do retrieved.asp(4)

IN THE COURT OF SH. AMAR NATH: DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE: NEW DELHI

ARB no. 1106/13

HDFC Bank Ltd. Vs. Rajiv Ranjan

31.03.2015

Present: Shri Harsh Sinha, Ld. Counsel for the petitioner.

Ld. Counsel for the petitioner states that award with regard to the

agreement no. 13545231 dated 21.08.2008 has been passed. He wishes to

make the statement. Let his statement be recorded.

( AMAR NATH ) District & Sessions Judge

New Delhi/31.03.2015

Statement of Shri Harsh Sinha, Advocate for the petitioner company, Enrl. No. D-1477/04.

On S.A.

I have instructions to make the statement being the counsel for the

petitioner. As per instructions, I state that the petitioner does not wish to

continue with this arbitration petition as an award has already been passed by

the Ld. Arbitrator. Order dated 18.04.2013 be merged with the Arbitral Award as

referred to above. My statement shall be bound upon the petitioner as the same

has been made under its instructions.

RO&AC ( AMAR NATH ) District & Sessions Judge


-2-

Order

I have perused the statement made by the counsel for the petitioner

company. Order dated 18.04.2013 for repossessing the vehicle make MARUTI

WAGON R LX bearing Registration No. UP14AR5452 by appointing the receiver

is merged with the arbitral award. Award has been passed in view of the order

dt. 18.04.2013 u/s 9 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996. Petitioner is at

liberty to deal with the vehicle in terms of the award. Nothing remains to be

survived. File be consigned to record room. Copy of order be given dasti as

prayed for.




ARB no. 1104/13

HDFC Bank Ltd. Vs. Aman Khan

31.03.2015








On S.A.









-2-

Order



ALTO VXI K-10 bearing Registration No. UP14BM6936 by appointing the receiver





prayed for.




ARB no. 1112/13

HDFC Bank Ltd. Vs. Alim Khan

31.03.2015








On S.A.









-2-

Order



WAGON R LXI bearing Registration No. UP16T0379 by appointing the receiver is

merged with the arbitral award. Award has been passed in view of the order dt.

30.03.2013 u/s 9 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996. Petitioner is at liberty

to deal with the vehicle in terms of the award. Nothing remains to be survived.

File be consigned to record room. Copy of order be given dasti as prayed for.




ARB no. 1109/13

HDFC Bank Ltd. Vs. TRIPURARI MISHRA

31.03.2015








On S.A.









-2-

Order


company. Order dated 18.04.2013 for repossessing the vehicle make WAGON R

LXI CNG bearing Registration No. UP16AC9222 by appointing the receiver is








ARB no. 1103/13

HDFC Bank Ltd. Vs. Virender Kumar

31.03.2015








On S.A.









-2-

Order


company. Order dated 18.04.2013 for repossessing the vehicle make HYUNDAI

SANTRO XING GLS bearing Registration No. HR26BK8182 by appointing the

receiver is merged with the arbitral award. Award has been passed in view of

the order dt. 18.04.2013 u/s 9 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996.

Petitioner is at liberty to deal with the vehicle in terms of the award. Nothing

remains to be survived. File be consigned to record room. Copy of order be

given dasti as prayed for.




ARB no. 1111/13

HDFC Bank Ltd. Vs. Ashima Goyal

31.03.2015








On S.A.









-2-

Order


company. Order dated 30.03.2013 for repossessing the vehicle make HYUNDAI

I-10 SPORTZ bearing Registration No. HR29Z5969 by appointing the receiver is








ARB no. 1115/13

HDFC Bank Ltd. Vs. Ajay Kumar

31.03.2015








On S.A.









-2-

Order



ZEN ESTILO LXI bearing Registration No. UP14AQ7489 by appointing the

receiver is merged with the arbitral award. Award has been passed in view of

the order dt. 18.04.2013 u/s 9 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996.

Petitioner is at liberty to deal with the vehicle in terms of the award. Nothing

remains to be survived. File be consigned to record room. Copy of order be

given dasti as prayed for.




ARB no. 1105/13

HDFC Bank Ltd. Vs. Subhodh Kumar Sharma

31.03.2015








On S.A.









-2-

Order



WAGON R VXI bearing Registration No. UP14AV2703 by appointing the receiver





prayed for.




ARB no. 1108/13

HDFC Bank Ltd. Vs. Amit Kumar

31.03.2015








On S.A.









-2-

Order



WAGON R LXI bearing Registration No. HR51AJ2363 by appointing the receiver





prayed for.



IN THE COURT OF SHRI AMAR NATH : DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE: NEW DELHI

RCT No. 38/14

M/s Ivory Mart Vs. Ankur Kathuria

31.03.2015

Present : Sh. G.P. Theraja, Sr. Advocate with Sh. Vijay Zaveri, Ld Counsel

for the petitioner.

