Court : Delhi
Decided on : Apr-18-2017
..... pvt. ltd. (supra) will not apply since documents in question executed by the appellant/plaintiff in favour of respondent no.1/defendant no.1 are of the year 1999 i.e prior to the amendment of section 53a of the transfer of property act, 1882 by act 48 of 2001 with effect from 24.9.2001. this aspect has been dealt in detail by this court in ..... judgment of hon?ble high court of delhi in ramesh chand v. suresh chand, 188 (2012) dlt538wherein it was held that the power of attorney given for a consideration coupled with interest is irrevocable u/s 202 of the contract act, 1872 and subsists even after the death of the executants. it was further held that the purchaser may not be a classical ..... . thus, the plaintiff having a better right/entitlement of possession of the entire property bearing no.1/2300-b, mandoli road, shahdara, delhi measuring 155 sq. yds by virtue of documents executed on 22.08.1982 is an admitted fact and stands proved on record. accordingly, i reject the first argument urged on behalf of the appellant/plaintiff.5. the second argument urged ..... on behalf of the appellant/plaintiff was that the respondent no.1/defendant no.1 in an sworn affidavit executed prior to the filing of the .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Jharkhand
Decided on : Jul-13-2017
..... an agreement was executed on 27.05.1990 between the petitioner and one sushila kumari mehta (since deceased) through her son and holder of power of attorney sudhir kumar mehta (respondent no.2) for sale of her land, but she failed to execute the same. thereafter the petitioner filed ..... of execution of power of attorney by sudhir kumar mehta much earlier and therefore there had been no diligence on the part of the petitioner to carry out the amendment in the plaint at the right stage. it was also observed inter alia by the learned sub judge-i, ranchi that in ..... 27. order vi rule 17 of the code deals with amendment of pleadings. by amendment act 46 of 1999, this provision was deleted. it has again been restored by amendment act 22 of 2002 but with an added proviso to prevent application for amendment being allowed after the trial has commenced, unless court comes ..... salem advocate bar association, tamil nadu versus union of india (supra), it can be construed that the object of order vi rule 17 after amendment act 22/2002 is to prevent frivolous applications which are filed to delay the trial. however, in the facts of the present case, it ..... to the conclusion that in spite of due diligence, the party could not have raised the matter before the commencement of trial. the proviso, to some extent, curtails absolute discretion to allow amendment .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Delhi
Decided on : Sep-01-2017
..... of respondent no.2-comapny. coram: hon'ble mr. justice vinod goel order0109.2017 % learned counsel for respondent no.2 has handed over a copy of general power of attorney dated 05.07.2017 in favour of mr. pradeep baisoya. same is taken on record. the petitioner has invoked the writ jurisdiction of this court under article 226 of ..... of justice, the fir bearing no.79/2015, registered on 18.01.2015 against the petitioner with police station neb sarai, delhi, under section 135 of the indian electricity (amendment) act, 2003 and proceedings arising out of the said fir are hereby quashed. the petition is disposed of accordingly. dasti.4. 5.6. 7.8. 9. september01 2017 sandeep ..... the fir bearing no.79/2015, registered on 18.01.2015 against him with police station neb sarai, south district, delhi, under section 135 of the indian electricity (amendment) act, 2003 on the complaint of respondent no.2/bses. the raid on the premises of the petitioner was conducted on 30.09.2014 and the petitioner was found indulging ..... in direct theft of w.p. (crl.) no.1145/2017 page 1 of 2 electricity. the respondent no.2/bses lodged a complaint which culminated into said fir against the petitioner. later on, the respondent raised a bill of rs. ..... $~24 * + 1.2. 3. in the high court of delhi at new delhi w.p.(crl) 1145/2017 manoj bhardwaj......... petitioner through mr. vipin kumar anand, advocate with petitioner .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Delhi
Decided on : Sep-01-2017
