Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
PC No. 04/15Ravi Tyagi Vs. State & Ors
08.10.2015Present: Petitioner with the counsel.
None for the respondents.
An application u/o 5 rule 20 CPC has been moved by the
petitioner for substituted service of the respondent no. 4 and 5 stating that
they could not be served through ordinary summons and the plaintiff has no
other address of respondent no. 4 and 5 except given in memo of parties.
Perusal of the record shows that earlier notice issued to the
defendant no. 4 and 5 received back with the report that ‘no such named
person resides on the given address’.
In view of above, since the petitioner is not aware of any other
address of the respondent no. 4 and 5 except given in memo of parties and
the application is supported with an affidavit of the petitioner, the
application is allowed.
Let respondent no. 4 and 5 be served by way of publication
in the newspaper ‘The Statesman’ on PF and depositing of necessary
publication charges for 08.12.2015.
(Balwant Rai Bansal) ADJ02/SE/Saket/New Delhi
08.10.2015
CS No. 415/15Indrajeet Singh Mandijawal & Ors vs. Raj Kumar & Ors
08.10.2015Present: Plaintiff with the counsel Sh. R.K. Tripathi.
None for defendant no. 1.Defendant no. 2 has not been served. Sh. Omkar Pandey, Counsel for defendant no. 3 and 4. He has filed the Vakalatnama for defendant no. 3 and 4.Sh. Ayush Gupta, Counsel for defendant no. 4.
Though the defendant no. 2 has been served through affixation,
but counsel for defendant no. 5 Sh. Ayush Gupta submits that address on
which summons has been affixed belongs to defendant no. 5 and defendant
no. 2 has nothing to do with the said address.
In view of above, it cannot be said that the defendant no. 2 has
been duly served. Let plaintiff file the fresh address of the defendant no. 2
and take appropriate steps for service of defendant no. 2.
WS filed on behalf of defendant no. 3 and 4. Copy supplied.
Defendant no. 5 has filed the WS along with an application
seeking condonation of delay in filing the WS on 15.09.2015. Copy supplied
today. Counsel for plaintiff submits that he has no objection if the WS filed
by defendant no. 5 is taken on record. In view of no objection of the counsel
for plaintiff, the delay in filing the WS is condoned and WS filed by
defendant no. 5 is taken on record.
Case is adjourned for taking steps by the plaintiff qua defendant
no. 2 for 04.12.2015.
(Balwant Rai Bansal) ADJ02/SE/Saket/New Delhi
08.10.2015
CS No. 456/15Shripal Chaudhary Vs. Shiv Charan & Anrs
08.10.2015Present: Counsel for the plaintiff.
Sh. Sanjiv Singh, Counsel for LRs of deceased defendant no. 1.
Amended memo of parties filed by the plaintiff.
Sh. Sanjiv Singh, Advocate has filed the memo of appearance
for LRs of defendant no. 1 and submits that he would file the Vakalatnama
by the next date. He further submits that he has not received the copy of
documents annexed with the plaint. Plaintiff is directed to supply the
complete set of plaint and documents to him.
Defendant no. 2 also served, but none is appearing on behalf of
defendant no. 2.
Case is adjourned for appearance of defendant no. 2, filing of
WS by the defendants and for further proceedings for 08.12.2015.
(Balwant Rai Bansal) ADJ02/SE/Saket/New Delhi
08.10.2015
CS No. 462/15Blazeguard Systems Private Limited vs. Iris Digital Security Private Limited & Ors
08.10.2015Present: Sh. Amit Kumar, Director of plaintiff company along with
counsel Sh. Umesh Joshi.
He submits that matter has been settled with the defendant and
hence he wants to withdraw the present suit as compromised/satisfied. His
statement to this effect has been recorded separately.
In view of aforesaid statement, the present suit is disposed of as
compromised/satisfied.
File be consigned to Record Room.
(Balwant Rai Bansal) ADJ02/SE/Saket/New Delhi
08.10.2015
CS No. 211/14Gulshan Kaur vs. Nitya Reddy
08.10.2015Present: Counsel for the plaintiff.
None for the defendant.
From the pleadings of the parties, following issues are framed for
adjudication:
1. Whether the defendant has trespassed the basement of the suit property?
OPP.
2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recovery of possession of the
basement of the suit property? OPP.
3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recover an amount of
Rs. 12,52,000/ towards arrears of rent for unexpired locking period?
