IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908 RFA 689/1998 DATE OF DECISION : MAY 16, 2012

Save this PDF as:
 WORD  PNG  TXT  JPG

Size: px
Start display at page:

Download "IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908 RFA 689/1998 DATE OF DECISION : MAY 16, 2012"

Transcription

1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908 RFA 689/1998 DATE OF DECISION : MAY 16, 2012 NAR SINGH DASS GUPTA... Appellant Through: Mr. Ashwini Mata, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Sunil Agarwal and Mr. R.C.Gupta, Advocate. VERSUS SHRI LAL MAN AND ORS.... Respondents Through: : Mr. R.B.Singh, Adv. for LRs of R-1(a) Mr. S.D.Singh, Mr. Rahul Kr. Singh, Mr. Kamla Prasad and Ms. Bharti Tyagi, Adv. for R-2 and 3. CORAM: HON BLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J (ORAL) 1. This Regular First Appeal filed under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) impugns the judgment and decree of the trial Court dated dismissing the suit of the appellant/plaintiff filed for possession and mesne profits with respect to the suit property bearing no. C- 11, Adarsh Nagar Extension, Azadpur, Delhi admeasuring 200 sq. yds. 2. The case of the appellant/plaintiff was that he purchased the suit property on by means of a registered sale deed from Subedar Major Jaswant Singh. Subedar Major Jaswant Singh had purchased the suit property by means of a registered sale deed on from M/s Capital Housing Private Ltd. The appellant/plaintiff claimed that there was a requirement of safeguarding this property inasmuch as, he was living in Narela, a separate area from where the suit property is situated, and therefore, when he went to the suit property in the year 1984, he was approached by the defendant no.1/respondent no.1/ Sh. Lal Man that in consideration of him being allowed to stay in one room existing in the suit

2 property he would take care of the property and prevent encroachment thereon. The respondent no.1/defendant no.1-sh. Lal Man was engaged in the work of preparing and selling tea in the same area. The further case of the appellant/plaintiff was that when in the year 1989, he visited the suit property it transpired that half of the said plot was being constructed by the defendant no.2/ Sh. M.L.Ram, Advocate. It transpired subsequently that the suit property was purchased by Mrs. Neema Devi/wife of defendant No.2/defendant No.3 from her own brother-in-law, Sh. Ashok Kumar Ram, and Sh. Ashok Kumar Ram had himself purchased the area of 100 sq. yds out of the total suit property from the defendant No.1/respondent No.1. The appellant/plaintiff therefore, because of unauthorized construction, immediately orally terminated the licence of the defendant No.1 and thereafter filed the subject suit for possession and mesne profits. 3. Respondents/defendants contested the suit and filed a common written statement. It was pleaded that the defendant No.1 was the owner of the entire 200 sq. yds inasmuch as he was put into possession of the same by one Sh. Risal Singh who told respondent No.1/defendant No.1 that the suit property belonged to Gaon Sabha and therefore the defendant No.1/respondent No.1 could take possession of the same from Sh. Risal Singh who was said to be in possession. It was further pleaded that the defendant No.1 was in fact in possession of the suit property since the year 1975 i.e. not from the year 1984 as was claimed in the plaint by the appellant/plaintiff. The further case of the defendants/respondents was that the defendant No.1 had sold rights in the 100 sq. yds. of the suit property by means of the documentation of the year 1988 to Sh. Ashok Kumar Ram who was brother of the defendant No.2, and Sh. Ashok Kumar Ram thereafter sold the portion of 100 sq. yds. to defendant No.3 who is wife of defendant No.2. It was prayed that the suit for possession and mesne profits be therefore dismissed. 4. After completion of pleadings, the trial Court framed the following issues:- 1. Whether the plaintiff is the owner of the suit property and the defendant is in illegal possession thereof as alleged? OPP 2. Whether the description of the suit property has not been property given? If so to what effect? 3. Whether the suit has been property valued for the purposes of court fee? If not, what is the value for that purpose? Onus on parties.

3 4. Whether proper court fee has not been paid on the plaint? If so to that effect? OPD 5. Whether plaint as drafted is not maintainable as alleged if so to what effect? OPD 6. Whether the suit is bad for misjoinder and non joinder of parties? If so to what effect? 7. Whether the suit plot stands acquired by DDA as alleged? If so to what effect? OPD 8. Deleted. 9. Whether the defendant has become owner of the suit plot for the reasons stated in para 4 of the reply on merit of the W.S.? If so to what effect? OPD 10. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to any decree for possession as claimed? OPP 11. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recover any damages? If so at what rate, for what period and to what amount? 12. Relief. 5. Trial Court by the impugned judgment has held that the appellant/plaintiff has failed to prove his ownership of the suit property inasmuch as the appellant/plaintiff had failed to prove the sale deed Ex.PW1/5 executed by M/s. Capital Housing Private Ltd. in favour of Subedar Major Jaswant Singh. Trial Court has also held that the revenue record of the suit land in favour of the M/s. Capital Housing Private Ltd. was not established on record. Trial Court also holds that since the mutation of the property was applied for but not pursued, this shows that the appellant/plaintiff was not the owner. Trial Court concluded that since Ex.PW1/5 being the sale deed executed by M/s. Capital Housing Private Ltd. in favour of Subedar Major Jaswant Singh was not proved, there does not arise the question of passing of title in favour of the appellant/plaintiff vide the sale deed Ex.PW1/1 executed by Subedar Major Jaswant Singh in favour of the appellant/plaintiff. 6. Before this Court, arguments have been centered around the issue as to whether the appellant/plaintiff is or is not the owner of the suit plot. The appellant/plaintiff relied upon the sale deeds Ex.PW1/1 and Ex.PW1/5 executed by Subedar Major Jaswant Singh in favour of the appellant/plaintiff and by M/s. Capital Housing Private Ltd. in favour of Subedar Major Jaswant Singh respectively, house tax record Ex.PW1/12 showing ownership of the appellant/plaintiff, and the other evidences on

4 record. The respondents/defendants in reply, in substance, contended that the document Ex.PW1/5 cannot be said to have been proved either by the appellant/plaintiff who appeared as PW-2 or through the witnesses PW-5 and PW-6 who have deposed as being conversant with the signatures of the Directors of the company, M/s. Capital Housing Private Ltd. who had signed the sale deed Ex.PW1/5. It was also argued on behalf of the respondents/defendants that the Board resolution showing the entitlement to execute the sale deed Ex.PW1/5 has not been filed and therefore, the document Ex.PW1/5 cannot be said to have been validly proved. It is also argued that the document Ex.PW1/1 being the sale deed by which, the appellant/plaintiff purchased the suit property from Subedar Major Jaswant Singh also cannot be said to be proved inasmuch as the witnesses to that sale deed ought to have been summoned, but were not. While disputing the transfer of title by means of documents Ex.PW1/5 and Ex.PW1/1, in favour of the appellant/plaintiff reliance has been placed upon Sections 66 and 101 of the Indian Evidence Act, On behalf of the respondents reliance is also placed upon certain alleged contradictions between the plaint and the evidence led on behalf of the appellant/plaintiff, and details of which will be given by me hereafter. It was also argued on behalf of the respondents/defendants that property tax record exhibited as Ex.PW1/12 shows the year thereof as 1979, though, as per the appellant/plaintiff, the boundary wall with one room on the suit plot was constructed in the year It was also argued that the appellant/plaintiff has failed to discharge the onus of proof either with respect to the ownership or the termination of licence of the respondent no.1/defendant no In my opinion, the trial Court has completely misdirected itself in dismissing the suit for possession and mesne profits filed by the appellant/plaintiff. The trial Court has gravely erred in holding that the appellant/plaintiff is not the owner of the suit property, although, the sale deeds Ex.PW1/1 and Ex.PW1/5 were proved in accordance with law. The findings of the trial Court of the appellant/plaintiff not being the owner is clearly erroneous moreso because the respondents/defendants failed to file even a single document to establish as to how the suit property belonged to Gaon Sabha if at all, or how Sh. Risal Singh was in possession from whom the respondent no.1/defendant no.1 claimed to have taken possession, and finally if possession was given by Sh. Risal Singh to the respondent no.1/defendant no.1, how was the said independent possession established.

