Skip to content


Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: mediation Sorted by: old Court: delhi Year: 2003 Page 2 of about 266 results (0.030 seconds)

Apr 10 2003 (HC)

Virtus Dordrecht B.V. and anr. Vs. Mr. Vikram Bhargav and ors.

Court : Delhi

Decided on : Apr-10-2003

Reported in : 2003VAD(Delhi)321; 105(2003)DLT394; 2003(69)DRJ447

r.c. jain, j. 1. the plaintiffs have moved this application under order i rule 10(4) read with order 39 rules 1 & 2 read with section 151 civil procedure code seeking permission to implead smt. angoori devi wife of shri jai prakash, resident of c-32, affcc, neb sarai, new delhi as a defendant (defendant no.6) in the present suit and for an injunction restraining her (smt. angoori devi) from dealing with, selling, transferring, mortgaging, disposing off, alienating, creating third party interests in any manner or parting with possession of the portion of land transferred in her name by defendant no.1 i.e. khasra no.562/462/83 (100.9 bighas) and a part of khasra no.565/462/83 (88 bighas) of the suit property.2. the germane facts which need to be noticed for the disposal of the present application are the plaintiffs had filed a suit for recovery of us dollars 5,64,895 (rs.2,14,66,030/-), declaration and injunction against defendants no.1 to 5. the allegations made in the suit being that around july - august 1996 defendant no.1 approached plaintiff no.1 with a project for export of certain agricultural commodities. a contract was executed between the plaintiffs and defendant no.1. after that defendant no.1 alleged to have represented to the plaintiffs that he had a better proposal for investment in real estate business and that the money sent by the plaintiffs for the performance of export project would be remitted to his account with the bank. defendant no.1 also introduced .....

Tag this Judgment!

Apr 24 2003 (HC)

Assn. of Victims of Uphaar Tragedy and ors. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) a ...

Court : Delhi

Decided on : Apr-24-2003

Reported in : II(2003)ACC114; 2003ACJ1631; 2003IIIAD(Delhi)321; 104(2003)DLT234; 2003(68)DRJ128; 2003RLR333

..... parapet wall but the management of the theatre had also constructed a dispensary above the ramp which was also in clear violation of the building bye laws. construction of inter-mediate floor with the aid of r s joists was also in violation of the building bye laws. the municipal corporation of delhi has not placed any material on record to .....

Tag this Judgment!

Apr 25 2003 (HC)

Hari Ram Vs. Lala Om Prakash

Court : Delhi

Decided on : Apr-25-2003

Reported in : 2003IVAD(Delhi)124; 104(2003)DLT861; 2003(68)DRJ510

j.d. kapoor, j. 1. parties are real brothers. plaintiff has through this suit sought partition of their father's property no. 1775, kucha lattu shah, dariba kalan, chandani chowk, delhi. case of the plaintiff in brief is that the plaintiff after the death of his father who was absolute owner of the suit property, became the owner of the one half share along with the defendant who has also one-half share in undivided property. admittedly portion shown in mark yellow is in occupation of the defendant whereas the portion shown in green is in occupation of the plaintiff. portion marked red is in common possession. according to the plaintiff the portion in his occupation does not comprise one-half of the area in the said undivided property and since both of them are real brothers, he has requested the defendant to partition the said property by metes and bounds according to their respective shares but the defendant has not bothered to give heed to his requests. rather the defendant is trying to sell his portion of the undivided share in the said property. the cause of action arose on 3.1.91 when the defendant refused to partition the suit property. 2. on the other hand defendant has pleaded that there had been an oral family settlement amongst the parties to the suit by virtue of which the plan mark a is said to be the share of the defendant whereas plan mark b fell the the share of the plaintiff. this family partition is stated to have taken place about 35 years back. according .....

Tag this Judgment!

Apr 30 2003 (HC)

Y.P. Narula Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and anr.

