Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 9 of 9 (0.44 seconds)
Documents citing Om Parkash vs South Delhi Municipal Corporation on 22 April, 2016

Om Prakash vs Municipal Corporation Of Delhi on 13 December, 2023

Apart from admitting the award of work to the plaintiff, its performance by plaintiff and passing of bills by defendant no.2, defendant stated that there is no cause of action for filing the suit; that the suit is barred by limitation; that the suit has not been signed, verified and instituted by a duly authorized person because Mr. Ajay Singh Chauhan is only one partner of the plaintiff firm and there is no resolution by the Board of Partners in his favour; that suit is filed in contravention of the general rules, directions and conditions of contract duly agreed by the plaintiff; that the clauses of contract clearly described that payment of past bills will depend upon availability of funds in particular head of account with MCD and payment of bills shall be made strictly on que basis i.e. first past liabilities will be cleared and thereafter the release of payment for passed bills will be in order of demand received at Heard Quarters under particular head of account; that under clause 4(B) the Contractor has to submit its RA/final bill with M/s Om Prakash Vs MCD Page no. 3 of 14 CS Comm 927/23 measurement otherwise nothing will be due on account of work execution, but the plaintiff has not submitted his bill till date; that the defendant had already released payment of Rs.10,61,000/- as gross amount on 28.07.2023 through RTGS to the contractor; that there is no specific mention in title and heading of the suit that the suit is filed under Commercial Courts Act 2015; that the suit is filed in violation of section 12A of Commercial Courts Act 2015 because plaintiff has not exhausted the remedy of pre-litigation mediation; that the suit is not properly verified as per the Commercial Courts Act 2015; that the plaintiff has not filed certified copies of documents as per requirement of Order XI Rule(2) CPC as applicable to Commercial Courts Act; that the plaint is liable to be returned under order VII rule 10 CPC.
Delhi District Court Cites 9 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Sohan Lal vs Anand Prakash on 2 July, 2024

and "Om Parkash Vs. South Delhi Municipal Corporation". It has been further submitted that the law is settled that once a tenant always a tenant. It is held in "Jaspal Kaur Cheema & anr. Vs. M/s. Industrial Trade Links & Ors" decided on 03.07.2017 by the Hon'ble Supreme Court wherein it is held that the tenant who has been let into possession cannot deny his landlord title. It came on record that the shop in suit is part of property No. 2649, Shadi Pur Main Bazar, New Delhi and the father of the defendant No. 1 was inducted as tenant and he expired in the year 1980 and since then the defendant no. 1 is doing the business in the suit shop. The defendant no. 1 has inherited the rights which his father was having in the tenanted premises. It has been further submitted that it is well settled law that plea of adverse possession is not a pure question of law but a blended one of fact and law. As such, a person who claims adverse possession should prove; on what date he came into possession, what was the nature of his possession, whether the factum of possession was known to the other party, how long his possession has continued, and whether his possession was open CS No. 90/19 Sohan Lal Vs. Anand Prakash & Ors. Page 22 of 30 and undisturbed.
Delhi District Court Cites 19 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Pankaj Shah & Anr vs Rafat on 10 May, 2018

20. As far as the defence of the defendant of adverse possession is concerned, not only has the defendant failed to lead any evidence but even in the written statement, the plea of adverse possession is merely for name sake and without any particulars whatsoever. The defendant has not pleaded as to where she has denied the title of the plaintiffs or claimed adversely to plaintiffs or where she has claimed or declared herself to be the owner of the property or exercised any rights as owner. Mere long occupation does not amount to adverse possession as held by the Supreme Court in Roop Singh Vs. Ram Singh (2000) 3 SCC 708 and followed by CS(OS) 133/2016 Page 6 of 9 this Court in Jagdish Chander Talwar Vs. Uday Sarin (2013) 134 DRJ 677 and Om Parkash Vs. South Delhi Municipal Corporation 2016 SCC OnLine Del 2445.
Delhi High Court Cites 4 - Cited by 1 - R S Endlaw - Full Document
1