OLD WORLD HOSPITALITY PRIVATE LIMITED Vs. INDIA HABITAT CENTRE
LAWS(DLH)-1996-8-29
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Decided on August 23,1996

OLD WORLD HOSPITALITY PRIVATE LIMITED Appellant
VERSUS
INDIA HABITAT CENTRE Respondents


Referred Judgements :-

HUSSEY V. HORNE-S.P.SAYNE [REFERRED]
BROGDEN V. METROPOLITAN RAILWAY CO. [REFERRED]
SUDBROOK TRADING ESTATE LTD. V. EGGLETON [REFERRED]
BOROUGH OF HOWTSLOW V. TWICKENHAM GARDEN DEVELOPIIWNTS LTD. [REFERRED]
EVANS MARSHALL F-F CO. LTD. V. BERTOLA S.A. AND ANOTHER [REFERRED]
CHIMANRAM MOTILAL V. DIVANCHAND GOVINDRAM [REFERRED]
EASTASIATIC CO. (INDIA) LTD.,BOM V. MESSRSRUGNATH TRICUMDAS [REFERRED]
DEWAN CHAND SABHARWALV. UNION OF LNDIA AND ANOTHER [REFERRED]
S.BHAGAT SINGH V. SATNAM TRANSPORT CO.LTD. AND OTHERS [REFERRED]
AMRITLAL MAGANLAL V. HARKISANDAS KAHANDAS [REFERRED]
KESHAVLAL LALLUBHAI PATEL VS. LALBHAI TRIKUMLAL MILLS LIMITED [REFERRED]
KOLLIPARA SRIRAMULU DEAD VS. T ASWATHA NARAYANA DEAD [REFERRED]
EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE U P WAREHOUSING CORPORATION VS. CHANDRA KIRAN TYAGI [REFERRED]
EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE OF VAISH DEGREE COLLEGE SHAMLI VS. LAKSHMI NARAIN [REFERRED]
GUJARAT BOTTLING COMPANY LIMITED VS. COCA COLA CO [REFERRED]
SARAL TRADING CO VS. MAHESH STEEL TRADERS NEW DELHI [REFERRED]
J K INDUSTRIES LIMITED VS. MOHAN INVESTMENT AND PROPERTIES PRIVATE LIMITED [REFERRED]
KUSUMA GUPTA VS. SARLA DEVI [REFERRED]
SATYA PRAKASH GOEL VS. RAM KRISHAN MISSION [REFERRED]
TRIVENI STRUCTURALS LTD VS. NEWAGE ENTERPRISES ALLAHABAD [REFERRED]
GOLDEN WINE AGENCIES VS. VENDELA DISTILLERIES [REFERRED]
RANJIT CHANDRA MITTER VS. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED]
H G KRISHNA REDDY AND CO VS. M M THIMMAIAH [REFERRED]
VITHOBA BHANJI VS. VITHAL SAKROO [REFERRED]
CURRIMBHOY AND CO LTD VS. L A GREET [REFERRED]
MOTHEY KRISHNA RAO VS. GRANDHI ANJANEYULU [REFERRED]
RAMANUJULU NAIDU VS. GAJARAJA AMMAL [REFERRED]



Cited Judgements :-

G D GREEN FLORA RESORTS PRIVATE LIMITED VS. KUHN RIKON ASIA PTE LIMITED [LAWS(DLH)-1999-2-74] [REFERRED [PARA 4]2.]
KSL AND INDUSTRIES LTD VS. NATIONAL TEXTILES CORPORATION LTD [LAWS(DLH)-2012-8-109] [REFERRED TO]
ASCOT HOTELS AND RESORTS PVT LTD & ANR VS. CONNAUGHT PLAZA RESTAURANTS PVT LTD [LAWS(DLH)-2018-3-307] [REFERRED TO]
SITAC PVT. LTD. VS. BANWARI LAL SONS PVT. LTD. [LAWS(DLH)-2019-7-98] [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

K.Ramamoorthy, J. - (1.)The facts of the case present a situation which can be termed as suigeneris. So far as I could look up I could not lay my hands on any case which has resemblence to this case. This case poses a challenge to Lawyers and Judges and they have to be ready to meet the demands of changing times on account of Technological and Industrial Development in all fields of human endeavour, internal and international. This case also shows how the people for the purpose of offering services to the community in a variety of ways have to depend on the general principles of Contract and Specific Relief. The ambitions, aspirations, desires and angularities and the urge to achieve better things naturally create problems in the real functioning of the systems evolved by them and the people expect the Courts to solve them so that the systems brought about by them for doing something to the Society work smoothly and peacefully and persons concerned may act accordingly to law laid down by the Courts.
(2.)I am happy to place on record my sincere appreciation of the able, incisive and effective arguments advanced by the learned Counsel for the parties. They have made a lot of research and a good deal of hard work had gone in. They put forward their respective view points with considerable skill and dexterity. I was greatly benefited by their consummate arguments. From the arguments advanced I could see that lawyers also felt the pinch, the facts posing a novel situation. They converted an insipid position into a very interesting and absorbing one. The learned Counsel for the parties argued the matter for a considerable length of time and the lengthy arguments served to fine tune the points that have arisen for consideration.
(3.)India Habitat Centre, hereinafter referred to as the 'Centre', is stated to be located in Lodhi Estate for the purpose of promoting on no profit no loss basis a Habitat Centre for Organisations drawn from various sources for the benefit of the community and there are about 35 Members in the Centre. The Centre was allotted about 9 acres of land, a very large area for this purpose and it is stated that substantial constructions have been erected, spending about Rs. 45 crores. As various offices are located in the Complex, the Centre naturally had to make arrangements for services for persons who come to the office and also the officers and employees in the various offices in the defendant Centre. The Centre by itself could not apparently mobilise enough people to offer services to persons coming to the Complex and, therefore, they thought of having an independent body to do the service activities of the Centre. With this object in view, on the 21st of December, 1992 the defendant issued public notice inviting tenaers for operation of the facilities at the defendant's Centre. This is the genesis of the present dispute.
;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.