Sh. Gaurav Seth, Ld. Counsel for the respondent.

By this order, I shall decide the application moved under section 40

of the Delhi Rent Control Act r/w section 151 CPC by M/s Ivory Mart seeking

modification of the order dated 16.02.2015 vide which the appeal bearing no.

38/2014 was disposed of with the modification of paragraph 8 of the impugned

order dated 29.10.2014.

Ld. Counsel for the appellant states that there is no dispute about

the existence of relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties though

the dispute may pertains to some other issue/ground provides under section

14(1)(a) to (j) of the Delhi Rent Control Act. The appellant had never recognized

or accepted the respondent as owner or landlord of the premises nor had ever

paid any rent or attorned to the respondent as such, the relationship of landlord

and tenant between the parties was disputed. He further states that no order

could have been passed under provisions of section 15(2) of the DRC Act, infact

order ought to have been passed under the provisions of section 15(4) of DRC

Act which provides for deposit of rent with the Court only instead of being

deposited with the landlord. This Court disposed of the appeal, however, due to

inadvertence the impugned order sought to be modified was not modified to its

intend and only word tender was substituted with deposit. The aforesaid

discrepancy came to the knowledge of the appellant on 04.03.2015 when he

:: 2 ::

received the copy of the order and as such, the application was immediately

moved. The counsel for the appellant has relied upon the judgment titled as Ajit

Kumar Vs. Surinder Kumar & Sons, 1998 (46) DRJ wherein it has been held as

under:

Section 15(1) & 15(4)- Deposit of arrears of rent- Disputed

ownership- The Rent controller has jurisdiction to direct the

tenant to deposit the amount with it which shall be payable

after the determination of status of the party.

Notice of the application was given to the non applicant/respondent

who did not wish to file any reply, however, opposes the application verbally

submitting that the application is not maintainable in the present form as the

order dated 16.02.2015 does not suffer from any infirmity.

Heard. Ld. Counsel for the appellant states that no order could have

been passed under the provisions of section 15(1) of DRC Act because title

dispute with regard to the tenanted premises is pending adjudication before the

Hon'ble High Court of Delhi. He further states that the Ld. Trial Court ought to

have passed the order under section 15(4) of the Act. During the course of

arguments of the appeal preferred against the impugned order dated 29.10.2014,

Ld. Counsel for the respondent/landlord fairly conceded that the word tender be

substituted with the word deposit. Accordingly, the order dated 16.02.2015

passed. But due to some typographical error in the first line of the modified

paragraph 8, the word tender could not be substituted with the word deposit

and the same requires correction and therefore, I find no reason to decline the

prayer made in the application.

:: 3 ::

In so far the deposit of rent with the petitioner is concerned, I am to

state that the same also suffers infirmity simply for the reason that this is

admitted fact of the parties that the title dispute of the tenanted premises is

pending adjudication in FAO before the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi. It can be

well stated that this Court cannot decide, at this stage, as to who has right to

recover rent of the premises in question. The safer course would be that if the

tenant is directed to deposit the rent in the court instead of with the petitioner and

as such, paragraph 8 to that extent also requires modification. Now the modified

paragraph 8 shall be read as under:-

I hereby order respondent to deposit Rs. 416.50/- as legally recoverable rent, payable per month, for the time period from 16.05.2011 till 15.02.2014. In addition to that respondent is further directed to deposit the said rent , consequent to15.02.2014 till date in the Court and is directed to deposit future rent by 15th day of each calender month.

After applying the ratio of judgment Ajeet Kumar (Supra), order

dated 16.02.2015 is modified to that extent only and remaining terms and

conditions shall remain the same. This order of modification shall remain as the

part and parcel of the order dated 16.02.2015 vide which the appeal bearing no.

38/15 was disposed of. No order as to costs. Application stands disposed of

accordingly. A copy of this order be sent to the trial Court and thereafter appeal

file be consigned to record room.




CS No. 7/15

Gurmeet Singh Bindra Vs. Sajjivve Trehaan

31.03.2015

Present : Sh. Sandeep Kumar Dagar, proxy counsel for the petitioner.

Summons sent to the defendant through registered post as well as

by ordinary manner received back as unserved with the respective remarks no

such person by that name and not residing at the given address.

Issue fresh notice to the defendant on taking steps within a week by

filing PF/RC/approved courier, returnable on 19.05.2015.




CS No. 24/15

M/s Phoenix ARC Pvt. Ltd Vs. Surinder Sood

31.03.2015

Present : Sh. Bali Ram Dwivedi, Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff.