..... . hence, the fir bearing no.559/2014, registered on 26.06.2014 against the petitioner with police station najafgarh, south west district, delhi, under section 135 of the indian electricity (amendment) act, 2003 and proceedings arising out of the said fir are hereby quashed. to secure ends of justice, w.p. (crl.) no.2290/2017 page 2 of 3 7.8. the ..... . arnav vidyarthi with mr. pradeep baisoya, authorised representative of respondent no.2-comapny. coram: hon'ble mr. justice vinod goel % order0109.2017 1.2. learned counsel for respondent no.2 has handed over a copy of general power of attorney dated 05.07.2017 in favour of mr. pradeep baisoya. same is taken on record. the petitioner has invoked the writ jurisdiction of ..... , registered on 26.06.2014 against him with police station najafgarh, south west district, delhi, under section 135 of the indian electricity (amendment) act, 2003 on the complaint of respondent no.2/bses. w.p. (crl.) no.2290/2017 page 1 of 3 3.4. 5.6. the raid on the premises of the petitioner was conducted on 26.03.2014 and he ..... has been amicably settled with the petitioner, they have not claimed penalty charges of rs.79,287.24. he submits that they have received the entire settlement amount of rs.1,47,300/- from the petitioner. on deposit of dues, the respondent no.2-company had issued a no dues certificate to the petitioner. the authorised representative of the respondent no .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Dec-15-2017
..... or compromise would often cause undue delay, loss and inconvenience, especially in the case of non-resident persons. it has always been universally understood that a party can always act by his duly authorised representative. if a power-of-attorney holder can enter into an agreement or compromise on behalf of his principal, so can counsel, possessed of the requisite authorisation by vakalatnama ..... , we are of the view that the words in writing and signed by the parties , inserted by the c.p.c. (amendment) act, 1976, must necessarily mean, to borrow the language of order iii rule 1 cpc: any appearance, application or act in or to any court, required or authorized by law to be made or done by a party in such court, may ..... the general rules and it cannot be interpreted as to supersede the special rules. the amendment also must be read as being subject to rules 1(3)(a), 3(1) and 4(2) of the general rules themselves. the amendment cannot be read as abrogating all other special rules in respect of all departments. in a given case where there are no special rules ..... the basis of a judgment of this court in byram pestonji gariwala v. union bank of india, (1992) 1 scc31at 47-48. in this judgment, what fell for consideration was order xxiii rule 3 of the code of civil procedure, 1908 after its amendment in 1976. it was argued in that case that a compromise in a suit had, under order xxiii .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Delhi
Decided on : Jan-17-2017
..... turns this case has taken consequent upon amendments to the delhi high court act, 1966, in law, we do not find any infirmity with the impugned order dated 14.12.2015. the reason being that the present suit is essentially one seeking cancellation of general powers of attorney, sale deeds and a decree for possession. neither general powers of attorney nor sale deeds can be regarded ..... agreement relating to immovable property . the distinction between a sale and a contract for sale of immovable property has been brought out in section 54 of the transfer of property act, 1882 itself in the following manner:-"54. sale defined.- sale is a transfer of ownership in exchange for a price paid or promised or part-paid and part-promised. fao(os ..... of the present suit does not fall within the ambit of commercial dispute as specified in section 2(1)(c) of the commercial courts act. that being the case, commercial courts act would not apply and amendment brought to the section 5(2) of delhi high court act, 1966 whereby the pecuniary jurisdiction has been raised to in excess of rupees two crores would clearly ..... where the very issue was raised. in that case one of the contentions was that sale deeds were covered under the definition of commercial dispute and particularly under section 2(1)(c)(vii). the said provision stipulates that a commercial dispute means, inter alia, a dispute arising out of an agreement relating to immovable property used exclusively in trade and commerce .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Delhi
Decided on : Oct-23-2017
..... amendment of the written statement, against dismissal whereof this petition has been preferred, pleading (i) that the petitioner/defendant no.1, acting under the gpa aforesaid admittedly executed by the respondent/plaintiff, had on 13th february, 1985 executed and registered a relinquishment ..... at canada and could not manage his share in the aforesaid property and had executed a general power of attorney (gpa) dated 25th march, 1983 in favour of the petitioner/defendant no.1 being the wife of sripal singh aforesaid, authorising the petitioner/defendant no.1 to execute the release deed and relinquishment deed of the respondent/plaintiff s share in the ..... petitioner/defendant no.2; (d) that the petitioner/defendant no.2 was in settled exclusive possession of the property in terms of the oral family settlement of 1981/1982.7. the petitioners/defendants, after nearly nine years from the date of filing of the written statement aforesaid, in or about september, 2017 filed the application aforesaid for ..... , there was no need for execution of a relinquishment deed; (c) that the petitioner/defendant no.1 acting under the gpa aforesaid had on 24th july, 1985, executed a memorandum recording in writing the terms of the oral family settlement of 1981/1982 whereunder the respondent/plaintiff had orally released and/or relinquished his share in the property in favour of .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Delhi