Court : Delhi

Decided on : Apr-30-2003

Reported in : 2003VAD(Delhi)213; 105(2003)DLT565; 2003(71)DRJ707

s.k. mahajan, j.1. the petitioner had filed this petition for issue of a writ of mandamus to the respondents directing them to issue the deed of conveyance with regard to the property in question in terms of the application of the petitioner filed on 25.3.1994 and for quashing the demand made vide the letter dated 9.5.1994. while the matter was pending, the court on 13.5.1997 directed the respondents to grant personal hearing to the petitioner and then pass an order in accordance with law. on such directions being given, the respondents after hearing the petitioner passed the order dated 13.5.1997 and pursuant to that order made a demand on 5.9.1997 reducing the earlier demand by about rs. 57,000/-. by the demand letter dated 5.9.1997, the respondents have claimed damages for unauthorised construction in the property and enhanced ground rent for the period 31.12.1987 to 13.4.1994. pursuant to this demand having been made, the writ petition was amended and the petitioner has challenged the demand dated 5.9.1997 as well. this demand has now further been reduced by the respondents by its letter dated 25.2.1999. by letter dated 25.2.1999, the respondents have claimed damages for unauthorised construction only up to 2.5.1999 when the property was demolished and have claimed enhanced ground rent @ rs. 8,360.40 paise per annum for the period 31.12.1987 to 13.4.1994 and interest as well for the said period. the controversy in the present petition, thereforee, is confined only to the .....

Tag this Judgment!

May 01 2003 (HC)

Surander Kumar BhasIn and anr. Vs. Delhi Development Authority

Court : Delhi

Decided on : May-01-2003

Reported in : 117(2005)DLT200

sanjay kishan kaul, j.1. a perpetual sub-lease deed was executed on 15.1.1973 in favor of one smt. maya wanti in respect of property a-176, new friends colony, new delhi. smt. maya wanti passed away on 21.1.1983 and prior to her demise executed a registered will dated 22.7.1982 bequeathing the said property in favor of shri kundan lal bhasin who was also the nominee of smt. maya wanti in the records of the society. shri kundan lal bhasin was the son of shri mahesh das bhasin. smt. maya wanti was the wife of shri gokul chand bhasin. shri mahesh das bhasin and shri gokul das bhasin were brothers. thus bequeath was made in favor of her husband's nephew.2. shri k.l. bhasin also passed away soon thereafter on 17.3.1983 and prior to his demise had executed a will dated 1.2.1983 bequeathing the said property jointly in favor of the petitioners, his sons with a lifetime interest in favor of his wife. after the demise of shri kundan lal bhasin, smt. kamla rani bhasin, his wife applied to dda for transfer of plot in her name. this request was not accepted in terms of letter dated 23.6.1988 by the respondent stating that since the will has been made outside the purview of the blood relation of the sublessee and the policy decision in respect thereof has not been finalised, the case would be examined after the policy guidelines are received in this regard. smt. kamla rani bhasin also passed away on 3.7.1988.3. the petitioners applied for grant of probate of the will dated 1.2.1983 in .....

Tag this Judgment!

May 02 2003 (HC)

Badri Bhagat Jhandewalan Temple Society and ors. Vs. Delhi Development ...

Court : Delhi

Decided on : May-02-2003

Reported in : 2003IVAD(Delhi)299; AIR2003Delhi351; 106(2003)DLT503; 2003(68)DRJ787

j.d. kapoor, j. 1. the applicant-judgment debtor(j.d.) is delhi development authority. it has moved an application under order 9 rule 13 cpc for setting aside an ex parte decree passed on 22nd january,1990 restraining the applicant/jd from interfering with the possession, management and control of the respondent/(decree holder) dh and their tenants/licensees and all others in possession of the suit premises on the premise that the respondent/dh became the owner in possession of the suit properties by purchasing the same from erstwhile various private owners through duly registered sale deeds from 1880 till 1905-06. instead of accepting the decision with grace which stands on the edifice of overwhelming documentary evidence in the form of revenue records/sale dees etc projecting the ownership of the respondent/dh with possession over the suit property since 1880, the applicant-dda has taken upon itself the task of nullifying the ownership and possession of the respondent-dh on the strength of a stray entry of 18-7-98 in the revenue record in which `crown' was shown as the owner but in 1909, the said entry was corrected by mr. white, the then head assistant commissioner as it was found to have been wrongly made. it was again dug up in 1982 and the respondent/dh as branded as licensee and for breach of term of the license, license was revoked. what an irony'. for the sake of clarity, applicant/j.d shall be referred as 'defendant/dda' and respondent/dh as 'plaintiff' hereinafter. .....

Tag this Judgment!