Some more time is sought to make the deficiency of the court fee

good. Let him to do so on or before the next date of hearing.

Put up on 07.04.2015 for compliance.




PPA No. 26/14

Neelam Thakur Vs. Director of Estates

31.03.2015

Present : Neither the appellant nor her counsel is present.

Be awaited.



At 12 noonPresent : As above.

Be awaited.



At 3 pmPresent : As before.

Nobody has appeared on behalf of the appellant since morning

despite repeated calls. It is noteworthy that the appellant has been absenting

herself from proceedings since last date of hearing meaning thereby the

appellant has left the interest in the proceedings of this case and hence, the

petition is dismissed in default for want of non-appearance. File be consigned to

the record room. TCR file be sent back with the copy of this order.




ARB No. 721/14

TATA Capital Financial Services Vs. Jai Singh & Anr.

31.03.2015

Present : Sh. Varun Bedi, Regional Legal Manager/AR on behalf of the

petitioner.

Respondent in person with counsel Sh. Bharat Bhusan.

One last and final opportunity is sought by the respondent to bring

the money in an account for settlement.

Put up on 15.04.2015 for further proceedings.




ARB No. 2518/13, 2338/13, 2155/13 and 2517/13

HDFC Bank Vs.

31.03.2015

Present : None for the petitioner.

Be awaited.



At 12 noon

Present : As above.

Be awaited.



At 2.30 pm

Present : As above.

Nobody has appeared on behalf of the petitioner since morning

despite repeated calls. In the interest of justice, the matter stands adjourned to

23.05.2015.




ARB No. 1129/14, 1130/14 & 1142/14

Bussan Auto Finance India Vs.

31.03.2015

Present : None for the petitioner.

Be awaited.



At 12 noon

Present : As above.

Be awaited.



At 2.30 pm

Present : Sh. Surender Tyagi, Ld. Counsel for the petitioner.

At request, the matter stands adjourned to 17.04.2015.




ARB.234/15 HDFC Bank Ltd v Mithlesh Kumar31.3.2015

Present : Sh.Harsh Sinha, Ld. Counsel for the petitioner.

Ld. Counsel for the petitioner states that the arbitration proceedings have been initiated against the respondent vide letter dated 27.2.2015 but no award has been passed as yet.

Notice of this application be issued to the respondent on taking steps within three days by filing PF/RC returnable on 22.5.2015.

An application U/s 151 CPC seeking interim relief in the nature of appointment appointment of the receiver Sh.Deepak Negi with the directions to take possession of vehicle make Maruti Swift Dzire LDI bearing Registration no.DL6CL5257 Chasis no.MA3FSEB1S00437986 Engine No.D13A1765937 from the respondent, his agents or any other person found to be in possession of the said vehicle. To support his contention, Ld. Counsel has placed reliance on judgments titled as L&T Finance Ltd. V/s. Shree Shubh Laxmi & Anr. in OMP No.1176/14 decided on 26.09.2014 and L&T Finance Ltd. V/s. Sarwan Ram Manda & Ors. in OMP No.22/2015 decided on 06.01.2015.

It is stated that the respondent approached the petitioner with request to raise a loan for the purpose of purchasing the aforesaid vehicle. An amount of Rs.405393/- was disbursed in favour of the respondent and the respondent executed Loan-Cum-Hypothecation-Cum-Guarantee Agreement. Delivery of the said vehicle was given to him. As per terms and conditions of the loan, the time was the essence of the agreement and the respondent was bound to repay the said loan amount along with interest within the time schedule. In case of default, he is bound to pay overdue interest and other charges.

Respondent has failed to repay the loan amount as per the schedule and thus guilty of having committed defaults. Respondent did not repay the loan despite various demands raised from time to time and as such legal notice was served upon the respondent thereby terminating the facility of loan extended to respondent. A Sum of Rs.201009/- is still due and outstanding against the respondent.

Heard. Sh. Deepak Negi is hereby appointed as receiver with the direction to take possession of aforesaid vehicle from the respondent, his agents or any other person found to be in possession of the said vehicle. He may seek the police aid, if so requires. Dasti.

To come up on 22.5.2015. ( AMAR NATH )

District & Sessions Judge New Delhi/31.3.2015


ARB.243/15 Tata Capital Financial Services Ltd. V Prakash Garg

31.3.2015 Fresh petition filed. It be checked and registered.

Present : Sh.S.P.Rana, Ld. Counsel for the petitioner.



