Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 8 of 8 (0.38 seconds)
Documents citing Jasbir Singh vs Dda And Ors on 1 July, 2014

Mirazuddin & Anr. vs . Hardeep Singh Thapar & Anr. on 31 October, 2015

Manmohan Krishan ( and Shri Riazuddin was impleaded as plaintiff no.2 in the said suit on the basis of his application U/O XXII rule 10 CPC) against Sh. Rajeev Chopra, Sh. Subhash C. Gogia and DDA for permanent injunction in respect of property bearing no. 16 & 17 Hauz Khas, Delhi, which was decreed on 24.07.2007 by the Court of Civil Judge, Delhi, whereby DDA was restrained from dispossessing the plaintiff no. 2 Riazuddin except by due process of law. Moreover one Ms Jasbir Kaur also filed an application U/O XXII rule 10 CPC to implead her party to said suit (in respect of part of Property no. K­16 Hauz Khas Enclave, New Delhi), but the said application was dismissed by the court of Civil Judge, Delhi. The said Jasbir Kaur preferred an appeal RCA no. 24/2007 under the title Jasbir Kaur vs. DDA ( but she stopped prosecuting it, instead Ms Kusum Lata, Ms Shalini Goyal and Ms Alka Goyal filed application under XXII rule 10 CPC to implead their names in appeal as they stepped into shoe of Ms Jasbir Kaur) .
Delhi District Court Cites 21 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Sh. Kanshi Ram vs Sh. Sushil Mishra on 22 December, 2014

In order to substantiate his submission, the defendant has placed reliance on two decisions i.e decision of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in CS(OS) No. 1581A/1998, date of decision 18th November 2009 titled as Sh. S. Kumar Vs. DDA, wherein the award of interest @ 18% p.a. was set aside by observing changed economic scenario and decision of Hon' ble Apex Court in Civil Appeal No. 2764 of 2009 (Arising out of SLP (C) No. 10818 of 2007, titled as State of Rajasthan & Another Vs. M/s. Ferro Concrete Construction Pvt. Ltd. in which it was observed that after coming into force of Interest Act, 1978, a person is not entitled to interest exceeding current rate of interest.
Delhi District Court Cites 6 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Sh. Kanshi Ram vs Sh. Shashi Bhushan Lal on 22 December, 2014

In order to substantiate his submission, the defendant has placed reliance on two decisions i.e decision of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in CS(OS) No. 1581A/1998, date of decision 18th November 2009 titled as Sh. S. Kumar Vs. DDA, wherein the award of interest @ 18% p.a. was set aside by observing changed economic scenario and decision of Hon' ble Apex Court in Civil Appeal No. 2764 of 2009 Suit no. 345/11 Kanshi Ram Vs. Shashi Bhushan Lal 11/13 (Arising out of SLP (C) No. 10818 of 2007, titled as State of Rajasthan & Another Vs. M/s. Ferro Concrete Construction Pvt. Ltd. in which it was observed that after coming into force of Interest Act, 1978, a person, is not entitled to interest exceeding current rate of interest.
Delhi District Court Cites 6 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Suit No. 815/06 vs Sh. Jawahar Lal on 17 March, 2015

In the case titled as "Sh. Ram Lubhaya Vs. DDA" through its Estate Officer, the then Ld. District Judge vide order dated 07/05/1963 had fixed the installments of property bearing no. 295 as Rs. 15/­ per month as assessment for damages of possession of the said land. The property measures 90 sq. yds and the plaintiff had constructed two shops and a room on the ground floor in front of the shop and over half of the room, there was a tin shed. He also constructed first floor including two rooms, kitchen, open space in front of kitchen and an open roof on the dhaba / shop for his residence (sic.). The plaintiff had received the notice dated 07/05/1979 under Section 4 of the Public Premises Act from the DDA and vide order dated 04/02/1980, he was directed to pay Rs.3,834/­ as damages for unauthorized occupation of the property bearing no. 295. A similar demand of Rs. 18,865.26/­ was made vide notice dated 26/02/1986. The DDA regularized and authorized the plaintiff's possession of the suit Suit No : 815/06 Puran Chand Vs. Jawahar Lal Page 3 of 26 property and he has been in exclusive and uninterrupted possession of the same. He raised construction on the aforesaid property with his own funds.
Delhi District Court Cites 5 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Ravi Nagar Ors vs State Ors on 19 March, 2025

2. The Ist party was failed to prove his possession in Civil Suit No. 176/2010 (New CS No. 8639/2016) titled as "Hari Ram vs. DDA and Sh. Vijender etc." as well as in Review Petition bearing CS No. 8639/2016 in The Hon'ble Court of Sh. Jay Thareja, JSCC/ ASCJ/ GJ (East), Karkardooma Courts, Delhi. Moreover in the written submission dated 24.07.2018 filed by the Sh. Ravi Nagar (1 st Party), it has been mentioned at Para 8 that "whereas it is Party No. 2 who are in settled possession of property in question".This statement of Ist Party is corroborating the fact that IInd Party was in possession of the land in question at the time of dispute.
Delhi District Court Cites 8 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1