Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 58 (0.79 seconds)
Documents citing Shri Om Prakash Bajaj vs Shri Chander Shekhar on 31 January, 2003

Om Prakash vs Chandra Shekhar on 29 April, 2026

29. Lastly, counsel for the accused pleaded that according to the complainant, he intended to purchase the said flat for a total consideration amount of Rs.80,00,000/- and he paid Rs.75,00,000/- towards part payment to the accused. However, once the said transaction could not be finalised, the accused issued 04 cheques, including the subject cheque to the complainant towards the refund of the said amount. As such, the accused handed over 04 cheques of different dates to the complainant, but the same were a result of the single transaction. However, the complainant filed 04 separate complaints for dishonour of one cheque each, which were CA No.58/2020 Page No.18 of 29 Om Prakash Vs. Chandra Shekhar & Anr.
Delhi District Court Cites 32 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Om Prakash vs Chandra Shekhar on 29 April, 2026

2. In the present case, the complainant filed the complaint under section 138 NI Act, stating that the accused, who was/is the absolute owner and in possession of one flat no. RU-388 MIG Flat, Ground Floor, Pitampura, Delhi (the said flat), had desired to sell the same. The complainant showed his inclination to purchase the said flat. The accused assured the complainant that the said flat was free from all kinds of encumbrances. Consequently, the complainant agreed to purchase the said flat. In pursuance thereto, they entered into an agreement to sell w.r.t. the said flat for a total sale consideration of Rs. 80,00,000/- on 30.05.2013. The complainant paid Rs. 25,00,000/- towards part payment to the accused at the time of execution of the agreement to sell, and as agreed, the balance sale consideration was to be paid to the accused within one week after the said flat would be converted into freehold by the concerned authority, for which the accused had to make the effort. The accused assured that he would get that done within 60 days from that date and then would execute CA No.56/2020 Page No.2 of 30 Om Prakash Vs. Chandra Shekhar & Anr.
Delhi District Court Cites 31 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Om Prakash vs Chandra Shekhar on 29 April, 2026

29. Lastly, counsel for the accused pleaded that according to the complainant, he intended to purchase the said flat for a total consideration amount of Rs.80,00,000/- and he paid Rs.75,00,000/- towards part payment to the accused. However, once the said transaction could not be finalised, the accused issued 04 cheques, including the subject cheque to the complainant towards the refund of the said amount. As such, the accused handed over 04 cheques of different dates to the complainant, but the same were a result of the single transaction. However, the complainant filed 04 separate complaints for dishonour of one cheque each, which were separately tried and decided by separate judgments and orders on sentence. Accordingly, the complainant was entitled to the benefit of Section 427 Cr.P.C. However, in the sentence order, the trial court awarded the CA No.57/2020 Page No.18 of 29 Om Prakash Vs. Chandra Shekhar & Anr.
Delhi District Court Cites 32 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Om Prakash vs Chandra Shekhar And Ors on 29 April, 2026

29. Lastly, counsel for the accused pleaded that according to the complainant, he intended to purchase the said flat for a total consideration amount of Rs.80,00,000/- and he paid Rs.75,00,000/- towards part payment to the accused. However, once the said transaction could not be finalised, the accused issued 04 cheques, including the subject cheque to the complainant towards the refund of the said amount. As such, the accused handed over 04 cheques of different dates to the complainant, but the same were a result of the single transaction. However, the complainant filed 04 separate complaints for dishonour of one cheque each, which were separately tried and decided by separate judgments and orders on sentence. Accordingly, the complainant was entitled to the benefit of Section 427 Cr.P.C. However, in the sentence order, the trial court awarded the CA No.59/2020 Page No.18 of 29 Om Prakash Vs. Chandra Shekhar & Anr.
Delhi District Court Cites 32 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Rishal Singh vs Bohat Ram & Ors. on 21 July, 2014

However, counsel for the respondent relied on another judgment of this Court in Om Prakash Bajaj v. Chander Shekhar (2003)1 RCR 332 wherein the Court included sons‟ family of the landlord in the meaning of dependent. The Court held that the need of any member including the son; the wife, sons‟ wife and children are to be treated as the need for the landlord. The impugned order also relied on the same judicial pronouncement to arrive at a conclusion. This Court finds such a decision to be more at par with the intent of the Act that the judicial precedent mentioned by the counsel for the tenant. The law, on this point, has evolved to extent where it is accepted position that a grandson is _______________________________________________________________________ R.C. Rev. No.495 of 2012 Page 7 of 13 included in dependents of the landlord.
Delhi High Court Cites 10 - Cited by 39 - N Waziri - Full Document

Nisar Ahmed vs Agya Pal Singh on 7 July, 2023

16.The landlord wanted his property not only for his daughters but for himself also. Assuming that accommodation was available with the respective husbands of the two daughters, surely it was not expected of the father-in-law to take assistance of his daughters and request them to make available such space through their respective husbands, for him to start a business enterprise. And why should he? The law does not require him to do so. Would it not compromise his self-respect and affect delicate family relations? Furthermore, the nature of the proposed business could be discussed/re-assessed/altered at any stage when the 3 Dhannalal vs Kalawatibai & Ors. (2002) 6 SCC 16; Jai Gopal & Ors. vs Vikas Bansal 236 (2017) DLT 382; Om Prakash Bajaj vs Chander Shekhar 102 (2003) DLT 746; and Uday Shankar Upadhyay vs Naveen Maheshwari Manu/C/1876/2009.
Delhi High Court Cites 17 - Cited by 0 - N Waziri - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 Next