5 8. Firstly, let us see whether the appellant/plaintiff has proved the sale deed Ex.PW1/1 by which he purchased the suit property from Subedar Major Jaswant Singh. PW2 has in his examination in chief deposed that the signatures on the sale deed Ex.PW1/1 are of Subedar Major Jaswant Singh inasmuch as, the said signatures were put in the presence of the appellant/plaintiff. In my opinion, this is sufficient compliance of the proof of a document inasmuch as Section 47 of the Indian Evidence Act,1872 states that a document can be proved by a person in whose presence signatures were put and the document executed. The appellant/plaintiff being a purchaser from Subedar Major Jaswant Singh there would be nothing unnatural for him to be present when Ex.PW1/1 was executed in his favour by Subedar Major Jaswant Singh. A mere suggestion on behalf of the respondents/defendants that the signatures on Ex.PW1/1 were not put by Subedar Major Jaswant Singh in presence of the appellant/defendant, cannot in any manner help the respondents/defendants, moreso because Subedar Major Jaswant Singh is not questioning the transfer of title of the suit property by him which was done vide Ex.PW1/1 to the appellant/plaintiff. The argument urged on behalf of the respondents/defendants that the sale deed Ex.PW1/1 cannot be looked into because the witnesses of the sale deed have not been examined is an argument which is directly against the proviso to Section 68 of the Evidence Act, 1872 which states that in case where a document is registered in accordance with the provisions of Indian Registration Act, 1908 there is no necessity to call an attesting witness in proof of such document unless the document is a Will or unless the execution of the document is denied by the person who purports to have executed the same. The executant Subedar Major Jaswant Singh has not disputed Ex.PW1/1 and therefore there was no need to summon the attesting witnesses of the document Ex.PW1/1. Therefore, in my opinion, the document Ex.PW1/1 stands proved and it is not open to the respondents/defendants to urge that the sale deed Ex.PW1/1 had not been proved in accordance with law. 9(i) So far as the sale deed Ex.PW1/5 executed by M/s Capital Housing Private Ltd. in favour of the appellant/plaintiff is concerned, in my opinion, the said document has been clearly proved through the witnesses PW5 and PW6 both of whom have deposed that they are conversant with the signatures of the Directors of M/s Capital Housing Pvt. Ltd. namely Sh. Vilayati Ram and Sh. Rameshwar Prasad. It is not unusual that property dealers of the area, and PW 5 and PW6 were property dealers of the area in question, are aware of ownership of the plots in the name of the company who sells them as also the signatures of the Directors inasmuch as it is in

6 their routine course of business that they visit the persons who own the company which sells the plots. It has come on record that the suit property was situated in an unauthorized colony being Adarsh Nagar Extension and whose plots were carved out by the company-m/s Capital Housing Pvt. Ltd. The mere fact that there is a suggestion given by the respondents/defendants that the witnesses PW-5 and PW-6 are not conversant with the signatures of the Directors/Sh. Vilayati Ram and Sh. Rameshwar Prasad cannot take the case of the respondents/defendants any further inasmuch as if really the respondents/defendants were sure of their stand it was not difficult for them to summon the records of M/s Capital Housing Pvt. Ltd. or the presence of their Directors or other appropriate persons to show if according to them the signatures on Ex. PW1/5 were really not put on behalf of the company-m/s. Capital Housing Pvt. Ltd. The argument that the appellant/plaintiff had to file and prove the resolution of M/s Capital Housing Pvt. Ltd. to show transfer of suit property in favour of Subedar Major Jaswant Singh is an argument without any merit inasmuch as the company-m/s Capital Housing Pvt. Ltd. is not disputing the transfer of the title of the suit property in favour of Subedar Major Jaswant Singh. There is no locus standi of the respondents/defendants to question the transfer of title by Ex.PW1/5 to Subedar Major Jaswant Singh, once none of the parties involved with the transaction are in any manner, challenging the transaction encompassed in the sale deed Ex.PW1/5. (ii) I may note that the Supreme Court in the judgment reported as R.V.E.Venkatachala Gounder Vs. Arulmigu Viswesaraswami & V.P. Temple & Anr (8) SCC 752 has held that once the documents have been exhibited, subsequently no objection as to the mode of proof of the documents can be entertained. The Supreme Court has observed that if objection as to mode of proof is taken at the time of exhibition of the document, then, the person, who has exhibited and proved the document, can lead other evidence if so required to prove/ exhibit the document which has been challenged on the ground of mode of proof. However, once the objection is not taken at the necessary point of time, thereafter no further objection as to mode of proof of the document i.e. exhibiting of the document, can be taken. In the present case, merely raising an objection in cross-examination as to the mode of proof of the document or questioning the proving of document is not sufficient because this objection had to be taken either at the time when document was being exhibited or in any case before the cross-examination commenced inasmuch as once the crossexamination has commenced after the examination in chief is over, the opportunity to the opposite party to prove the document by other means

7 goes. Therefore, relying upon the ratio of R.V.E.Venkatachala Gounder(supra), I hold that there cannot be any valid objection to the exhibition of the sale deeds Ex.PW1/1 and Ex.PW1/5. This reason as stated by me is an additional reason to the conclusion otherwise given that the documents Ex.PW1/1 and Ex.PW1/5 have been proved in the manner known to law i.e. by application of Section 47 of the Evidence Act, 1872 inasmuch as, both the witnesses PW 5 and PW 6 have stated that they were otherwise conversant with the signatures of the Directors of the company-m/s Capital Housing Co. Pvt. Ltd. and who had executed the sale deed Ex.PW1/5. (iii) Finally I must add that Supreme Court in the judgment of Gulzar Ali Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh 1988 (2) SCC 192 has held that Section 47 is not exhaustive of the manner of proof of a document and a document can also be proved by other means. The Supreme Court has said that there are other modes by which the identity of the handwriting can be established and citing an example the Supreme Court observes that if a letter is seized from the possession of A and the letter contains the name of the sender as well as the name of the sendee and if such sendee happens to be A himself, those circumstances even without resorting to the mode indicated in Sections 45 and 47 of the Evidence Act, would be sufficient to draw an inference that the author or even scribe of that letter is the sender and A is the sendee of it. In this case the title deed Ex.PW1/5 has come from correct custody and therefore I hold that in the facts of the present case, it is otherwise proved that the document Ex.PW1/5 is a sale deed executed by M/s Capital Housing Society Pvt. Ltd. in favour of Subedar Major Jaswant Singh, especially considering the fact that neither M/s Capital Housing Pvt. Ltd nor Subedar Major Jaswant Singh have in any manner questioned the transaction comprised in Ex.PW1/ I therefore hold that the appellant/plaintiff has proved on record its title to the suit property by means of the sale deeds, Ex.PW1/1 executed by Subedar Major Jaswant Singh in favour of the appellant/plaintiff, and Ex.PW1/5 executed by M/s Capital Housing Pvt. Ltd. in favour of Subedar Major Jaswant Singh. 11. Whereas the appellant /plaintiff has filed the aforesaid title deeds, the respondents/defendants on the other hand have not filed any documentary proof whatsoever of the alleged ownership of the Gaon Sabha of the suit plot, the alleged coming into possession of this plot by Sh. Risal Singh, the alleged handing over of possession by Sh. Risal Singh to respondent

8 no.1/defendant no.1 and much less in the year 1975, and defendant No.1 being in possession thereof thereafter as an owner. If such oral depositions which have been made by the respondents/defendants to claim ownership of their property are accepted, it would create chaos because by a mere statement of ownership, rights in an immovable property of a real owner can be lost and which can be claimed by the persons who simply make oral depositions. Once, the respondent no.1/defendant no.1 was not the owner of the property, there cannot arise issue of any transfer of title to Sh. Ashok Kumar Ram, brother of defendant no.2 and thereafter to defendant no.3/wife of defendant no Considerable emphasis was laid on behalf of the respondents/defendants to the fact that whereas in the plaint, it is mentioned that the respondent no.1/defendant no.1 approached the plaintiff for taking care of the suit property, but in the evidence it was deposed by the appellant/plaintiff that when he went to the suit property in the year 1984, the respondent no.1/defendant no.1 who was making tea in the same area, offered to take care of the said plot when the appellant/plaintiff expressed his thoughts of the requirement of taking care and preventing encroachment of the suit property. This argument urged on behalf of the respondents/ defendants, in my opinion, is an argument which lacks any substance, because when the plaint says that the respondent no.1/defendant no.1 approached the appellant/plaintiff, obviously, what is being meant is that the first action was taken by the respondent no.1/defendant no.1 i.e inclination to be appointed as a care taker of the suit property was shown by the respondent no.1/defendant no.1. If in the deposition, the appellant/plaintiff stated that when he went to the suit property in the year 1984, and the respondent no.1/defendant no.1 said that he is ready to take care of the suit property and would stay in the room which existed in the suit property, it would still mean that it is the respondent no.1/defendant no.1, who effectively approached the appellant/plaintiff to take care of the suit property. I do not see any such major/great contradiction in the plaint as compared to the deposition of the appellant/plaintiff to hold that on this ground itself the suit is liable to be dismissed. 13(i). One other aspect on which great stress was laid on behalf of the respondents/defendants was that the pleadings in an earlier suit filed by Sh. Ashok Kumar Ram could not be looked into against the respondents/defendants as they did not form part of the averments made in the suit plaint. Before I discuss this argument urged on behalf of the

