Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 11 (0.64 seconds)
Documents citing Sardari Lal vs Ram Rakha on 11 May, 1984

M/S Indo-Keniyan Industrial ... vs M/S Metal Forgings (P) Limited on 20 March, 1986

19. The use of word or which is disjunctive is very significant to note. The instant case certainly satisfies one of the two methods of giving an undertaking and, therefore, I am not persuaded to hold that failure/refusal on the part of the respondents to deliver vacant possession of the plot in question to the petitioner constitutes merely a breach of compromise and not of the undertaking. It would be pertinent to notice at this stage the Full Bench decision of this Court in Sardari Lal v. Ram Rakha, (1984) 26 Delhi LT 20 : (1984 Cri LJ 1098). In that case too the submission of the counsel for the contemner was that the parties had negotiated a settlement outside the Court and then came to the Court and reported that they had compromised. The Rent Control Tribunal recorded the compromise. The tenant (contemner) made a statement to the Court that he would be withdrawing his appeal and that he would surrender vacant possession of the premises in question within 15 days of the judgment of the High Court. He also promised to pay the arrears of rent, etc., and affirmed that in the event of failure to pay the arrears of rent by the stipulated date he would be liable to be evicted forthwith. The counsel for the tenant (contemner) urged that there was no user of the word 'undertaking' in the statement of the tenant and, therefore, the promise simply meant a solemn promise to someone else and not to the Court. It was further urged that the court had no part to play but only to record the agreement between the parties as the appeal was being withdrawn. According to him an order had no greater sanctity than an agreement simpliciter.
Delhi High Court Cites 13 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Mohd. Quresh vs Roopa Fotedar And Ors. on 15 December, 1989

(14) He has also made reference to Sardari Lal v. Ram Rakha, 1984 Rajdhani Law Reporter 333, where a Division Bench of this Court also noticed the aforesaid ingredients which must be kept in view for deciding whether a particular authority is a Court or not and in which it was held that the Rent Control Tribunal fulfills those ingredients and thus, is a Court within the meaning of Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.
Delhi High Court Cites 37 - Cited by 20 - Full Document

J.P. Goyal vs Ajeet Kaur on 30 November, 1984

(7) In view of the case referred to above, it has to be seen whether in the present case there was any such undertaking to the Court. After giving my careful consideration to the facts of the case, and in particular to the statement of the respondent-tenant, I am of the opinion that it leaves no manner of doubt that an express undertaking was given to the Court that the respondent will hand over vacant possession of the premises to the petitioner-landlord on or. before 31-12-1983. The respondent having taken advantage of her statement inasmuch as the statement was made in March 1981 and time was obtained till 31-12-1983 i.e. for a period of almost three years cannot now turn round and say that this was only a compromise out side the court and could not amount to an undertaking to the Court. In the statement it is specifically stated: "I undertake to this Hon'ble Court that I shall vacate the premises on or before 31-12-1983."
Delhi High Court Cites 4 - Cited by 1 - Full Document

Microsoft Corporation vs Ashok Azad And Ors. [Along With Cont. ... on 15 October, 2004

16. Mr. Chandhiok, all the same argued on the authority of a Full Bench decision of this court in Sardari Lal v. Ram Rakha, that the use of the word ''undertaking''or ''undertake'' must in all situations implies that the same has been furnished to the court and not to any party to the list. We have carefully gone through the decision relied upon by Mr. Chandhiok but find it difficult to hold that it lays down any proposition like the one profounded by Mr. Chandhiok. The parties had in the case entered into an amicable settlement under which the tenant was to withdraw his appeal which he did withdraw. The tenant had sought time to vacate the premises in his occupation till 15 days after the decision in the Letters Patent Appeal filed by him before this court. The court had accordingly passed an order by which the appeal filed by the tenant was dismissed as withdrawn but time was given to the tenant to vacate the premises and for payment of arrears of rent as prayed by him. The question that fell for consideration was whether the statement made by the tenant before this court constituted an undertaking to surrender possession of the premises within 15 days of the disposal of his appeal so as to provide a basis for his committal for conte pt if he failed to do so. The Full Bench answered that question in the affirmative and held that on an interpretation of the terms of the settlement and the practice of this court, the undertaking was given to the court which had exactly the same forces an order made by the court so that the breach of any such undertaking would constitute contempt. What is important is that the court did not lay down any absolute or inflexible rule of interpretation. It, on the contrary, made it clear that the word undertake'' used in the statement of a party or his counsel or in the orders passed by the court would imply an undertaking to the court unless the context otherwise suggested. That is precisely the position in the instant case. The context in which the settlement uses the said expressions leaves no manner of doubt that the undertakings were given to the plaintiffs, in consideration whereof they had abandoned some of the claims made against the defendants. The court had while accepting the settlement n ither referred to any undertaking provided by one or the other party nor accepted the same while granting any relief.
Delhi High Court Cites 8 - Cited by 0 - T S Thakur - Full Document
1   2 Next