Decided on : Jul-28-2017
..... harminder singh kalra, special power of attorney in whose favour has been annexed as annexure b at pages 138 to 143 of the paper book. the settlement proceedings were also signed by respective counsel of the parties.4. as per clause (4) of the terms of settlement, defendant no.1 had undertaken to amend its trademark application bearing ..... adopt any identical or similar mark in the future, other than the allowed manner of use as defined herein above. the defendant no.1 shall act in good faith. further, the defendant no.1 shall dispose of or sell out the existing stock bearing the impugned marks till 30th june, 2017.6. the plaintiff hereby agrees ..... gupta, j.(oral) mr kuldip singh kalra & anr represented by: ms. priyanka anand, adv. ..... defendant ia nos. 10189/2016 (o.39 r.1 & 2 cpc) & 10191/2016 (o.11 r.4 comm. court act) in view of the settlement arrived at between the parties, the applications are disposed of as not pressed. cs(comm.) 1144/2016 ..... before delhi high court mediation and conciliation centre, the court fees be returned to the plaintiff under section 16 of the court fees act. july28 2017 v mittal (mukta gupta) judge cs(comm) 1144/2016 page 12 of 12 ..... 1. by the present suit, the plaintiff had prayed for the following reliefs- a) a decree of permanent injunction restraining the defendants, their directors/ .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Dec-14-2017
..... premise that he continued to be in possession and enjoyment of the said extent of land by virtue of an agreement of sale and general power of attorney (gpa) dated 19.06.1996 executed by k.t. venkatesh. in that writ petition, the specific question raised was whether the petitioner has ..... observation that 5th plaintiff has neither chosen to examine the scribe of ex.p16 and 17 hence held that an agreement of sale and a general power of attorney will - 160 - not convey title from one person to another person in respect of the schedule property. further stated that they are all ..... the family of ramaiah. thereafter, possession was taken and the same was notified as per sub-section (2) of section 16 of the la act, 1894 (karnataka amendment), which is evidence of possession being taken. subsequently, bda has allotted the said extent of land to third parties.-. 106 - according to learned counsel ..... 1) of the bda act. thus, the purchase of three acres out of the land in question was made by the petitioners after issuance of acquisition notifications and hence, they could be termed as subsequent purchasers. in the case of manav dharam trust (supra), the question as to whether a subsequent purchaser/assignee, power of attorney ..... under the provisions of the karnataka land reforms act, 1961 seeking grant of occupancy rights and by order dated 31.08.1979 (annexure-c), occupancy rights were granted in the name of k.t. venkatesh. thereafter, form no.10 was issued on 17.8.1982 in the name of k.t venkatesh. .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Dec-06-2017
..... the documents contending that the notice as brought out by the plaintiff was not maintainable since they have not admitted the execution of the said power of attorneys of the free will and hence, question of seeking admission of execution of documents at the hands of the defendants would not arise and it ..... where it is specifically stated that it is denied that any draft was furnished. it is also denied that the defendant intended to give any power of attorney to ramesh rao or that the defendant intended the completion of the sale 18 transaction through ramesh rao. it is denied that the plaintiff was ..... of civil procedure on 29.7.2017 proposing to adduce in evidence the documents viz.,1) 2) copy of the general power of attorney dated 23.10.2008; copy of the general power of attorney dated 19.12.2008 i) ii) defendant no.1 defendant no.2 iii) advocate for defendants 9 requesting/requiring to admit aforesaid documents ..... plaintiff had not produced detailed address of the said ramesh rao and on other ground that the plaintiff can very well obtain copies of the power of attorneys and produce certified copies of the same and therefore notice to admit documents brought out by the plaintiff is not maintainable.24. in view of ..... rule 3-a of the aforesaid order grants power to the court to admit any document in evidence, even if no notice has been served. the aforesaid provisions of law have been brought in the code vide amendment by act no.104 of 1976 w.e.f. 1-2-1977.22. records do not reveal that .....Tag this Judgment!