OPP.
4. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to mesne profits, if so, at what rate and
for which period? OPP.
5. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to interest, if so, at what rate and for
which period ? OPP.
6. Relief.
No other issue arises or pressed upon.
Case is now fixed for PE for 14.12.2015. Evidence by way of affidavit along with list of witnesses be filed with advance copy to the counsel for defendant.
(Balwant Rai Bansal) ADJ02/SE/Saket/New Delhi
08.10.2015
CS No. 290/15Maharishi Valmiki Mandir vs. Parmanand Mishra & Ors
08.10.2015Present: President of the plaintiff with counsel.
Counsel for defendants along with defendant no. 2.
Admission/denial of documents is not done. From the pleadings
of the parties, following issues are framed for adjudication:
1. Whether the suit has not been properly valued? OPD.
2. Whether the suit has been filed by duly authorized person? OPP.
3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recovery of possession, as prayed
for? OPP.
4. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to damages of Rs. 90,000/, as prayed
for? OPP
5. Relief
No other issue arises or pressed upon.
At this stage, an application U/s 151 CPC is moved by defendant
no. 2 seeking permission to repair the Gumbad of the temple in question
along with SPA executed by defendant no. 1 and 3 in favour of defendant
no. 2. Same is taken on record.
It is stated in the application that Gumbad of the temple in
question is in damaged condition and same may be allowed to be repaired by
the defendants. Counsel for plaintiff states that he has no objection to the
same and plaintiff shall repair the Gumbad of the temple in question. Same is
acceptable to the counsel for defendants. Let Gumbad of the temple in
question be repaired by the plaintiff and photographs showing repair be
placed on record. Accordingly, application stands disposed of.
Case is now fixed for PE for 16.12.2015. Evidence by way of
affidavit be filed with advance copy to the counsel for defendants.
(Balwant Rai Bansal) ADJ02/SE/Saket/New Delhi
08.10.2015
CS No. 316/15Ajay Kumar Sinha vs. Union of India
08.10.2015Present: Plaintiff with the proxy counsel.
Sh. Sunil Kumar, Counsel for the defendants.
Proxy counsel for plaintiff seeks a date to file replication. Not
opposed.
Put up on 03.12.2015 for replication, admission/denial of
documents and framing of issues.
(Balwant Rai Bansal) ADJ02/SE/Saket/New Delhi
08.10.2015
CS No. 185/14Gulzar @ Chhoti Vs. Heena
08.10.2015Present: Counsel for the plaintiff along with plaintiff.
Proxy counsel for defendants no. 1 to 3.Defendant no. 4 has yet not been served. Sh. Pankaj Sharma, Counsel for defendant no. 5.
It is stated by proxy counsel for defendants no. 1 to 3 and
counsel for defendant no. 5 that they have not received the copy of
application moved by the plaintiff u/o 9 rule 9 CPC. Same is supplied to
them.
Put up on 20.11.2015 for reply and arguments on the pending
applications.
(Balwant Rai Bansal) ADJ02/SE/Saket/New Delhi
08.10.2015
CS No. 221/15Vinayak Ghare vs. M/s Raj Structure Interior Pvt Ltd.
08.10.2015Present: Plaintiff with the proxy counsel.
None for the defendants.
An application has been moved on behalf of defendants on
05.10.2015 seeking adjournment stating that counsel for defendant suffered
from Typhoid and has been advised bed rest. Not opposed on this ground.
In view of above, case is adjourned for same purpose for
17.12.2015.
(Balwant Rai Bansal) ADJ02/SE/Saket/New Delhi
08.10.2015
CS No. 265/12Govind Singh vs. Indraprastha Medical Corporation
08.10.2015Present: Sh. Vaseem Mian, Counsel for the plaintiff.
Ms. Poonam Das, Counsel for the defendant along with DW1 and DW2.
DW1 further crossexamined and discharged.
DW2 examined, crossexamined and discharged. DE stands
closed on the separate statement of the counsel for defendant.
Put up on 20.10.2015 at 2.00 PM for final arguments.
(Balwant Rai Bansal) ADJ02/SE/Saket/New Delhi
08.10.2015
CS No. 72/14Parveen Kumar Sharma vs. Kamal Sharma
08.10.2015Present: Plaintiff in person.
Defendant no. 1 in person.Proxy counsel for defendant no. 2 and 3.