9 respondents/defendants, a brief resume of the facts of the earlier suit filed in the year 1988 by Sh. Ashok Kumar Ram against the respondent no.1 herein and two other persons is necessary. The plaint and the written statement in the said suit have been filed and exhibited by the appellant/plaintiff as Ex.PW1/9 and Ex. PW 1/10. A reference to the plaint Ex.PW1/9 of suit no. 408/1988 shows that the plaintiff therein namely Sh. Ashok Kumar Ram (who is none other than the real brother of the defendant no.2 in this suit) claimed ownership of the suit property from the defendant no.1 by paying of a consideration amount of Rs.40,000/-. It was claimed that the plaintiff in that said suit-sh.ashok Kumar was in possession of the suit property and therefore, injunction was sought against the defendants in the suit namely, respondent no.1 herein and two other persons including the defendant no.3 therein who was SHO of the area, not to dispossess the plaintiff-sh. Ashok Kumar Ram. The written statement filed to this suit by the defendant no.1 herein makes interesting reading. The written statement, if at all the same can be called a written statement, admits and concedes to everything which is stated in the plaint. Each and every para of the written statement admits each and every para of the plaint including the prayer para of the plaint. It is admitted therein that the defendant nos. 1 and 2 in that suit will not create any obstruction with the plaintiff s possession of the suit plot. Obviously, therefore, this suit was a rank collusive suit so as to create evidence of possession and some sort of title of Sh. Ashok Kumar Ram over the suit property when it was always to the knowledge of the defendant no.1 in that suit, and who is the defendant no.1 in this suit, that he was never the owner of the suit property. Obviously, judicial process has been misused by the plaintiff in the said suit in collusion with the defendant no.1 herein. Such types of practices need to be strongly deprecated. (ii) Now on the issue as to whether the appellant/plaintiff cannot rely on these pleadings Ex. PW 1/9 and Ex. PW1/10 because they were not mentioned in the plaint. I must state that I have really failed to make any sense of this argument. This I say so because a plaint, in a suit for possession and mesne profits, basically has to contain the cause of action with regard to the ownership of the plaintiff, and as to how the defendant in the suit is in the illegal possession, and, there is no requirement in law of mentioning in such a plaint that there exists evidence of earlier collusive suit to show alleged title of defendant no.1 and Sh. Ashok Kumar Ram, the brother of defendant no.1. Surely, pleadings of an earlier collusive suit are only evidences to establish in favour of the appellant/plaintiff the malafides and collusion inter se the defendants and which evidences can always be filed and relied upon without being so mentioned in the plaint. I therefore

10 reject the argument that the documents being Ex.PW1/9 and Ex.PW1/10 cannot be looked into because they were not pleaded in the plaint. 14(i). One other issue which was urged on behalf of the respondents/defendants was with respect to the fact that the suit property for which the appellant/plaintiff has filed the documents of title being sale deeds Ex.PW1/1 and Ex.PW1/5 is not the suit property and that the suit property is different than the subject matter of Ex.PW1/1 and Ex.PW1/5. Even this argument in my opinion is an argument totally devoid of any merit whatsoever. The facts of the present case must be understood in the context that the colony Adarsh Nagar Extension is an unauthorized colony. Such unauthorized colonies over a period of time, are referred to by varying names which are related to each other. Since there is no regularized name given by the MCD with regard to the said colony, residents of that area or the buyers of the plots or sellers of the plots, call the colony by a name which they find suitable. Over a period of time, to enable better description of a plot, residents may add or subtract to what is stated in the sale deed with respect to plots of such colonies. In the present case, however, there is no doubt that suit plot is the very plot which was subject matter of the sale deeds Ex.PW1/1 and Ex.PW1/5 inasmuch as, except minor differences, it is clear that the plot number is C-11, the same is a plot which is part of Adarsh Nagar Extension and bounded on the four sides by plot No. C-10; plot No. C- 12; road 30 ft. wide on one side; and a service lane/gali on the back side. In fact, the plan filed in the present suit exhibited as Ex.PW1/4 when compared to the plan filed by Sh. Ashok Kumar Ram in the earlier collusive suit Ex.PW1/9 shows that both the plans are almost completely identical. In my opinion, therefore, the argument sought to be urged on behalf of the respondents/defendants to create doubt as to the identity of the property is wholly malafide and just to frustrate the valuable ownership rights of the appellant/plaintiff in the suit property. To the above, I may only add that if really the suit property is not the property which is so stated in Ex.PW1/1 and Ex.PW1/5, then respondents/defendants could have stated where this property is existing, which is the subject matter of Ex.PW1/1 and Ex.PW1/5, if the same does not exist on the plot which is presently in possession of the respondents/defendants. Of course, it can be said that it is not the duty of the respondents/defendants to say that where would be the property which is subject matter of Ex.PW1/1 and Ex.PW1/5, however, in the facts of this case once we have the plan in the earlier suit filed in 1988 by none other than Sh. Ashok Kr. Ram (who is the brother of defendant No.2 in this suit) and the similar plan filed in the present suit Ex.PW1/4, there does not remain any doubt as to the identity of the suit property and therefore, I would feel that it

11 was the respondents/defendants, if they doubted the identity of the suit property, who should have given further reasons. In any case, no further observations need to be made in this regard in view of the fact that except for minor changes with regard to the road being called a bunglow road or cottage road there is no doubt that the property No. C-11 is the only property No. C-11 existing in the Adarsh Nagar Extension. I, therefore, hold that there is no confusion with respect to the identity of the suit property. (ii) While on this aspect of the identity I must also deal with the issue with respect to the house tax record Ex.PW1/12 seeming to suggest as if the suit property is constructed in the year 1979 because there appears to be a date of in the house tax record Ex.PW1/12 as filed by the appellant/plaintiff. In this regard it has to be stated that it is difficult to understand the context in which this date of is given in this document inasmuch as the year 1979 appears with the numerical no and it cannot be said with surety that the reference of 1979 in Ex.PW1/12 is only for the year of construction. In any case, a minor contradiction of construction of a suit room in 1979 as compared to the statement of the appellant/plaintiff as the same having been constructed in 1982 cannot have such a drastic effect to take away the ownership of the suit property which otherwise has been proved by the appellant/plaintiff by means of registered sale deeds Ex.PW1/1 and Ex.PW1/ On the aspect of mesne profits, the appellant/plaintiff in his examination-in-chief as PW-2 has stated that rate of rent of the suit property would be in the region of `1500/- to ` 2000/- per month. Admittedly, there is no cross-examination to this statement which has been made by the appellant/plaintiff and therefore this statement with respect to the rate of rent of the property has to be accepted. In any case, surely for a property of 200 sq. yds in Delhi, it cannot be said that mesne profits at `2000/- per month can in any manner be said to be excessive. The respondent No.1 is running a dairy business from the suit property and respondent Nos.2 and 3 have made construction and are living in the suit property. I am therefore of the opinion that besides the suit for possession being decreed, the appellant/plaintiff is entitled to a sum of ` 2,000/- per month from , increased by 20% every five years on the previous years mesne profits, pendente lite and future till possession of the suit property is handed over by the respondents/defendants to the appellant/plaintiff, whether voluntarily or through execution proceedings.

12 16. Learned senior counsel for the appellant, in my opinion, in the facts of the present case, has rightly relied upon a recent judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of A. Shanmugam Vs. Ariya Kshatriya Rajakula Vamsathu Madalaya Nandavana Paripalanai Sangam Represented by its president etc. MANU/SC 0336/2012, wherein the Supreme Court has made very strong observations where care takers/chowkidars of the property start claiming themselves to be the owners of the suit property. Para 42 of the said judgment is relevant and I would seek to reproduce the same at this stage:- 42. On the facts of the present case, following principles emerges: 1. It is the bounden duty of the Court to uphold the truth and do justice. 2. Every litigant is expected to state truth before the law court whether it is pleadings, affidavits or evidence. Dishonest and unscrupulous litigants have no place in law courts. 3. The ultimate object of the judicial proceedings is to discern the truth and do justice. It is imperative that pleadings and all other presentations before the court should be truthful. 4. Once the court discovers falsehood, concealment, distortion, obstruction or confusion in pleadings and documents, the court should in addition to full restitution impose appropriate costs. The court must ensure that there is no incentive for wrong doer in the temple of justice. Truth is the foundation of justice and it has to be the common endeavour of all to uphold the truth and no one should be permitted to pollute the stream of justice. 5. It is the bounden obligation of the Court to neutralize any unjust and/or undeserved benefit or advantage obtained by abusing the judicial process. 6. Watchman, caretaker or a servant employed to look after the property can never acquire interest in the property irrespective of his long possession. The watchman, caretaker or a servant is under an obligation to hand over the possession forthwith on demand. According to the principles of justice, equity and good conscience, Courts are not justified in protecting the possession of a watchman, caretaker or servant who was only allowed to live into the premises to look after the same. 7. The watchman, caretaker or agent holds the property to the principal only on behalf the principal. He acquires no right or interest whatsoever in such property irrespective of his long stay or possession.

