : 2004(29)PTC522(Del)
..... notice to defendant no. 3. the plaintiff has contented that trade mark 'tata' has been upheld in a number of judgments by this court as well as the arbitration and mediation centre at world intellectual property organization.6. a declaration was filed pursuant to the order of this court dated 3rd august, 1999 and the registrant of the domain name tatagroup .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Delhi
Decided on : Sep-24-2004
Reported in : 2004(3)ARBLR209(Delhi); 114(2004)DLT471; 2004(77)DRJ579
..... to resolve amicably a contract dispute, either party may require that the dispute be referred for resolution to the formal mechanism which may include, but are not restricted to, conciliation mediated by a third party, adjudication in an agreed national or international forum, and/ or international arbitration. the precise mechanism shall be specified in the special conditions of contract.'' (c ) clause .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Delhi
Decided on : Jul-14-2004
Reported in : 126CompCas786(Delhi)
..... the agreement by the petitioner-company. in this respect, i am not taking into account the letter dated february 23, 1998, cited by the petitioner which was issued by a mediator between the parties as it was private correspondence and was termed as personal and confidential.'6. learned counsel for the respondent on the other hand, argued that this petition was .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Delhi
Decided on : Aug-06-2004
Reported in : 114(2004)DLT162; 2004(77)DRJ65
t.s. thakur, j.1. in this petition for a writ of certiorari, the petitioners assail the legality of an order passed by the collector, north-west district, delhi and that passed by the financial commissioner in appeal, whereby an order attesting a mutation in favor of the petitioners on the basis of a sale deed executed in their favor has been set aside and directions for taking possession of the land covered by the sale issued on the ground that the sale was in contravention of the provisions of section 33 of the delhi land reforms act. the facts giving rise to the controversy are few and may be stated at the outset:-2. late shri ram mehar and his brother kanwar lal purchased a certain extent of land situate in different khasra nos. of village khera khurd somewhere in the year 1941-42. in terms of a sale deed dated 7th august, 1996 ram mehar transferred in favor of the petitioners, land situate in khasras nos. 50/17 and 50/18 which had according to the case set up by the petitioners, fallen to the share of ram mehar in a family partition between him and his brother kanwar lal. the sale deed inter alias recited that ram mehar was the sole owner and in peaceful possession of property being sold under the same in favor of the petitioners. shortly after the said sale, the naib tehsildar passed an order on 18th september, 1996 attesting a mutation in favor of the petitioners. aggrieved by the sale in question, respondents 4 to 8 filed original suit no. 827/96 for a declaration and .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Delhi
Decided on : Nov-02-2004
Reported in : 115(2004)DLT378; 2005(79)DRJ127
pradeep nandrajog, j.1. one mani ram s/o.ramji lal resident of village kishan garh, mehrauli was the owner of agricultural land in village mehrauli. part of his land was acquired. as per policy of large scale acquisition, development and disposal of land in delhi,1961 he was entitled to be allotted a residential plot. 2. claim and entitlement had to be decided by the land and building department of delhi administration. on 26.4.1983, land and building department of delhi administration recommended to d.d.a. that a 250 sq. yards residential plot be allotted to shri mani ram. copy of said letter was sent to mani ram. the letter reads as under:-''no.f.32/7/81/landb/alt./13071 dated : 8.10.85 to the deputy director (residential),delhi development authority,vikas sadan, new delhi. subject : allotment of alternative plot under the scheme of ''large scale acquisition development and disposal of land in delhi, 1961.'' sir, i am directed to request you to allot a plot measuring 250 sq. yards (two hundred and fifty sq. yards only) mehraulit, new delhi in lieu of his acquired land measuring 17 bids was bearing khasra no.1234, 1235, 2526/1227/1 and 1218/6 of village mehrauli, award no.80-e/70-71 dated 9-1-81 as he has been found entitled for the same. you are kindly request to acknowledge the receipt of this letter and have the recommendation confirms from the secretary or joint secretary (landb) delhi admn. delhi before making allotment as recommended. yours faithfully, [c.b.yadav] .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Delhi
Decided on : Sep-23-2004
Reported in : 115(2004)DLT46
pradeep nandrajog, j.1. petitioner prays that demand raised vide letter dated 16.9.2002 be quashed and mandamus be issued to the first respondent to raise the demand for ground rent upon the respective flat owners i.e. respondents 3 to 10, in proportion to the areas owned and occupied by them. further mandamus is sought that the demand of interest raised in the impugned letter be quashed. further mandamus is sought that the first respondent be directed to refund or otherwise adjust a sum of rs.15,70,909/- paid by the husband of the petitioner.2. writ petition concerns itself with property bearing municipal no.10-a, prithvi raj road, new delhi.3. impugned letter issued by the first respondent to the petitioner reads as under:-' no. l & do/li-9/2(3-a)/2002/418 dated:16.9.2002.to,smt. sushila kumari,wife of late dr. karni singh,executrix & trustee,lallgarh palace,bikaner-334001.sub: premises situated on plot.no.3 (part), block no.2 known as 10-a, prithviraj road, new delhi.r/madam,i am directed to refer to your letter dated nil received in this office on 17.7.2002 on the above subject and to say that the following payments are to be made by you being the legal representative of the lessee of the property:1. amount demanded vide this office letter dated 29.3.93. rs.2,13,729.00 interest on item no.1 & 2 of demand letter dated 29.3.93 @ rs.1564/- p.m. w.ef. 15.4.93 to 14.9.2002. rs.1,76,732.00 3. r.g.r w.e.f. 15.7.93 to 14.1.2003 @ rs.67850/- p.a. rs.6,44,575.004. interest on above .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Delhi
Decided on : Jan-12-2004
Reported in : 109(2004)DLT849; 2004(73)DRJ60
