• Abstract and Figures
• Public Full-text

I.L.R. (2012) 4 DELHI Part-II (August, 2012) P.S.D. 25.8.2012 (Pages 441-762) 650 Annual Subscription rate of I.L.R.(D.S.) 2012 INDIAN LAW REPORTS (for 6 volumes each volume consisting of 2 Parts) DELHI SERIES In Indian Rupees : 2500/- 2012 Single Part : 250/- (Containing cases determined by the High Court of Delhi) VOLUME-4, PART-II (CONTAINS GENERAL INDEX) EDITOR MS. R. KIRAN NATH for Subscription Please Contact : REGISTRAR VIGILANCE CO-EDITOR Controller of Publications MS. NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA Department of Publication, Govt. of India, (ADDITIONAL DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE) Civil Lines, Delhi-110054. Website: www.deptpub.nic.in REPORTERS Email:[email protected] (&) [email protected] MR. CHANDER SHEKHAR MS. ANU BAGAI Tel.: 23817823/9689/3761/3762/3764/3765 MR. TALWANT SINGH MR. SANJOY GHOSE Fax.: 23817876 MR. GIRISH KATHPALIA MR. K. PARMESHWAR MR. VINAY KUMAR GUPTA (ADVOCATES) MS. SHALINDER KAUR MR. KESHAV K. BHATI MR. V.K. BANSAL JOINT REGISTRAR MR. L.K. GAUR MR. GURDEEP SINGH MS. ADITI CHAUDHARY MR. ARUN BHARDWAJ (ADDITIONAL DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGES) PRINTED BY : J.R. COMPUTERS, 477/7, MOONGA NAGAR, KARAWAL NAGAR ROAD DELHI-110094. PUBLISHED UNDER THE AUTHORITY OF HIGH COURT OF DELHI, AND PUBLISHED UNDER THE AUTHORITY OF HIGH COURT OF DELHI, BY THE CONTROLLER OF PUBLICATIONS, DELHI-110054. BY THE CONTROLLER OF PUBLICATIONS, DELHI-110054—2012. (ii) NOMINAL-INDEX Parmanand Kansotia v. Seetha Lath & Anr........................................... 488 VOLUME-4, PART-II Prashant Dutta & Anr. v. National Insurance Co. Ltd. & Ors. ............ 671 AUGUST, 2012 Rangnathan Prasad Mandadapu v. Medical Council of India & Anr. ... 464 Pages Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Co Ltd. v. Master Manmeet Anand Bhushan v. R.A. Haritash ........................................................... 657 Singh & Ors.................................................................................... 547 Airports Authority of India and Ors. v. State of Jammu Sharvan Aggarwal v. Kailash Rani ........................................................ 459 & Kashmir & Ors. .......................................................................... 444 Teka Singh @ Titu & Ors. v. State & Anr. .......................................... 475 Atul Kumar Rai v. Koshika Telecom Limited & Ors. ........................... 741 Yahoo India Pvt. Ltd. v. State & Anr.................................................... 634 D.D.A. v. VIP Marble Emporium & Ors. ............................................. 652 Devu Samal v. The State ....................................................................... 441 Federation of Public Schools v. Government of NCT of Delhi............ 570 Gulshan Rai v. Samrendra Bose Secy & Anr. ..................................... 513 Gunjan Sinha Jain v. Registrar General High Court of Delhi ............... 676 Jugan K. Mehta v. Sham Sunder Gulati & Ors..................................... 534 Kanhaiya Paswan v. State & Ors. ......................................................... 509 Kuldeep Kumar Kohli & Ors. v. The Registrar of Companies for Delhi And Haryana .................................................................... 480 Maheshwar Dayal (DECED) v. Shanti Devi & Ors. ............................. 613 Meena Chaudhary @ Meena P.N. Singh v. Basant Kumar Chaudhary & Ors. ............................................................................................ 527 Mukhinder Singh (Deceased) Through LRs. & Ors. v. Gurbux Singh & Ors. ............................................................................................ 578 Narender Kumar v. Union of India & Ors. ........................................... 728 National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Ram Rati Devi & Ors. ............... 627 Neelam Prashar & Ors. v. Mintoo Thakur & Ors. ............................... 528 O.P. Aggarwal & Anr. v. Akshay Lal & Ors. ....................................... 645 (i) (iv) SUBJECT-INDEX VOLUME-4, PART-II a party at whose instance such foreign judgment has been AUGUST, 2012 obtained No litigant can be allowed to abuse the process of the Courts or to approbate and reprobate as per convenience. CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908—Order 12 Rule 6— The petitioner had deposed that she was in U.K. from 1993 Transfer of Property Act, 1882—Section 106—Registration to 1999. She has not even whispered, alleged or made out Act, 1908—Section 49—Delhi Rent control Act, 1958—Suit any case of any of the grounds for the foreign judgment of for possession and mesne profits—Premises let out to the dissolution of her marriage with the respondent being not appellant/respondent vide rent agreement dated 01.10.2006 for conclusive. For the said foreign judgment to be not conclusive, a