13 8. The protection of the Court can be granted or extended to the person who has valid subsisting rent agreement, lease agreement or licence agreement in his favour. (underlining is mine) The above observations of the Supreme Court must be read alongwith the observations of the Supreme Court in the case of Ramrameshwari Devi and Others v. Nirmala Devi and Others, (2011) 8 SCC 249 in which the Supreme Court has observed that it is high time that actual costs must be imposed so that a party which has unfairly contested litigation is not benefited. I am also empowered to impose actual costs by virtue of Volume V of the Punjab High Court Rules and Orders (as applicable to Delhi) Chapter VI Part I Rule In view of the above, the appeal is allowed. The impugned judgment and decree dated is set aside and the suit of the appellant/plaintiff for possession and mesne profits with respect to the property No.A-11, Adarsh Nagar Extension, Azadpur, Delhi admeasuring 200 sq. yds and more particularly shown in Ex.PW1/4 is decreed with costs which I quantify at `2 lacs. The appellant/plaintiff will also be entitled to mesne profits at the rate of ` 2000/- per month increased by 20% every five years pendente lite and future against the defendants jointly and severally till possession of the suit property is received by the appellant/plaintiff. Appellant is also awarded interest at 9% per annum simple on mesne profits from the end of the month for which mesne profits are payable in terms of the ratio of the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Indian Oil Corporation vs. Saroj Baweja 2005(12) SCC 298. Decree sheet be prepared. Trial Court record be sent back. 18. Finally, in view of the observations which have been made by the Supreme Court in the case of A. Shanmugam (supra), I give opportunity to the appellant/plaintiff to file an application under Section 340 Cr. P.C for taking appropriate action against the respondents/defendants. The appeal is allowed and disposed of with the above observations. Sd/- MAY 16, 2012 VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE. RFA No. 581/2003. DATE OF DECISION : 13th March, 2012

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE. RFA No. 581/2003. DATE OF DECISION : 13th March, 2012 IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE RFA No. 581/2003 DATE OF DECISION : 13th March, 2012 M/S B.R.METAL CORPN. & ORS. Appellants Through : Mr. A.K. Singla, Sr. Advocate

More information

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908 RFA No.51/2012 DATE OF DECISION : 17th May, 2012

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908 RFA No.51/2012 DATE OF DECISION : 17th May, 2012 IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908 RFA No.51/2012 DATE OF DECISION : 17th May, 2012 MS. KRITI KOHLI Through: Mr. Rao Balvir Singh, Advocate... Appellant VERSUS

More information

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : SUIT FOR DECLARATION. RFA Nos. 601/2007 and 606/2007. DATE OF DECISION 10th February, 2012.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : SUIT FOR DECLARATION. RFA Nos. 601/2007 and 606/2007. DATE OF DECISION 10th February, 2012. IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : SUIT FOR DECLARATION RFA Nos. 601/2007 and 606/2007 DATE OF DECISION 10th February, 2012 1. RFA 601/2007 SHER SINGH Through: Mr. Avadh Kaushik, Advocate....

More information

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI. versus

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI. versus * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CS(OS) No. 576/2006 % 16 th September, 2015 CHATTAR SINGH MATHAROO Through:... Plaintiff Mr. J.M.Kalia, Advocate. versus ASHWANI MUDGIL & ORS. Through:... Defendants

More information

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908 RFA No.595/2003 Reserved on: 4th January, 2012 Pronounced on: 13th January, 2012 SHRI VIRENDER SINGH Through: Mr. R.C. Chopra,

More information

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE. RFA No.137/2011. DATE OF DECISION : 4th March, 2011

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE. RFA No.137/2011. DATE OF DECISION : 4th March, 2011 IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE RFA No.137/2011 DATE OF DECISION : 4th March, 2011 NARESH KUMAR SAINI Through: Appellant Mr. S.P.Jha, Adv. VERSUS DAYA RANI DIXIT

More information

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : DELHI LAND REFORMS ACT, 1954 RSA No. 252/2013 DATE OF DECISION : 15th January,

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : DELHI LAND REFORMS ACT, 1954 RSA No. 252/2013 DATE OF DECISION : 15th January, IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : DELHI LAND REFORMS ACT, 1954 RSA No. 252/2013 DATE OF DECISION : 15th January, 2014 SURESH BALA & ORS Through: Mr. B.S.Mann, Advocate....Appellants VERSUS

More information

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : SUIT FOR PERMANENT INJUNCTION Judgment reserved on : 26.04.2011 Judgment delivered on : 28.04.2011 R.S.A.No. 109/2007 & CM No. 5092/2007 RAMESH PRAKASH

More information

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : SUIT FOR RECOVERY CS(OS) No.1177/2003 DATE OF DECISION :23rd July, 2012

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : SUIT FOR RECOVERY CS(OS) No.1177/2003 DATE OF DECISION :23rd July, 2012 IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : SUIT FOR RECOVERY CS(OS) No.1177/2003 DATE OF DECISION :23rd July, 2012 MRS VEENA JAIN... Plaintiff Through: Mr. Mohan Vidhani, Advocate with Mr. Rahul

More information

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE. RFA No.587/2010. DATE OF DECISION :22nd February, 2012

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE. RFA No.587/2010. DATE OF DECISION :22nd February, 2012 IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE RFA No.587/2010 DATE OF DECISION :22nd February, 2012 SANTOKH SINGH Through: Mr. Rajat Aneja with Mr. Vaibhav Jairaj, Advs....

More information

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908 RFA No.365 /2008 DATE OF DECISION : 10th February, 2012 VERSUS

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908 RFA No.365 /2008 DATE OF DECISION : 10th February, 2012 VERSUS IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908 RFA No.365 /2008 DATE OF DECISION : 10th February, 2012 SHRI VIJAY KUMAR Through: Appellant in person.... Appellant VERSUS

More information

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE. RFA No.200/2003. Reserved on 14th February, 2012

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE. RFA No.200/2003. Reserved on 14th February, 2012 IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE RFA No.200/2003 Reserved on 14th February, 2012 Pronounced on 2nd March, 2012 SHRI VED PRAKASH (SINCE DECEASED) THROUGH LEGAL HEIRS...

More information

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI. % 21 st January, versus. Through: CORAM: HON BLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J. MEHTA

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI. % 21 st January, versus. Through: CORAM: HON BLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J. MEHTA * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + RFA No. 1010/2018 % 21 st January, 2019 ROHTAS SINGH THROUGH LS.... Appellant Through: Mr. Mohd. Azam Ansari, Advocate (M. No.9990066404). versus UNION OF INDIA

More information

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE RSA No.64/2011 DATE OF DECISION : 31st January, 2014

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE RSA No.64/2011 DATE OF DECISION : 31st January, 2014 IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE RSA No.64/2011 DATE OF DECISION : 31st January, 2014 MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI Through: Ms. Shobha Gupta, Advocate....Appellant

More information

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI. % 1 st October, MRS. VANEETA KHANNA AND ANR. Through: Mr. Sandeep Mittal, Advocate.

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI. % 1 st October, MRS. VANEETA KHANNA AND ANR. Through: Mr. Sandeep Mittal, Advocate. * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CS(OS) No.1200/2006 % 1 st October, 2015 MRS. VANEETA KHANNA AND ANR.... Plaintiffs Through: Mr. Sandeep Mittal, Advocate. Versus MR. RAJIV GUPTA AND ORS. Through:...

More information

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : DELHI LAND REFORMS ACT, 1954 RFA No.621/2003 DATE OF DECISION : 5th March, 2012

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : DELHI LAND REFORMS ACT, 1954 RFA No.621/2003 DATE OF DECISION : 5th March, 2012 IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : DELHI LAND REFORMS ACT, 1954 RFA No.621/2003 DATE OF DECISION : 5th March, 2012 ASHOK KUMAR & ORS.... Appellant Through: Mr. R.K. Anand, Advocate with

More information

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : TRANSFER OF PROPERTY ACT RFA No.358/2000 DATE OF DECISION : 9th April, 2012

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : TRANSFER OF PROPERTY ACT RFA No.358/2000 DATE OF DECISION : 9th April, 2012 IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : TRANSFER OF PROPERTY ACT RFA No.358/2000 DATE OF DECISION : 9th April, 2012 SHRI RAMESH CHAND... Appellant Through: Mr. Rajesh Aggarwal, Advocate with

More information

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI. + CS(COMM) Nos.421/2016 & 424/2016. % 28 th November, M/s VYSYA LEASING & FINANCE LTD.

