Court : Delhi
Decided on : Oct-07-2005
Reported in : 124(2005)DLT466
..... , the mcd could not have merely proceeded ahead to award the project to manushi; such an exercise had to be based on parameters laid down in the policy itself. 'ngo mediation' resulting in manushi taking charge of the project is objected to. as far as the objection vis- -vis the master plan was concerned, the submission was that the project disturbs .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Delhi
Decided on : Oct-21-2005
Reported in : 126(2006)DLT575
..... and asking for the noc to be obtained.13. i am also unable to accept the plea of the defendant that by reason of some negotiation taking place through a mediator, the agreement to sell had come to an end and the only question was refund of the amount. the negotiation was apparently for arriving at a settlement to complete the ..... was neither ready nor willing nor capable of executing / complying with the terms and conditions of the agreement. it was further stated in the written statement that the mediator, mr. a.v. dutta mediated for cancellation of the sale transaction whereby the defendant was to return the earnest money and the defendant again has offered to repay the amount provided the agreement ..... the transaction and asking the noc to be obtained.4. in view of the dispute between the parties, one mr. a.v. dutta is stated to have acted as the mediator who is also the attesting witness to the agreement to sell. however on 09.01.2005, the defendant is stated to have refused to complete the transaction and issued a .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Decided on : Jun-22-2005
Reported in : (2005)96TTJ(Delhi)1
..... business opportunities in india for the assessee in relation to its products.further, it is specifically provided inter alia, that the indian counterpart has no role to play as a mediator between the assessee and any indian buyer, it cannot bind the assessee in any manner while promoting its products in india and that the final terms of contract for sale ..... or merchandise on behalf of the assessee. while dealing with the issue of "business connection", we have given a categorical finding that eci has no role to play as a mediator between the assessee and any buyer. it cannot bind the assessee in any manner while promoting its products in india and that the final terms of contract for sale of .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Delhi
Decided on : Jul-28-2005
Reported in : 123(2005)DLT382; II(2005)DMC539; 2005(83)DRJ682
..... ashok has stated that on 13th may, 1996, sudesh left the matrimonial home with her sister, who had come there after quarreling. on 14th may, 1996, relations of sudesh kumari mediated between sudesh and ashok but ashok refused to accept sudesh after 13th may, 1996. consequently, as a backlash the case has been filed against them. accused sudha has denied her .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Delhi
Decided on : Nov-21-2005
Reported in : 2006(86)DRJ787
pradeep nandrajog, j.1. late raj chawla sahni was the sister of the petitioner shri h.p.s. chawla. second respondent dr. n.p.s. chawla is the other brother of late raj chawla sahni. the two brothers are in dispute arising out of a will dated 13.5.1984, admittedly the last testament executed by raj chawla sahni who died on 5.6.1984.2. as would be unfolded hereinafter a small typographical error, but at a place where it found itself, has rendered it a little difficult to understand as to who was intended to be the beneficiary under the will.3. admittedly, between the petitioner and the second respondent petitioner is neither a doctor nor has a ph.d. doctorate in his favor. admittedly, n.p.s. chawla is a doctor. unfortunately, while transcribing the will following was transcribed:-dr. h.p.s. chawla residing at c-2/47 safdarjung development area, (hauzkhas side), new delhi, mr. n.p.s. chawla at present residing at 1365, york avenue, new york, usa.4. as is evident, 'dr.' was prefixed before the name of the petitioner and 'mr.' was prefixed before the name of n.p.s. chawla. had this been the only error, one would have no problem for, in relation to the address of the two brothers as set out, identity could be established and it could be reasonably held that the prefix before the two names is wrong. unfortunately, the problem got compounded for the reason n.p.s. chawla was residing at the safdarjung development address and h.p.s. chawla was residing in new york.5. two views were .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Delhi
Decided on : Mar-10-2005
Reported in : 118(2005)DLT546
gita mittal, j.1. the present writ petition impugns the action of the respondents in rejecting applications of four of the sons of sh. mithan lal whose land was acquired for individual shops on the ground that as per the scheme for allotment of shops to persons whose land was acquired, the expression 'displaced family' would include one member of the family of the 'recorded owner' only and that mithan lal was the only 'recorded owner' of the land acquired whereas the petitioners were only his representatives and entitle to shares in the compensation awarded to mithan lal.2. the undisputed facts giving rise to the petition are that one sh. mithan lal was the owner of a 14th share in land at measuring 67 bighas 7 bids was in village bhorgarh, delhi. from the documents placed on record by the petitioner, it is evident that this land was notified for acquisition under section 4 of the land acquisition act, 1989 in the year 1963. the award with regard to this land came to be made vide award no. 19/78-79 dated 12th june, 1978. the purpose of acquisition appears to be for planed development of delhi. this acquired land was earmarked for development of an industrial complex known as the narela industrial park.the admitted position is that possession of the land was taken by the land acquisition collector on 10th july, 1978. compensation payable under the statutory scheme of the land acquisition act was paid on 18th november, 1978.3. it appears that the authorities had identified the .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Delhi
Decided on : Mar-14-2005
Reported in : 119(2005)DLT477; 2005(81)DRJ520