An application U/s 151 CPC seeking interim relief in the nature of appointment appointment of the receiver Sh.Vikas Bharti with the directions to take possession of vehicle make SWIFT DZIRE LDI bearing Registration no.UP14CL0406 Engine No.D13A2436762 Chassis no.MA3FJEB1S00598516 from the respondent, his agents or any other person found to be in possession of the said vehicle. To support his contention, Ld. Counsel has placed reliance on judgments titled as L&T Finance Ltd. V/s. Shree Shubh Laxmi & Anr. in OMP No.1176/14 decided on 26.09.2014 and L&T Finance Ltd. V/s. Sarwan Ram Manda & Ors. in OMP No.22/2015 decided on 06.01.2015.


Respondent has failed to repay the loan amount as per the schedule and thus guilty of having committed defaults. Respondent did not repay the loan despite various demands raised from time to time and as such legal notice was served upon the respondent thereby terminating the facility of loan extended to respondent. A Sum of Rs.79729.79/- is still due and outstanding against the respondent.

Heard. Sh. Vikas Bharti is hereby appointed as receiver with the direction to take possession of aforesaid vehicle from the respondent, his agents or any other person found to be in possession of the said vehicle. He may seek the police aid, if so requires. Dasti.




ARB.235/15 Tata Capital Financial Services Ltd. V Amarjit Singh


Present : Sh.S.P.Rana, Ld. Counsel for the petitioner.



An application U/s 151 CPC seeking interim relief in the nature of appointment appointment of the receiver Sh.Vikas Bharti with the directions to take possession of vehicle make NISSAN EV ALIA bearing Registration no.DL12C7769 Engine No.E001758 from the respondent, his agents or any other person found to be in possession of the said vehicle. To support his contention, Ld. Counsel has placed reliance on judgments titled as L&T Finance Ltd. V/s. Shree Shubh Laxmi & Anr. in OMP No.1176/14 decided on 26.09.2014 and L&T Finance Ltd. V/s. Sarwan Ram Manda & Ors. in OMP No.22/2015 decided on 06.01.2015.


Respondent has failed to repay the loan amount as per the schedule and thus guilty of having committed defaults. Respondent did not repay the loan despite various demands raised from time to time and as such legal notice was served upon the respondent thereby terminating the facility of loan extended to respondent. A Sum of Rs.463860/- is still due and outstanding against the respondent.

Heard. Sh. Vikas Bharti is hereby appointed as receiver with the direction to take possession of aforesaid vehicle from the respondent, his agents or any other person found to be in possession of the said vehicle. He may seek the police aid, if so requires. Dasti.




ARB.236/15,237/15,238/15,239/15,240/15,241/15,242/15


Present : Sh.S.K.Sharma counsel for petitioner.

He seeks time to advance arguments.

To come up for consideration on 6.4.2015.




ARB.233/15 Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd. Vs Hasir Mohammad


Present : Sh.Ajeet Singh counsel for petitioner.

He seeks time to advance arguments.

To come up for consideration on 1.4.2015.




TP(crl.) 87/14Asha Sharma v Rajpal Sharma & Anr.

31.3.2015

Present : Sh.D.B.Ray counsel for the petitioner.

Dr.Vimal Verma counsel for respondent.

Comments of the Ld.Judge has not been received as yet. Let the

comments be called. Necessary letter be written accordingly.

Put up on 17.4.2015.




ARCT 20/13Mrs.Kiran Seoine & Ors vs Raj Kumar Sharma & Ors

31.3.2015

Present : Sh.Amit Sethi counsel for appellant. POA filed.

Respondent no.1 in person.

Sh.N.C.Gupta counsel for respondent no.2.

Arguments heard in part.

Put up for further arguments on 30.5.2015.




ARCT 10/14Sheela Devi vs Subhey Singh @ Sube Singh

31.3.2015

Present : None for appellant.Respondent in person.Neither the appellant nor her counsel is present.Be awaited.


New Delhi/31.03.2015At 12pm

31.3.2015

Present : As before.Neither the appellant nor her counsel is present.Be awaited.


New Delhi/31.03.2015At 1pm

31.3.2015

Present : Sh.Nafe Singh proxy counsel for Sh.Q.H.Khan counsel for

appellant.

Sh.Rajkumar Chandiwal counsel for respondent.

One last and final opportunity sought to advance argument.

To come up on 27.5.2015 for arguments.




MCD Appl.3/14LGF Occupants Association vs NDMC31.3.2015

Present : Sh.Sh.Vishwender Verma counsel for appellant.

Sh.Ikrant Sharma counsel for NDMC.

Arguments concluded on behalf of appellant.

Arguments advanced in part on behalf of NDMC.

Counsel for NDMC seeks time to make further submission.

To come up for argument on 21.5.2015.



31.3.2015Fresh petition filed. It be checked and registered.

do retrieved.asp(4)

Documents

petitioner company

petitioner states

arbitral award

statement of shri harsh

order dt

new delhiarb

court of

arbitration petition