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI. + CS(COMM) Nos.421/2016 & 424/2016. % 28 th November, M/s VYSYA LEASING & FINANCE LTD. * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CS(COMM) Nos.421/2016 & 424/2016 % 28 th November, 2017 1. CS(COMM) No.421/2016 M/S VYSYA LEASING & FINANCE LTD.... Plaintiff Through: Mr. Vidit Gupta, Advocate

More information

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : SUIT FOR RECOVERY Date of decision: 17th July, 2013 RFA 383/2012. Versus

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : SUIT FOR RECOVERY Date of decision: 17th July, 2013 RFA 383/2012. Versus IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : SUIT FOR RECOVERY Date of decision: 17th July, 2013 RFA 383/2012 DESIGN WORKS Through: Mr. Kuldeep Kumar, Adv.... Appellant Versus ICICI BANK LTD... Respondent

More information

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : SUIT FOR RECOVERY Judgment reserved on Judgment delivered on

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : SUIT FOR RECOVERY Judgment reserved on Judgment delivered on IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : SUIT FOR RECOVERY Judgment reserved on 06.07.2012 Judgment delivered on 09.07.2012 RFA 669/2003 M/S FIITJEE LTD. AND ANR. Appellants Versus DR. KANWAL

More information

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, DATE OF Decision : 18th January, 2012

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, DATE OF Decision : 18th January, 2012 IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908 RFA No. 40/2012 DATE OF Decision : 18th January, 2012 M/S SEWA INTERNATIONAL FASHIONS & ORS... Appellants Through : Md. Rashid,

More information

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI. Versus

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI. Versus * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CS(OS) No.2798/2011 % 19 th October, 2015 SH. SUSHIL YADAV AND ANR. Through: None.... Plaintiffs Versus M/S VALLEY VIEW DEVELOPERS PVT LTD AND ORS.... Defendants

More information

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI. + FAO No. 257/2017. % 6 th July, versus. HINDUSTAN MEDIA VENTRUES LTD. & ORS...

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI. + FAO No. 257/2017. % 6 th July, versus. HINDUSTAN MEDIA VENTRUES LTD. & ORS... * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + FAO No. 257/2017 % 6 th July, 2017 DEEPAK KUMAR @ DEEPAK SAHA... Appellant Through: Mr. Nakul Pathana and Mr. Akhand Pratap, Advocates. versus HINDUSTAN MEDIA

More information

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : INDIAN SUCCESSION ACT, 1925 FAO 562/2003 DATE OF DECISION : 7th July, 2014

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : INDIAN SUCCESSION ACT, 1925 FAO 562/2003 DATE OF DECISION : 7th July, 2014 IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : INDIAN SUCCESSION ACT, 1925 FAO 562/2003 DATE OF DECISION : 7th July, 2014 SMT. DARSHAN Through: Mr. Israel Ali, Advocate....Appellants VERSUS SHRI RAJ

More information

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : CONTRACT ACT. Judgment reserved on : October 15, Judgment delivered on : November 04, 2008

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : CONTRACT ACT. Judgment reserved on : October 15, Judgment delivered on : November 04, 2008 IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : CONTRACT ACT Judgment reserved on : October 15, 2008 Judgment delivered on : November 04, 2008 RFA 303/1997 SMT. LAJYA WANTI... Through: Appellant Mr.

More information

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI. RESERVED ON : March 20, DATE OF DECISION : April 2, 2008

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI. RESERVED ON : March 20, DATE OF DECISION : April 2, 2008 IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : SUIT FOR POSSESSION RESERVED ON : March 20, 2008 DATE OF DECISION : April 2, 2008 LPA No. 665/2003 and CM Nos.4204/2004 and 6054/2007 JAGMAL (DECEASED)

More information

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI: NEW DELHI SUBJECT : CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE Judgment pronounced on: I.A. No.13124/2011 in CS (OS) No.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI: NEW DELHI SUBJECT : CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE Judgment pronounced on: I.A. No.13124/2011 in CS (OS) No. IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI: NEW DELHI SUBJECT : CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE Judgment pronounced on: 07.03.2012 I.A. No.13124/2011 in CS (OS) No.1674/2011 SURENDRA KUMAR GUPTA Through Mr. J.S. Mann, Adv....

More information

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE Judgment reserved on : 25th May, 2006 Date of decision : July 27th, 2006 RFA No. 139/2005 Sh. Ajay Kumar Grover... Appellant through

More information

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : SUIT FOR PARTITION. Date of Reserve: 5th July, Date of judgment: November 06, 2007

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : SUIT FOR PARTITION. Date of Reserve: 5th July, Date of judgment: November 06, 2007 IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : SUIT FOR PARTITION Date of Reserve: 5th July, 2007 Date of judgment: November 06, 2007 CS(OS) No.1440/2000 Mela Ram... Through: Plaintiff Ms.Sonia Khurana

More information

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : SUIT FOR DECLARATION RSA No. 80/2009 DATE OF DECISION : 20th January, 2014

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : SUIT FOR DECLARATION RSA No. 80/2009 DATE OF DECISION : 20th January, 2014 IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : SUIT FOR DECLARATION RSA No. 80/2009 DATE OF DECISION : 20th January, 2014 PUSHPA RANI & ORS. Through: Mr. Subhash Chand, Advocate...Appellants. VERSUS

More information

Through: Mr. Rahul Kumar Srivastava, Advocate. C.M(M) No. 211/2013. Through: Mr. Rahul Kumar Srivastava, Advocate.

Through: Mr. Rahul Kumar Srivastava, Advocate. C.M(M) No. 211/2013. Through: Mr. Rahul Kumar Srivastava, Advocate. IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE CM(M) Nos. 208/2013 & 211/2013 DATE OF DECISION : 4th December, 2014 C.M(M) No. 208/2013 SUDARSHAN KUMAR JAIN Through: Mr. Rahul

More information

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : SUIT FOR POSSESSION. Date of Judgment : R.S.A.No. 459/2006 & CM No /2006 (for stay)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : SUIT FOR POSSESSION. Date of Judgment : R.S.A.No. 459/2006 & CM No /2006 (for stay) IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : SUIT FOR POSSESSION Date of Judgment : 27.4.2011 R.S.A.No. 459/2006 & CM No. 17688/2006 (for stay) SH. MOHD. TAJ Through:..Appellant Mr. Sudhir Nandrajog,

More information

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI. % Judgment delivered on: 4 th August, I.A. No.16571/2012 & I.A. No.16572/2012 in CS (OS) 2527/2009

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI. % Judgment delivered on: 4 th August, I.A. No.16571/2012 & I.A. No.16572/2012 in CS (OS) 2527/2009 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Judgment delivered on: 4 th August, 2015 + I.A. No.16571/2012 & I.A. No.16572/2012 in CS (OS) 2527/2009 VEENA KUMARI Through... Plaintiff Mr.D.S. Vohra, Adv.

More information

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE. CS(OS)No.1307/2006. Date of decision:16th January, 2009

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE. CS(OS)No.1307/2006. Date of decision:16th January, 2009 IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE CS(OS)No.1307/2006 Date of decision:16th January, 2009 SMT. TARAN JEET KAUR... Through: Plaintiff Mr. Rajeev Awasthi, Advocate

More information

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE. RFA No.458/2008. Date of decision: 3rd December, 2008

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE. RFA No.458/2008. Date of decision: 3rd December, 2008 IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE RFA No.458/2008 Date of decision: 3rd December, 2008 MUKESH KUMAR DECD. THR. LR'S and ANR.... Appellants Through: Mr.K.G.Chhokar,

More information

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI. MICROSOFT CORPORATION & ANR. Through: Ms. Safia Said, Advocate. versus. Through:

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI. MICROSOFT CORPORATION & ANR. Through: Ms. Safia Said, Advocate. versus. Through: * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CS(COMM) No.70/2015 % 23 rd December, 2015 MICROSOFT CORPORATION & ANR.... Plaintiffs Through: Ms. Safia Said, Advocate. versus MR. SUJAN KUMAR & ORS. Through:...Defendants

More information

IN THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT. Case No: RSA 21/2007

IN THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT. Case No: RSA 21/2007 IN THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (The High Court of Assam, Nagaland, Mizoram and Arunachal Pradesh) Case No: Babulal Choudhury and others Appellants -Versus- Ganesh Chandra Bharali and another... Respondents

More information

THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (The High Court of Assam, Nagaland, Meghalaya, Manipur, Tripura, Mizoram & Arunachal Pradesh) RSA No.

THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (The High Court of Assam, Nagaland, Meghalaya, Manipur, Tripura, Mizoram & Arunachal Pradesh) RSA No. THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (The High Court of Assam, Nagaland, Meghalaya, Manipur, Tripura, Mizoram & Arunachal Pradesh) RSA No. 149/2000 1. Musstt. Sufia Khatun, W/O Late Danish Ali. 2. Md. Mintu Sheikh alias

More information

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : SUIT FOR PARTITION. Judgment pronounced on: I.A. No.4998/2012 in CS(OS) No.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : SUIT FOR PARTITION. Judgment pronounced on: I.A. No.4998/2012 in CS(OS) No. IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : SUIT FOR PARTITION Judgment pronounced on: 10.04.2012 I.A. No.4998/2012 in CS(OS) No.136/2009 SUGANDHA SETHI...Plaintiff Through: Ms. N.Shoba with Mr.