period of three years by the husband of respondent/plaintiff— the petitioner was required to make out a case of the same Tenancy terminated vide notice dated 31.03.2010 w.e.f. being either pronounced by a Court having no jurisdiction and 30.04.2010—Failed to vacate the premises-Suit filed-Suit /or having been not given on the merits of the case or being decreed for possession under order 12 Rule 6 vide judgment, founded on an incorrect view of international law or the dated 14.11.2011—Aggrieved by the judgment filed the present proceedings resulting therein being opposed to natural justice appeal—Alleged tenancy was for manufacturing purposes— or having been obtained by fraud or sustaining a claim founded Notice terminating the tenancy should have been for a period on a breach of any law in force in India. Moreover, all the of six month-Held—Lease deed unregistered—Terms cannot grounds specified in section 13 of the CPC and on be looked into—Purpose of letting is not collateral purpose- establishment whereof a foreign judgment can be said to be notice valid—Appeal dismissed. not conclusive are such which can be set up only by a party Sharvan Aggarwal v. Kailash Rani .............................. 459 not himself/herself/itself approaching the foreign Court. Here the petitioner who is challenging the judgment, was at the — Section 13—Criminal Procedure Code, 1973—Section 200, relevant time resident for a fairly long time within jurisdiction 482—Indian Penal Code, 1860—Section 120-B 494A, 498A— of the foreign Court, did not approach the foreign court under Petition against order of MM dismissing the complaint of the the dictates of the respondent and made out a case before the Petitioner—Petitioner after obtaining decree of divorce from foreign Court of obtaining the judgment-Petition dismissed. foreign Court and after the subsequent marriage of the Meena Chaudhary @ Meena P.N. Singh v. Basant Kumar Respondent, filed criminal complaint of bigamy and cruelty Chaudhary & Ors. ......................................................... 527 against the Respondent alleging that foreign decree of divorce was an invalid decree—Held:- under Section 13 of CPC, a — Order XXXIX Rule 2A read with Section 151—Suit for foreign judgment is conclusive as to any matter thereby partition and rendition of accounts by appellant against her directly adjudicated upon between the same parties except in siblings qua estate of her deceased father—Appellant claimed cases specified thereunder. However, the right if any, to that as per the wishes of her father, soon after her marriage, contend that the said foreign judgment is not conclusive can she came in occupation and possession of the subject be only of the party who had himself/herself/itself not initiated property—Appellant claims to have used the said portion as the process of obtaining the said judgment and cannot be of the residence till year 1974—Defendants struck a deal of (iii) (v) (vi) settlement between themselves—In terms of this arrangement, Held:- Defendant should have moved the Court for varying the parties shifted in different portions of the property and the construction even though there was a restrictive injunction leased out the entire basement for commercial use—The order—However, any additional relief qua these aspects was original defendants No. 1 to 5 are alleged to be in possession not granted to the appellant—Defendant is not guilty of willfully and control of the entire estate except the portion of the violating the interim orders passed by this Court and the interest property in occupation of the appellant—Alleged that of the appellant are protected—Though styled as CCP as CCP defendants No. 1 to 6 were threatening to sell the entire (OS), the petition is under Order XXXIX Rule 2A read with property to defendant no.7, in order to pocket the Section 151 of the said Code and even the prayers are made consideration including the share of the appellant—In this accordingly—No dispute as to the maintainability of the appeal background, partition is sought of the immovable property and from an order dismissing an application under Order XXXIX rendition of accounts of the business apart from recovery of Rule 2A of the said Code in view of the provisions of Order rent realized from the immovable property—Along with the XLIII Rule 1 of the said Code-However, on examination of suit, an application under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 for this matter, there appears to be a conflict of view qua this interim relief filed seeking a restraint against the defendants issue—A learned Single Judge of the Punjab and Haryana High from creating charge or transferring, selling or alienating the Court in Rajinder Kaur vs. Sukhbir Singh, 2002 Civil CC 125 aforesaid immovable property and from dispossessing the MANU/PH/1830/2001 has held that there is no limitation appellant

Load more

  247

Copy Link