Court : Delhi
Decided on : Dec-17-1971
Reported in : 1972RLR66
M.R.A. Ansari (1) Petitioner owns certain property in Daryagani, Delhi which is let out to tenants. For 1959-60, its rateable value was Rs. 14,500.00. For 1960-61, value was assessed at Rs. 26,061.00. Petitioner appealed against it U/S 169 but the same as dismissed. He moved High Court where it was held that although the standard rent of the property had been fixed under the Rent Control Act of 1947, it was the standard rent fixed under the Act of 1952 or of 1958 which would govern the proviso to S. 116(1) about the rateable valuation. After discussing Supreme Court decisions in Corp. of Calcutta Vs . Padma Debi : [1962]3SCR49 ; Corp. of Calcutta Vs . L.I.C. of India : [1971]1SCR249 .(2) Guntur Municipal Council v. Guntur Tax Payers Association 1970 Rcj 989 it was observed in para 5 of the judgment on wards, thus :- The principles enunciated by the Supreme Court in the above three cases were applied by a Single Bench of this Court in Mrs. Sham Kapoor v. Municipal Corporation of Delhi e...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Oct-30-1971
Reported in : ILR1972Delhi804
V.S. Deshpande, J. (1) The petition of the respondent made under section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure and under Article 227 of the Constitution was allowed by a learned Single Judge of this Court. This appeal against the said order is filed under clause 10 of the Letters Patent issued on 2t-3-1919 for the High Court of Lahore since then applicable to the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, and the High Court of Delhi. Clause 10 reads as below :- '10.And we do further ordain that an appeal shall lie to said High Court of Judicature at Lahore from the judgment (not being a judgment passed in the exercise of appellate jurisdiction in respect of a decree or order made in the exercise of appellate jurisdiction by a Court subject to the superintendence of the said High Court, and not being an order made in the exercise of revisional jurisdiction, and not being a sentence or order passed or made in the exercise oi the power of superintendence under the provision of S. 107 of the Governmen...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Sep-13-1971
Reported in : 1971RLR81
..... a reference to the rent act (of 1952) made the considerations relevant under that act applicable to rating; that act has been replaced by the act of 1958. while under the former standard rent had been statutorily fixed in certain cases, as pointed out in the division bench case to which i was a party, the same has not been statutorily fixed but it is determinable by recourse to the principles mentioned in section 6 of the rent act of 1958 which gives no discretion at all in this respect to the controller. it is worthrecalling that the division bench case, to which i was a party, arose under the punjab municipal act, 1911 read with the delhi and ajmer rent control act of 1952; the case decided ..... an application even after the period of two years if he is satisfied that the applicant was prevented by sufficient cause from filing the application in time. section 13 provides for refund of rent, premium etc. not recoverable under the act, that is to say, in cases where any sum has been paid, whether before or after the commencement of the act, in contravention of any of the provisions of the rent act, 1958 or even the earlier delhi & ajmer rent control act of 1952, which the rent act of 1958 had repealed under section 57. an application for such refund, however, could be made within a period of one year from the date of such payment; on such an application .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Aug-10-1971
Reported in : AIR1971SC2458; [1971]82ITR142(SC); (1971)3SCC583; [1972]1SCR104; 1971(III)LC756(SC)
A.N. Grover, J.1. These appeals have been brought from a judgment of the Calcutta High Court by certificate in a Wealth Tax Reference. Civil Appeal No. 1834 of 1968 is of the assessee and the other appeal has been filed by the Commissioner of Wealth Tax, West Bengal.2. It is necessary to deal with the appeal of the Commissioner of Wealth Tax as the other appeal shall also stand disposed of once the question is answered in the Commissioner's appeal. The assessee is a public limited company. In the assessment year 1948-49 the assessee revalued its assets enhancing the existing book value by Rs. 1,45,00,000/-which was credited to the capital reserve account. In assessing the wealth tax payable by the assessee for the assessment year 1957-58 the relevant valuation date being March 31, 1957 the Wealth Tax Officer proceeded under Section 7(2) of the Wealth Tax Act, hereinafter called the 'Act' and took the valuation of the assets at Rs. 5,10,40,897 as shown in the balance sheet on the releva...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Aug-05-1971
Reported in : ILR1971Delhi723
S. Rangarajan, J. (1) The petitioner. Messrs Remington Rand of India Limited, is aggrieved by the order passed by the Industrial Tribunal, Delhi (Shri R. K. Baweja) over-ruling certain preliminary objections to the industrial dispute adjudicating a reference made by then Lieutenant Governor, Delhi, by his order dated 28th March 1970 and the further corrigendum issued on , June 1970. (2) Messrs Remington Rand of India Limited (hereinafter referred to as the Company) has its registered office and head office at Calcutta; it has also a Regional office at Delhi at which the main business is the sale and service of typewriters and office equipment. There are three branches of the company at Chandigarh, Jaipur and Amritsar and two depots at Jammu and Simla. The branches and depots are under the over-all administrative control of the regional office, the day-to-day administration being looked after by the branch managers. The regional office is no doubt under the control of the head office at...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Decided on : Apr-23-1971
Reported in : (1971)2MLJ502
..... section 18-g read with section 25 of the act. the order can be questioned on any one or more of the following grounds:(1) the central government while issuing any order under section 18-g is acting as a delegated authority. the section itself contains an express limitation that is controlling and fixing the price, the price should be a fair ..... state of madras 1952) 1 m.l.j. 174, already referred to. a similar argument was advanced with regard to the provisions of the madras estates land (reduction of rent) act. 1947, on the ground that the rates of rent vary with ..... .rs.capital: preference33,35,00033,25,000equity.2,24,44,7503,50,00,000reserves.68,72,3503 ..... the secretary, ministry of industrial development and company affairs, new delhi, and (2) the cement controller, new delhi, the respondents in the writ petitions aforesaid, have preferred these appeals ..... repeal and reinvestments and not by means of a simple amendment of the concerned provision. it is a matter of familiar legislative practice that vital changes are introduced by amendment of a particular section in an act instead of repealing the old act followed by a fresh enactment. there is no warrant either in principle or on authority for making a distinction between an act ..... fixed the validity of the price fixation cannot be questioned on the ground that it acted harshly against particular stock-holders and what is important is the general effect of the impugned fixation of price, and (iii) bijai cotton mills ltd. v. state of ajmer .....
Tag this Judgment!