dalveer bhandari, j.1. the appellant dda aggrieved by the judgment of the single judge dated 4th march, 1999 has preferred this appeal before this court with the request that the order of the learned single judge be set aside. the learned single judge in view of the judgment of the division bench passed in mrs. vijaya c. gursahaney v. delhi development authority, reported in 1994 2 ad delhi 770 allowed the writ petition. the learned single judge has observed that the petitioner (respondent herein) has got a valid will, and probate having been issued by a competent court the respondent cannot claim and demand unearned increase. he further submitted that the grant letters of administration of the will is final and binding. the respondent (appellant herein) could not go contrary to the settled law and claim and demand 50% unearned increase for mutating the property in favor of the petitioner (respondent herein).2. brief facts which are necessary for disposal of this appeal are recapitulated as under:-the dda had allotted the plot bearing no. e-7, east of kailash, new delhi to sh. jaswant singh s/o shri shib dayal. a perpetual lease deed of the plot executed between jaswant singh and the president of india under the government grant act with regard to the aforesaid residential plot. on 20.6.1983 the original allottee jaswant singh died. on 19.6.1983 late jaswant singh is stated to have executed a will dated 19.6.1983 inter alias bequeathing the said plot in favor of dr. k.k. .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Delhi
Decided on : Aug-31-2004
Reported in : 114(2004)DLT120; 2004(76)DRJ424
a.k. sikri, j.1. m/s.globe associates (p) ltd. is the company against which winding up petition was filed way back in the year 1968. in that petition the court ordered this company to be wound up and this order was passed on 7.3.1969 i.e. company `died' 35 years ago. however, its ghosts still haunts. in the process of liquidation of the company's assets, the respondents in this application purchased one property. however, they are still battling out their rights. the unique feature of the case is the manner in which it has taken the twists and turns. this application was filed by the official liquidator (ol) on behalf of the company wherein prayer was made for review of order dated 18.8.1983 whereby sale was confirmed in favor of the respondents herein on the ground that the value of the property was much more and, thereforee, the said confirmation order be recalled. the company/ol and the respondents settled the matter during the pendency of these proceedings. however, incidental issue which arose was regarding the unearned increase to be payable to the dda and the war is now waged between the purchaser and the dda.2. let us take stock of the events which took place from time to time to appreciate the problem.3. vide order dated 18.8.1983 passed in the winding up proceedings, this court sanctioned the compromise/settlement in respect of plot no.16-a, rani jhansi road, motia khan, new delhi. it transpires that the original owners of the plot were respondents 1 to 4 and the .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Delhi
Decided on : Nov-29-2004
Reported in : AIR2005Delhi190; 116(2005)DLT71; 2005(79)DRJ453
vijender jain, j.1. aggrieved by the order passed by the learned single judge dated 25th april, 2003, inter alia, holding that there was no oral partition of the suit property and the respondent was not estopped from filing the suit because parties were living in the suit property for more than 30 years, a preliminary decree for partition of the suit property was passed. a local commissioner was appointed to suggest the mode of partition in equal shares.2. mr.pramod aggarwala, learned counsel appearing for the appellant, has contended that the impugned judgment is based on conjunctures and surmises and the observation in the impugned judgment is beyond the pleadings and the evidence on record. it as contended before us that when pursuant to the oral agreement between the parties, parties have acted upon the said oral agreement and living separately in specific portions in the said property for more than 30 years, the property stands partitioned and nothing more was required to be done. it was contended that the oral partition has to be given effect to partition of the property and the same was legally enforceable. it was contended that for such a long period, both the parties were living in their respective portions as independent owners. it was contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that the finding of the learned single judge that in view of the common staircase and common entrance, no oral agreement had arrived at, is based on surmises and conjunctures. what .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Delhi
Decided on : Dec-03-2004
Reported in : AIR2005Delhi230; 2005(79)DRJ134
pradeep nandrajog, j.1.petitioner a private limited company challenges demand raised by dda vide letter dated 30.9.1998. by and under said letter, interest in the sum of rs.23,25,495/- has been demanded. said sum has been arrived at levying interest @ 18% p.a. on premium of rs.54,40,922/- for the period 1.8.1994 to 12.12.1996.2.case of the petitioner is that one shri tilak raj was the member of 'the surgical co-op. society ltd.'. as member of the society, he was entitled to an industrial plot in his name. he died on 23.11.1982 and his nominee smt.karman wali (his wife) was substituted as a member in his place by the society. possession of the plots could not be given to the members of the surgical co-op society ltd. as there was dispute pertaining to the cost. matter attained finality on 16.8.1993 when supreme court passed an order in ca.no.668/88 settling the issue of price. post settlement of the issue of cost, on 1.7.1994, dda issued a demand in the sum of rs.54,40,922.60 for the plot in question i.e. plot no.b-61, okhla industrial area, phase-i, new delhi. demand was raised on :a) m/s om engineering works, 29/25, new rohtak road, new delhi. and b) smt.karmawali, w/o late sh.tilak raj, x/166, gali no.11, rajgarh colony, delhi-110039. 3.it is stated by the petitioner that m/s om engineering works was not the allottee and as a result of demand being issued in the name of said firm, brothers of late sh.tilak raj claimed that plot be allotted jointly in the name of partners of .....Tag this Judgment!