More information

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI. + CS(OS) No. 684/2004 % 8 th December, versus

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI. + CS(OS) No. 684/2004 % 8 th December, versus * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CS(OS) No. 684/2004 % 8 th December, 2015 RAJESH @ RAJ CHAUDHARY AND ORS.... Plaintiffs Through: Mr. Manish Vashisth and Ms. Trisha Nagpal, Advocates. versus

More information

.. IN HIGH COURT OF DELHI:AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE. I.A. No /2006 in C.S.(OS) No.795/2004

.. IN HIGH COURT OF DELHI:AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE. I.A. No /2006 in C.S.(OS) No.795/2004 .. IN HIGH COURT OF DELHI:AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE I.A. No. 11454/2006 in C.S.(OS) No.795/2004 Judgment Reserved on: 09.08.2011 Judgment Pronounced on: 02.11.2011 MADAN LAL KHANNA

More information

Through : Mr.P.V.Kapur, Sr.Advocate with Mr.V.K.Nagrath, Mr.Abhay Varma & Mr.Sidhant Kapur, Advocates.

Through : Mr.P.V.Kapur, Sr.Advocate with Mr.V.K.Nagrath, Mr.Abhay Varma & Mr.Sidhant Kapur, Advocates. IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : SUIT FOR RECOVERY RESERVED ON : 27th NOVEMBER, 2014 DECIDED ON : 11th DECEMBER, 2014 CS (OS) 1980/2011 & CC No.21/2012 SHIV SHAKTI MADAN... Plaintiff Through

More information

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE EXECUTION APPLICATION NO. 297 OF 2004 IN EXECUTION PETITION NO.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE EXECUTION APPLICATION NO. 297 OF 2004 IN EXECUTION PETITION NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE EXECUTION APPLICATION NO. 297 OF 2004 IN EXECUTION PETITION NO. 99 OF 1997 Judgment reserved on: July 31, 2007 Judgment delivered

More information

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908 RFA No.31/2011 DATE OF DECISION : 22nd February, 2011

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908 RFA No.31/2011 DATE OF DECISION : 22nd February, 2011 IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908 RFA No.31/2011 DATE OF DECISION : 22nd February, 2011 SHREE LAKSHMI VENKATESH CARGO MOVERS AND CONSULTANTS... Appellant Through:

More information

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE CM(M) No.887/2014 DATE OF DECISION : 25th September, 2014 VERSUS

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE CM(M) No.887/2014 DATE OF DECISION : 25th September, 2014 VERSUS IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE CM(M) No.887/2014 DATE OF DECISION : 25th September, 2014 SMT. SALONI MAHAJAN Through: Mr. Puneet Saini, Advocate....Petitioner

More information

$~9. * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI. % RSA 228/2015 and C.M. No.12883/2015. versus CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIPIN SANGHI

$~9. * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI. % RSA 228/2015 and C.M. No.12883/2015. versus CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIPIN SANGHI $~9. * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + Date of Decision: 03.09.2015 % RSA 228/2015 and C.M. No.12883/2015 SHRI BABU LAL Through: Mr. V. Shukla, Advocate.... Appellant versus DELHI DEVELOPMENT

More information

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : SUIT FOR PERMANENT INJUNCTION CS(OS) No.774/2001 DATE OF DECISION : 22nd November, 2012

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : SUIT FOR PERMANENT INJUNCTION CS(OS) No.774/2001 DATE OF DECISION : 22nd November, 2012 IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : SUIT FOR PERMANENT INJUNCTION CS(OS) No.774/2001 DATE OF DECISION : 22nd November, 2012 SHRI RAMESH CHAND AGGARWAL & ORS.... Plaintiffs Through: Mr. Sanjay

More information

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : INDIAN PARTNERSHIP ACT, Judgment Reserved on: Judgment Delivered on:

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : INDIAN PARTNERSHIP ACT, Judgment Reserved on: Judgment Delivered on: IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : INDIAN PARTNERSHIP ACT, 1932 Judgment Reserved on: 10.02.2011 Judgment Delivered on: 14.02.2011 RSA No.39/2005 & CM No.1847/2005 SHRI NARAYAN SHAMNANI

More information

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION. CIVIL APPEAL NO. 462 OF 2018 (arising out of SLP(C) No of 2013)

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION. CIVIL APPEAL NO. 462 OF 2018 (arising out of SLP(C) No of 2013) 1 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA REPORTABLE CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO. 462 OF 2018 (arising out of SLP(C) No.25771 of 2013) URMILA DEVI AND OTHERS... APPELLANTS VERSUS THE DEITY, MANDIR

More information

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE. Date of Reserve: Date of Order: CRP No.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE. Date of Reserve: Date of Order: CRP No. IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE Date of Reserve: 30.09.2008 Date of Order: 27.11. 2008 CRP No.34/2005 Shriram Housing Finance and Investment of India Ltd. Through:

More information

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI. versus. Through: 1. For the reasons stated in the application, delay of 61 days in refiling

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI. versus. Through: 1. For the reasons stated in the application, delay of 61 days in refiling * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CS(OS) No.2711/2015 % 28 th October, 2015 SH. DEEPAK AGGARWAL Through:... Plaintiff Mr. Bhupesh Narula, Advocate. versus SH. RAJ GOYAL AND ORS. Through:... Defendants

More information

DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY & ANR... Defendants Through: Mr. Pawan Mathur, Advocate. CS(OS) 1442/2004 & I.A.7528/2013 (of defendant u/o 7 R-11 CPC)

DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY & ANR... Defendants Through: Mr. Pawan Mathur, Advocate. CS(OS) 1442/2004 & I.A.7528/2013 (of defendant u/o 7 R-11 CPC) IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : LAND ACQUISITION ACT, 1894 Date of decision: 1st July, 2014 CS(OS) 1441/2004 & I.A.7527/2013 (of defendant u/o 7 R-11 CPC) SAMANIT ENTERPRISES & ANR Through:

More information

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : SUIT FOR PERPETUAL, MANDATORY INJUNCTION. Date of Judgment: CM(M) No.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : SUIT FOR PERPETUAL, MANDATORY INJUNCTION. Date of Judgment: CM(M) No. IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : SUIT FOR PERPETUAL, MANDATORY INJUNCTION Date of Judgment: 14.02.2012 CM(M) No.557/2008 DALMIA CEMENT (BHARAT) LTD. Through: Mr. D.K. Malhotra, Advocate....

More information

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : BENAMI TRANSACTION (PROHIBITION) ACT, 1988 Date of decision: 6th December, 2013.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : BENAMI TRANSACTION (PROHIBITION) ACT, 1988 Date of decision: 6th December, 2013. IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : BENAMI TRANSACTION (PROHIBITION) ACT, 1988 Date of decision: 6th December, 2013. RFA 439/2008 SUDHIR KHANNA Through: Mr. S.C. Singhal, Adv.... Appellant

More information

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI. + RFA No.522/2017 and C.M. No.19306/2017(stay) % 7th August, versus

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI. + RFA No.522/2017 and C.M. No.19306/2017(stay) % 7th August, versus * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + RFA No.522/2017 and C.M. No.19306/2017(stay) % 7th August, 2018 MANOJ ARORA... Appellant Through: Mr. M. Sufian Siddiqui, Advocate with Mr. Rakesh Bhugra, Advocate

More information

*IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI. % Date of decision:1 st December, 2009 M/S ANSAL PROPERTIES & INFRASTRUCTURE. Versus

*IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI. % Date of decision:1 st December, 2009 M/S ANSAL PROPERTIES & INFRASTRUCTURE. Versus *IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CM(M) No.807/2008. % Date of decision:1 st December, 2009 M/S ANSAL PROPERTIES & INFRASTRUCTURE LTD & ANR. Petitioner Through: Mr Prem Kumar and Mr Sharad C.

More information

CRP No. 216/2014 VERSUS. Mahendra Kumar Choukhany & Ors. CRP No. 220/2014 VERSUS. Bajrang Tea manufacturing Co. [P] Ltd.