No witness of defendant no. 1 is present nor any evidence by
way of affidavit is filed. Defendant no. 1 seeks adjournment to lead DE on
the ground that his counsel is unwell. Same is strongly opposed by the
plaintiff.
Defendant no. 1 had two months time to prepare evidence by
way of affidavit and advance copy of same was also to be supplied to the
plaintiff. But defendant no. 1 has not taken any such steps. However, in the
interest of justice, last opportunity is granted to the defendant no. 1 to lead
DE subject to cost of Rs. 1500/ payable to the plaintiff for 10.12.2015.
(Balwant Rai Bansal) ADJ02/SE/Saket/New Delhi
08.10.2015
CS No. 167/14Reetu Mongia vs. Sant Bir Singh
08.10.2015Present: Plaintiff with the counsel.
None for defendant.
Be awaited. (Balwant Rai Bansal)
ADJ02/SE/Saket/New Delhi
At 1.00 PMPresent: As above.
Counsel for plaintiff seeks a date to move some application.
Put up on 09.11.2015 for further proceedings.
(Balwant Rai Bansal) ADJ02/SE/Saket/New Delhi
08.10.2015
CS No. 369/15Shanti Swaroop Vs. Dalip Singh & Ors.
08.10.2015Present: Counsel for the parties.
Counsel for the plaintiff seeks a date to file reply to the
application u/o 1 rule 10 CPC.
In the interest of justice, last opportunity is granted to the
plaintiff to file reply to the application.
Case is adjourned for arguments on pending applications for
27.11.2015. Till then, interim order to continue.
(Balwant Rai Bansal) ADJ02/SE/Saket/New Delhi
08.10.2015
CS No. 269/12Anil Gupta vs. M/s Castmaster
08.10.2015Present: Counsel for the parties.
Counsel for the defendant seeks adjournment stating that he is
not prepared today to advance the final arguments. Not opposed.
Put up on 26.11.2015 for final arguments.
(Balwant Rai Bansal) ADJ02/SE/Saket/New Delhi
08.10.2015
Ex. No. 04/12H. T. Music & Entertainment Vs. Air Hostess Academy
08.10.2015Present: Proxy counsel for the DH.
He seeks a date to move an appropriate application for
conducting the sale proceedings of the attached property.
Put up on 23.11.2015 for further proceedings.
(Balwant Rai Bansal) ADJ02/SE/Saket/New Delhi
08.10.2015
Ex. No. 46/14Vinay Gugnani vs. Pannalal Rathore
08.10.2015Present: Ms. Anjali Manish, Counsel for the DH.
Ms. Ripu Adlakha, Counsel for the objectors.
Sh. Amit Saxena, Advocate is present and submits that he is
appearing for the JD and has instructions not to file any reply/objection to
the objections filed by the objectors in this case. However, he has not filed
the Vakalatnama for the JD.
JD has been served on 20.07.2015 and on last date of hearing
counsel Sh. Vikash Kumar appeared and filed the memo of appearance for
the JD and sought time to file Vakalatnama and objections on behalf of the
JD. But same has not been done. It implies that JD has nothing to say in
reply to the objections filed by the objectors.
Counsel for objectors has concluded her arguments on the
objections.
Put up on 27.11.2015 for arguments by the DH on the
objections.
(Balwant Rai Bansal) ADJ02/SE/Saket/New Delhi
08.10.2015
Ex. No. 37/15Renuka Katyal Vs. R. M. Sapan Dhawan
08.10.2015Present: Counsel for the DH.
Proxy counsel for the JD.
Proxy counsel for JD seeks adjournment on the ground that
main counsel is stuck up in some other court.
Though this is not a ground to adjourn the matter, but in the
interest of justice, last opportunity is granted to the JD to argue on the
objections for 27.11.2015.
(Balwant Rai Bansal) ADJ02/SE/Saket/New Delhi
08.10.2015
CS No. 541/15Priyanka Vs. Abhishek Bakshi & Ors.
08.10.2015Fresh suit received on assignment from the court of
Ld. District & Sessions Judge, South East District. It be checked and registered.Present: Counsel for the plaintiff.
Heard. Record perused.
Issue summons of the suit and notice of the interim application
to the defendants on PF/Speed Post for 02.11.2015.
(Balwant Rai Bansal) ADJ02/SE/Saket/New Delhi
08.10.2015