May 30 2003 (HC)

Mr. Akshay Kapur and ors. Vs. Mr. Rishav Kapur and ors.

Court : Delhi

Decided on : May-30-2003

Reported in : 2003(2)ARBLR508(Delhi); 105(2003)DLT467; 2003(69)DRJ332; 2003(3)RAJ189

..... an effective alternate system of dispute resolution, conceptually quicker and cheaper than the jural establishment. there is a conscious shift from the courts to the arbitral tribunals. in this respect, mediation has become the substitute to arbitration. these are not the only differences between the two acts. i do not feel the necessity to adumbrate others since they may not be .....

Tag this Judgment!

May 30 2003 (HC)

Dr. Rakesh Kishore Vs. Registrar Coop. Societies and ors.

Court : Delhi

Decided on : May-30-2003

Reported in : 2003IVAD(Delhi)641; 105(2003)DLT390; 2003(69)DRJ387

dalveer bhandari, j. 1. the petitioner, dr. rakesh kishore, purchased flat no. b-602 in arur cooperative group housing society, mayur vihar-i extension, delhi-110091. the petitioner got the flat converted into freehold from the delhi development authority and has also got the mutation done in his name by the municipal corporation of delhi.2. it is alleged in the petition that to obtain physical possession of the said flat in the society the management committee of society demanded rs. 50,000/- as entry fee at the time of entry. the petitioner repeatedly requested the management committee that no entry fee can legally be charged from the petitioner. it is alleged that the management committee despite repeated requests insisted the petitioner to pay the amount of entry fee. ultimately the petitioner had to pay rs. 50,000/- vide two cheque nos. 0026590 & 0026591 of rs. 25,000/- each which were duly withdrawn from the petitioner's account and deposited in the account of the society through bank transfer transactions dated 9.5.2000 and 17.5.2000. the petitioner after paying the amount requested the society to refund the amount but when no amount was refunded, the petitioner was left with no alternative but to approach the court. 3. the petitioner filed a civil writ petition no. 7733 of 2000 assailing the deceitful charging of entry fee of rs. 50,000/- the court issued show cause notice. it is alleged that respondent no.1 registrar of cooperative societies started taking action .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jul 07 2003 (HC)

Ashok Kumar Dhingra and ors. Vs. the Oriental Insurance Company Limite ...

Court : Delhi

Decided on : Jul-07-2003

Reported in : AIR2004Delhi161; 2003(70)DRJ470

..... with the insurance company. rule 14(2) requires the ombudsman to dispose of a complaint 'fairly and equitably'. a complaint filed before the ombudsman may be settled by agreement through mediation of the ombudsman. in such eventuality, the ombudsman, as prescribed under rule 15 makes recommendations which, if accepted by the complainant, would dispose of the complaint fully and finally and .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jul 23 2003 (HC)

Madan Lal Kapur Vs. Subhash Lal Kapur and ors.

Court : Delhi

Decided on : Jul-23-2003

Reported in : 2003VIIIAD(Delhi)108; 105(2003)DLT987; 2003(71)DRJ732

vikramajit sen, j. 1. the plaintiff has prayed for the partition of property bearing no.r-565, new rajinder nagar, new delhi (hereafter referred to as the `suit property') on the grounds that he along with defendant no.1 are the joint and equal owners thereof. it has been averred that the plaintiff and defendant no.1 had purchased the undivided half-share each in the said property vide two sale deeds dated 21.11.1977. all the parties hereto are brothers. the plaint discloses that defendant nos.1 to 4 are working in partnership in the name and style of messrs. nawab packers, new delhi. defendant no.1 is stated to have invested the funds of the firm for purchasing the half-share in the suit property and that defendant nos.2 to 4 are claiming interest in the said property on the premise of the said investment having been made from the funds of the firm. it is further averred in the plaint that the plaintiff and defendant no.1 got the plans sanctioned from the mcd on 27.7.1978 and started rebuilding the property immediately, after demolishing the existing structure. these two parties had agreed to share the cost of construction in equal proportion. the structure of the building was almost complete by july, 1979. defendant no.1 had incurred the initial cost of construction and it was agreed between him and the plaintiff that the latter will pay his fifty per cent share of the cost of construction after the completion of the entire building. however, in july, 1979, after the .....

Tag this Judgment!


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