CRP No. 216/2014 VERSUS. Mahendra Kumar Choukhany & Ors. CRP No. 220/2014 VERSUS. Bajrang Tea manufacturing Co. [P] Ltd. IN THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (High Court of Assam, Nagaland, Mizoram and Arunachal Pradesh) The Federal Bank Ltd. Petitioner VERSUS Mahendra Kumar Choukhany & Ors. Respondents CRP No. 220/2014 The Federal

More information

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI. Vs. Respondent: Sandeep Gullah

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI. Vs. Respondent: Sandeep Gullah MANU/DE/0153/2012 Equivalent Citation: 2012(127)DRJ743, 2012(49)PTC440(Del) Hon'ble Judges/Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Manmohan Singh Relied On IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI IA No. 17230/2011 & IA No. 17646/2011

More information

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI. + OMP Nos. 495/2007, 496/2007 & 497/2007

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI. + OMP Nos. 495/2007, 496/2007 & 497/2007 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + OMP Nos. 495/2007, 496/2007 & 497/2007 % Reserved on: 7 th January, 2016 Pronounced on: 28 th January, 2016 + O.M.P. No. 495/2007 SHRI DHRUV VARMA... Petitioner

More information

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : INDIAN EVIDENCE ACT, CM(M) 374/2008 with CM Nos. 4286/2008 and 13305/2008

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : INDIAN EVIDENCE ACT, CM(M) 374/2008 with CM Nos. 4286/2008 and 13305/2008 IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : INDIAN EVIDENCE ACT, 1872 CM(M) 374/2008 with CM Nos. 4286/2008 and 13305/2008 Reserved on : March 04, 2009 Date of Decision : March 17th, 2009 POONAM

More information

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI. + CS(OS) No. 393/2010 % NOVEMBER 5, versus

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI. + CS(OS) No. 393/2010 % NOVEMBER 5, versus * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CS(OS) No. 393/2010 % NOVEMBER 5, 2015 SHRI NARESH KUMAR Through... Plaintiff Mr. Shashank Shekhar, Advocate with Mr. R.K. Dubey and Ms.Ranjita, Advocates versus

More information

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : RAILWAY CLAIMS TRIBUNAL ACT, 1987 FAO No. 421/2012 DATE OF DECISION : 8th January, 2014

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : RAILWAY CLAIMS TRIBUNAL ACT, 1987 FAO No. 421/2012 DATE OF DECISION : 8th January, 2014 IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : RAILWAY CLAIMS TRIBUNAL ACT, 1987 FAO No. 421/2012 DATE OF DECISION : 8th January, 2014 BIMLA DEVI & ANR. Through: Mr. Raj Kumar Rajput, Advocate....Appellants

More information

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : SUIT FOR POSSESSION Date of Judgment: RSA No.251/2008 & CM Nos.17860/2008 & 11828/2010

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : SUIT FOR POSSESSION Date of Judgment: RSA No.251/2008 & CM Nos.17860/2008 & 11828/2010 IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : SUIT FOR POSSESSION Date of Judgment: 28.4.2011 RSA No.251/2008 & CM Nos.17860/2008 & 11828/2010 UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO.LTD..Appellant Through: Mr.P.K.Seth,

More information

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : SUIT FOR POSSESSION Pronounced on: 16th October, 2014 CS (OS) NO. 1804/2012

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : SUIT FOR POSSESSION Pronounced on: 16th October, 2014 CS (OS) NO. 1804/2012 IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : SUIT FOR POSSESSION Pronounced on: 16th October, 2014 CS (OS) NO. 1804/2012 MRS. VEENA SETH Through: Ms. Kamlesh Mahajan, Advocate... Plaintiff Versus

More information

SURAJ BHAN THR GPA HOLDER & ORS... Appellants Through Mr. Naresh Kaushik, Mr. Vardhman Kaushik, Advocates

SURAJ BHAN THR GPA HOLDER & ORS... Appellants Through Mr. Naresh Kaushik, Mr. Vardhman Kaushik, Advocates IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : LAND ACQUISITION ACT, 1894 DATE OF DECISION : 7th February, 2014 LA.APP. 632/2011 & CM No. 17689/2013 (for stay) SURAJ BHAN THR GPA HOLDER & ORS.... Appellants

More information

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE. RFA No.95/2010. DATE OF DECISION : 17th January, 2012

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE. RFA No.95/2010. DATE OF DECISION : 17th January, 2012 IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE RFA No.95/2010 DATE OF DECISION : 17th January, 2012 SANT RAM MANGAT RAM JEWELLERS Through: Ms. Sumita Kapil, Advocate.... Appellant

More information

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : SUIT FOR PARTITION Judgment delivered on: CS(OS) 2318/2006

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : SUIT FOR PARTITION Judgment delivered on: CS(OS) 2318/2006 IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : SUIT FOR PARTITION Judgment delivered on: 14.08.2012 CS(OS) 2318/2006 MR. CHETAN DAYAL Through: Ms Yashmeet Kaur, Adv.... Plaintiff versus MRS. ARUNA MALHOTRA

More information

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE Date of Judgment: RSA No.46/2011

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE Date of Judgment: RSA No.46/2011 IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE Date of Judgment: 10.3.2011 RSA No.46/2011 VIRENDER KUMAR & ANR. Through: Mr.Atul Kumar, Advocate...Appellants Versus JASWANT RAI

More information

Ashan Devi & Anr vs Phulwasi Devi & Ors on 19 November, 2003

Ashan Devi & Anr vs Phulwasi Devi & Ors on 19 November, 2003 Supreme Court of India Ashan Devi & Anr vs Phulwasi Devi & Ors on 19 November, 2003 Author: Dharmadhikari Bench: Shivaraj V. Patil, D.M. Dharmadhikari. CASE NO.: Appeal (civil) 3130 of 2002 Special Leave

More information

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI. + CS(COMM) No.1564/2016. % 24 th November, 2017

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI. + CS(COMM) No.1564/2016. % 24 th November, 2017 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CS(COMM) No.1564/2016 % 24 th November, 2017 BAJAJ RESOURCES LIMITED & ANR.... Plaintiffs Through Mr. J. Sai Deepak, Mr. Piyush Kumar and Mr. Vardaan Anand,

More information

$~J *IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI. + IA 16973/2013 in CC 50/2013 in CS(OS) 626/2012. versus

$~J *IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI. + IA 16973/2013 in CC 50/2013 in CS(OS) 626/2012. versus $~J *IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + IA 16973/2013 in CC 50/2013 in CS(OS) 626/2012 Date of Reserve: April 07, 2015 Date of Decision:July 31, 2015 JASBIR SINGH LAMBA & ORS... Plaintiffs Through

More information

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : SUIT FOR INJUNCTION Date of Judgment: RSA No.55/2009 & CM No.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : SUIT FOR INJUNCTION Date of Judgment: RSA No.55/2009 & CM No. IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : SUIT FOR INJUNCTION Date of Judgment: 06.04.2011 RSA No.55/2009 & CM No.6268/2009 NEW DELHI MUNICIPAL COUNCIL Through: Mr.Arjun Pant, Advocate...Appellant

More information

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE. RFA No.583/2001. DATE OF DECISION : 5th July, 2011

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE. RFA No.583/2001. DATE OF DECISION : 5th July, 2011 IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE RFA No.583/2001 DATE OF DECISION : 5th July, 2011 M/S A.G.NEOCHEM PVT. LTD.... Appellant Through: Mr. D.P.Chaturvedi, Advocate

More information

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : ARBITRATION AND CONCILIATION ACT, 1996 ARB.P. 63/2012 Date of Decision : December 06, 2012

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : ARBITRATION AND CONCILIATION ACT, 1996 ARB.P. 63/2012 Date of Decision : December 06, 2012 IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : ARBITRATION AND CONCILIATION ACT, 1996 ARB.P. 63/2012 Date of Decision : December 06, 2012 M/S RURAL COMMUNICATION & MARKETING PVT LTD... Petitioner Through:

More information

THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI. % Judgment Reserved on: Judgment Pronounced on: versus -

THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI. % Judgment Reserved on: Judgment Pronounced on: versus - THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Judgment Reserved on: 30.11.2010 Judgment Pronounced on: 03.12.2010 + CS(OS) No. 241/2010 AJAY AHUJA & ANR... Plaintiff - versus - M/S SUBHIKSHA TRADING SERVICES

More information

Judgment reserved on: % Judgment delivered on: R.S.A. No.181/2007 & C.M.Appl.Nos.9429/2007 & 3045/2008

Judgment reserved on: % Judgment delivered on: R.S.A. No.181/2007 & C.M.Appl.Nos.9429/2007 & 3045/2008 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Judgment reserved on: 22.07.2010 % Judgment delivered on: 26.07.2010 + R.S.A. No.181/2007 & C.M.Appl.Nos.9429/2007 & 3045/2008 KUNTI DEVI Versus Through: Appellant

More information

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CRL.REV.P.403/2003 & CRL.M.A.717/2003

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CRL.REV.P.403/2003 & CRL.M.A.717/2003 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Judgment Reserved on: 17 th November,2009 Judgment Delivered on: 19 th November, 2009 + CRL.REV.P.403/2003 & CRL.M.A.717/2003 STATE THROUGH CENTRAL BUREAU OF

More information

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI. + CS(COMM) Nos.53/2015 & 54/ CS(COMM) No. 53/2015 and I.A. No.25929/2015 (stay)

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI. + CS(COMM) Nos.53/2015 & 54/ CS(COMM) No. 53/2015 and I.A. No.25929/2015 (stay) * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CS(COMM) Nos.53/2015 & 54/2015 % 21 st December, 2015 1. CS(COMM) No. 53/2015 and I.A. No.25929/2015 (stay) BIGTREE ENTERTAINMENT PVT. LTD.... Plaintiff Through:

More information

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI. + Date of Decision: % RSA 417/2015 & C.M. Nos /2015. versus.