b.c. patel, c.j.cm no. 3688/2005allowed subject to just exceptions.lpa no.508/2005 & cm no. 3689/20051. the appellant delhi development authority has preferred an appeal against the judgment of the learned single judge in wp(c) no. 5523/2004 dated 25.8.2004. the appeal itself has been filed after delay of 123 days and thus cm no. 3689/2005 has been filed for condensation of delay in filing the appeal. on perusal of the impugned order and the facts recorded therein it is apparent that this appeal is clearly an abuse of the process of law apart from the aspect of delay in filing the appeal.2. the respondent herein had earlier filed civil writ petition no. 3453/2000 which was allowed by the learned single judge in terms of the order dated 25.11.2002. however, in view of the pendency of an appeal before the supreme court, certain directions were passed while allowing the said writ petition.3. it is necessary to set out the facts to appreciate the controversy in question. one smt. pushpa kumari devi, widow of late dr. nagendra singh was the perpetual lessee of a plot bearing no.15, palam marg, vasant vihar, new delhi, on which a house had been constructed. dr. nagendra singh had predeceased smt. pushpa kumari devi. smt. pushpa kumari devi passed away on 11.8.1996 and prior to her demise she had executed a registered will dated 24.5.1995 bequeathing the property in favor of the respondent. the couple was issueless and according to the averments made in the writ petition, they used .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Delhi
Decided on : Dec-19-2005
Reported in : 126(2006)DLT530; 2006(86)DRJ148
mukul mudgal, j.1. this writ petition has been filed by the legal heirs of the erstwhile allottee of a plot of land in kashmiri cooperative house building society numbered as plot no. 7, block a, pamposh enclave, new delhi. the petitioners have challenged the demand raised by the respondent/dda for payment of unearned increase of rs. 41,06,904/- and rs. 33,26,592/- as interest thereon for the period 29th september, 1993 till march, 1998.2. the brief facts of the case as averred by the petitioners through mr. sandeep sethi, sr. advocate are as follows:-(a) the petitioner had sold a plot in question to m/s matangee consultants pvt. ltd. this transaction has led to the cancellation of the lease of the petitioners by the respondent.(b) on 23rd june, 1995, a circular was issued by the respondent stating that where a lessee/sub-lessee has applied for sale permission and the dda had conveyed the unearned increase but the same had not been paid, the conversion could be allowed by treating the earlier application for sale permission as infructuous/withdrawn.(c) in december, 1999, a scheme was issued by the respondent for conversion of leasehold properties in delhi to free hold and clause 13 of the said scheme clearly stated that a surcharge of 33.1/3% on the conversion fee will be payable over and above the normal conversion charges and no unearned increase will be recoverable.(d) the applications for conversion had been made by the petitioners on 23rd december, 1999, 5th march, 2000, .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Delhi
Decided on : Nov-07-2005
Reported in : AIR2006Delhi73; 125(2005)DLT1; 2005(85)DRJ278
vikramajit sen, j. 1. rule.2. this is the second round of litigation, the first one, cw no.1743/2000, having been allowed by judgment dated 16th may, 2002. the petitioner has prayed for the allotment of an alternative plot of land in the context of the land acquired from him. in the said judgment which is between the parties hereto and has attained finality, s.k.mahajan, j. had specifically held that the entry of ownership in the revenue records would not be an essential requirement for consideration of the grant of an alternative plot. in the concluding part of the judgment it has been observed as follows:'i, thereforee, do not want to decide the question as to whether or not the petitioner would be entitled to the allotment of an alternative plot of land on the ground that the land was not acquired for the purposes of planned development of delhi. if it is a ground which disentitles the petitioner, he may not be entitled to allotment of alternate plot of land, however, it is entirely for the respondent to take a decision thereon. for the forgoing reasons, i direct the respondents to consider the application of the petitioner for allotment of an alternative plot of land strictly on merits. since sufficient period has already elapsed from the date of filing of the application, i direct the respondents to take decision on the application within three months from the date of this order.'3. the contention of learned counsel for the respondent is that the implementation which is .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Delhi
Decided on : Mar-16-2005
Reported in : 118(2005)DLT597; (2005)141PLR26
pradeep nandrajog, j.1. present order disposes of applications number being ias no. 11116/1999 in cs (os) no. 225/1998; 11121/99 in cs(os) no. 226/1998; 11119/1999 in cs(os) no. 227/1998; 11142/1999 in cs(os) no. 228/1998; and 11140/99 in cs(os) no. 229/1998 filed by smt. sarla mishra under order 1 rule 10 cpc praying to be imp leaded as a defendant in the suit(s).2. all applications are identical. in all the captioned suits, plaintiffs are different but the defendant is common. defendant is sh. p.m. mathrani.3. suits seek specific performance of an agreement for sale stated to have been executed by the defendant in favor of the plaintiff(s). it is stated in the plaints that the defendant is co-owner of 5/24th share in property bearing no. 9, kautilya marg, diplomatic enclave, new delhi. it is stated that the land in question is comprised of a plot admeasuring 1547 square yards held under a perpetual lease from the president of india executed in favor of sh. m.p. mathrani, father of the defendant. it is stated in the plaint that sh. m.p. mathrani died interstate on 16.1.1968 leaving behind six legal heirs, 2 sons and 4 daughters. defendant is one out of the two sons.4. it is stated in the plaint that in a suit for partition registered as suit no. 24/1970, a compromise decree was passed by this court on 27.3.1970. as per partition decree, defendant was declared to be owner of 1/6th share in the land and the building constructed thereon. subsequently, mrs. sita nagdev, one of .....Tag this Judgment!