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI. + Date of Decision: % RSA 417/2015 & C.M. Nos /2015. versus. $~26. * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + Date of Decision: 04.12.2015 % RSA 417/2015 & C.M. Nos.29313-14/2015 SHIV KUMAR... Appellant Through: Mr. Anil Sehgal, Mr. Om Prakash and Mr. Lalit Kumar

More information

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE. Dated of Reserve: July 21, Date of Order : September 05, 2008

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE. Dated of Reserve: July 21, Date of Order : September 05, 2008 IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE Dated of Reserve: July 21, 2008 Date of Order : September 05, 2008 CM(M) No.819/2007 Rajiv Sud...Petitioner Through: Mr. Ravi Gupta

More information

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI : NEW DELHI SUBJECT : CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE. W.P. Crl. No. 1029/2010. Decided on: 9th August, 2011.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI : NEW DELHI SUBJECT : CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE. W.P. Crl. No. 1029/2010. Decided on: 9th August, 2011. IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI : NEW DELHI SUBJECT : CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE W.P. Crl. No. 1029/2010 Decided on: 9th August, 2011. DEEPAK GARG Through: Mr. Vijay Agarwal, Advocate.... Petitioner versus

More information

IN THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (THE HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)

IN THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (THE HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) RSA NO. 156/2005 IN THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (THE HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) RSA 156/2005 Sri Pramendra Bijoy Roy, S/o Late Ramesh Chandra Roy, Silchar Road (Hailakandi

More information

Through Mr. Atul Nigam, Mr. Amit Tiwari, Advs. versus

Through Mr. Atul Nigam, Mr. Amit Tiwari, Advs. versus IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE OA 92/2013 & IA Nos. 132/2013, 18787/2012, 218/2013, 1581/2013 in CS(OS) 3081/2012 Reserved on: 29th October, 2013 Decided on:

More information

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CS (OS) No.1737/2012 % 18 th January, versus

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CS (OS) No.1737/2012 % 18 th January, versus * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CS (OS) No.1737/2012 % 18 th January, 2016 SH. SURENDER KUMAR... Plaintiff Through Mr. Manoranjan and Mr.Kailash Sharma, Advocates versus SH. DHANI RAM AND OTHERS

More information

THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : Delhi Rent Control Act R.C.REV.29/2012 Date of Decision: Versus

THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : Delhi Rent Control Act R.C.REV.29/2012 Date of Decision: Versus THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : Delhi Rent Control Act R.C.REV.29/2012 Date of Decision: 17.08.2012 SMT. NARENDER KAUR Through: Mr. Adarsh Ganesh, Adv... Petitioner Versus MAHESH CHAND AND

More information

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO. 7843 OF 2009 CHAIRMAN, BOARD OF TRUSTEE, APPELLANT(s) SRI RAM MANDIR JAGTIAL KARIMNAGAR DISTRICT, A.P VERSUS S. RAJYALAXMI

More information

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI COMPANY JURISDICTION. CCP (Co.) No. 8 of 2008 COMPANY PETITION NO. 215 OF 2005

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI COMPANY JURISDICTION. CCP (Co.) No. 8 of 2008 COMPANY PETITION NO. 215 OF 2005 IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI COMPANY JURISDICTION CCP (Co.) No. 8 of 2008 IN COMPANY PETITION NO. 215 OF 2005 Reserved on: 26-11-2010 Date of pronouncement : 18-01-2011 M/s Sanjay Cold Storage..Petitioner

More information

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : SUIT FOR POSSESSION. Judgment Reserved on: Judgment Pronounced on:

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : SUIT FOR POSSESSION. Judgment Reserved on: Judgment Pronounced on: IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : SUIT FOR POSSESSION Judgment Reserved on: 31.03.2011 Judgment Pronounced on: 06.04.2011 IA No. 4427/2011 in CS(OS) No. 669/2011 TANU GOEL & ANR... Plaintiff

More information

Through: Mr. Kartik Prasad with Ms. Reeja Varghese, Adv. versus

Through: Mr. Kartik Prasad with Ms. Reeja Varghese, Adv. versus IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE W.P.(C) No. 943/2015 & CM Nos.1653-1654/2015 DATE OF DECISION : 30th January, 2015 SUBHA KUMAR DASH... Petitioner Through: Mr.

More information

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI VERSUS

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI VERSUS * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CM (MAIN) No.420/2008 Date of Decision: July 09, 2010 HANSALAYA PROPERTIES & ORS... Petitioners Through: Mr. H.L.Tiku, Senior Advocate with Ms. Yashmeet Kaur,

More information

IN THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT. Case No: RSA 80/2006

IN THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT. Case No: RSA 80/2006 IN THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (The High Court of Assam, Nagaland, Mizoram and Arunachal Pradesh) Case No: 1. Md. Rahmat Ali, S/o Md. Hafizatddin 2. Smti. Nazma Rahman, W/o Md. Rahmat Ali, Both are residents

More information

*IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI. Versus. 2. To be referred to the reporter or not? No

*IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI. Versus. 2. To be referred to the reporter or not? No *IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of decision: 23 rd July, 2010. + W.P.(C) 11305/2009, CM No.10831/2009 (u/s 151 CPC for stay), CM No.9694/2010 (u/o1 Rule 10 of CPC for impleadment) & CM No.

More information

IN THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (THE HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)

IN THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (THE HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Page No.1 IN THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (THE HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) RSA 6 OF 2003 Rupan Kishan S/O- Lt. Ganesh Kishan, Vill- Potabill, Mouza-Orang, P.O- Shillong Khuti,

More information

$~J *IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI. Versus

$~J *IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI. Versus $~J *IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CS(OS) 1008/2013 KRISHAN LAL ARORA Through: Versus Date of Pronouncement: August 14, 2015... Plaintiff Dr. N. K. Khetarpal, Adv. GURBACHAN SINGH AND ORS...

More information

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI. + FAO(OS) No.534/2010 & CM Nos /2010. versus. % Date of Hearing : August 25, 2010

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI. + FAO(OS) No.534/2010 & CM Nos /2010. versus. % Date of Hearing : August 25, 2010 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + FAO(OS) No.534/2010 & CM Nos.15238-40/2010 RAJ KUMAR BARI & ORS...Appellant through Mr. S.D. Singh & Mr. Rakesh Kumar Singh, Advs. versus SHIV RANI & ORS...Respondent

More information

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT: SUIT FOR POSSESSION AND RECOVERY CS(OS) 2130/2003 & IA 3947/2008. RESERVED ON: December 4, 2008

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT: SUIT FOR POSSESSION AND RECOVERY CS(OS) 2130/2003 & IA 3947/2008. RESERVED ON: December 4, 2008 IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT: SUIT FOR POSSESSION AND RECOVERY CS(OS) 2130/2003 & IA 3947/2008 RESERVED ON: December 4, 2008 DATE OF DECISION: APRIL 08, 2009 Mrs.Pushpa Kakkar & Another...

More information

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION. CIVIL APPEAL NO.3777 OF 2018 [Arising out of SLP (C) No of 2014]

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION. CIVIL APPEAL NO.3777 OF 2018 [Arising out of SLP (C) No of 2014] REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO.3777 OF 2018 [Arising out of SLP (C) No.13256 of 2014] Sucha Singh Sodhi (D) Thr. LRs... Appellant(s) Versus Baldev

More information

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE. RFA(OS) No. 70/2008. Reserved on : December 12th, 2008

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE. RFA(OS) No. 70/2008. Reserved on : December 12th, 2008 IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE RFA(OS) No. 70/2008 Reserved on : December 12th, 2008 Date of Decision : December 19th, 2008 Smt. Amarjit Kaur and Ors.... Appellants

More information

IN THE COURT OF SH. SANDEEP GUPTA, CIVIL JUDGE, DELHI (WEST) 02 SUIT NO.616/06

IN THE COURT OF SH. SANDEEP GUPTA, CIVIL JUDGE, DELHI (WEST) 02 SUIT NO.616/06 1 IN THE COURT OF SH. SANDEEP GUPTA, CIVIL JUDGE, DELHI (WEST) 02 SUIT NO.616/06 Unique Case ID No 02401C0140712004 Sh. Aqueel Ur Rehman S/o Sh. Aziz Ur Rehman, R/o 31 B, Village Jasola, Lohari Farm, Jamia

More information

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : PUBLIC PREMISES (EVICTION OF UNAUTHORIZED OCCUPANTS) ACT, Date of decision: 8th February, 2012

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : PUBLIC PREMISES (EVICTION OF UNAUTHORIZED OCCUPANTS) ACT, Date of decision: 8th February, 2012 IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : PUBLIC PREMISES (EVICTION OF UNAUTHORIZED OCCUPANTS) ACT, 1971 Date of decision: 8th February, 2012 WP(C) NO.11374/2006 OCEAN PLASTICS & FIBRES (P) LIMITED

More information