Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Sep-06-1996
Reported in : 1997(4)ALLMR50; (1997)99BOMLR425
F.I. Rebello, J.1. The present appellants are the heirs of the original defendant and the present respondents are the heirs of the original plaintiffs. The original plaintiffs filed a suit against the original defendant being Civil Suit No. 30/69 before the Court of the Civil Judge S.D., Panaji. The suit was filed under Decree No. 43525 of the Portuguese Rent Legislation then applicable to the area where the suit house was situated. The cause of action insofar as the Plaintiffs were concerned was that the Defendant had failed to deposit the rent reserved and further the rent had also not been paid on time. The original Plaintiffs in paragraph 14 of the plaint claimed an amount of Rs. 8,665.32 on various counts as arrears of rent. The original Defendant contested the claim of the Plaintiffs. The Defendant contended that there was another proceeding between the parties which was disposed by judgment and decree dated 22.12.63 by making some observations. The said observations though plead...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Decided on : Dec-02-1996
Reported in : (1997)115PLR536
V.S. Aggarwal, J.1. Petitioner (Harbilas Rai Bansal) is owner and landlord of a shop situated in Mandi Giddarbaha, Ward No. 4, Old Subzi Mandi. Respondent No. 2 Avtar Krishan Arora is a tenant in the said premises. On 11.10.1949 Rent Controller, Muktsar is alleged to have fixed the fair rent of the said premises at Rs. 12/- per month keeping in view (he rates of rent prevalent in the locality for similar shops under similar circumstances for the year 1938. By virtue of the present petition the petitioner challenges the vires of Section 4 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (for short 'the Act') to be violative of Articles 14 and 19 of the Constitution of India because as per the petitioner it restricts his rights to increase the rent despite there being a normal increase in the rent prevalent in the locality for similar shops.2. Needless to say that in the reply filed respondent No. 2 contests the assertions in law alleged by the petitioner. There is no controversy abou...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Decided on : Dec-17-1996
Reported in : (1998)1GLR519
K.R. Vyas, J.1. The appellant-plaintiffs have filed the present appeal against the judgment and order dated 28-6-1995 passed by the learned City Civil Judge, Court No. 22, Ahmedabad in Civil Suit No. 1969 of 1990, whereby the suit filed by the appellants was dismissed.2. The first appellant is a proprietary concern and the second appellant is its sole proprietor. In the suit filed by the appellants, number of reliefs were prayed. However, to summarise the same in nutshell, the appellants filed the said suit for a declaration that the respondent-defendants are not entitled to disconnect the telephone connections held by the appellant-plaintiffs and for a direction to restore and/or reconnect the telephones of the appellants.3. It is the case of the appellants that they were subscribers of two telephone connections one at the factory being No. 811585 and another at the residence being No. 39514. Telephone No. 811585 was disconnected with effect from 25-11-1985 for non-payment of the two ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Jul-04-1996
Reported in : 1997CriLJ1210; 1996(38)DRJ219
Usha Mehra, J. (1) Railway gave a contract for running the book stall at New Delhi Railway Station to M/s Gulab Singh & Sons (hereinafter called the Firm). The said contract was renewed from 1st January,1976 up to 31st Dccember,1984. Since its services were not found satisfactory hence the license was not renewed thereafter. Firm filed a Writ Petition and sought stay. The same was dismissed by this Court on 11th March,1987. Against that order, the Firm filed Special Leave Petition , the same was also dismissed on 6th May,1987. The Supreme Court, however, while dismissing the Special Leave Petition granted time till 31st May,1988 to the Firm to wind up the business on an undertaking to be given by the Firm that thereafter it will surrender the possession of the book stall to the Railway Authorities. One Mr.Vijay Kumar Malhotra was an employee of the Firm. He filed a Writ Petition in Supreme Court challenging the order of Railway Administration and asserting his right on the Book Stall. ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Dec-19-1996
Reported in : AIR1997SC2847; JT1997(1)SC40; 1996(9)SCALE613; (1997)7SCC339; [1996]Supp10SCR472
..... delhi is concerned, the parliament placed certain additional fetters referred to in section 26.7. it is stated that in the year 1952, a legislature was created for delhi which functioned upto november 1,1956 when the government of part 'c' states act, 1951 was repealed by section 130 of the states' reorganisation act, 1956. while repealing the government of part 'c' states act, 1951, the states' reorganisation act ..... control over the fixing and charging of the taxes, these taxes cannot be regarded as part of 'union taxation'. he then took us through the relevant provisions of the act, the new delhi municipal corporation act, 1994 and the delhi municipal corporation act, 1957 to indicate that each of these bodies has been vested with wide powers of fixing the rates ..... 's provinces-delhi, ajmer and coorg and some ..... regulation of home accommodation (including the control of rents) in such areas') and ..... case (supra), at p. 24, the court rejected the contention of ..... act upon those properties of state governments which are being occupied for commercial or trade purposes.158. at the outset, we must express our great reluctance to deal with this proposition, for it is not based on any contention advanced by any of the counsel who appeared before us, either in their written pleadings or in their oral submissions. this is not because we feel constrained to restrict ourselves to the parameters prescribed by the submissions of counsel, but because we feel that the opposite side did not have a fair .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Dec-19-1996
Reported in : 2002(83)ECC85; 1997(89)ELT247(SC); JT1996(11)SC283; 1996(9)SCALE457; (1997)5SCC536; [1996]Supp10SCR585; [1998]111STC467(SC)
B.P. Jeevan Reddy, J.1. Significant questions concerning the refund of Excise and Customs duties collected contrary to law - in all its shades - arise for consideration in these appeals and writ petitions. They involve the correctness of certain earlier decisions of this Court, concept of unjust enrichment, interpretation of Article 265 of the Constitution of India and of the provisions of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 and the Customs Act et al. As far back as August 14, 1984, Civil Appeal No. 1794 of 1984 and the connected special leave petitions were referred to a Bench of seven Judges by a Bench of two learned Judges, since the referring Bench doubted the correctness of the five-Judge Bench decision in Sales Tax Officer, Benaras and Ors. v. Kanhaiyalal Mukundlal Saraf : [1959]1SCR1350 . When the matter came up before a seven-Judge Bench, it was brought to our notice that a seven-Judge Bench has followed the decision in Kanhaiyalal in State of Kerala v. Aluminium Industries ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Decided on : Mar-22-1996
Reported in : AIR1996All375
ORDERA.P. Misra, J.1. A Divisional Bench has referred for reconsideration, a decision of earlier Division Bench in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 1190 of 1994 (Kamla Palace v. Stale of U. P.) decided on 10th July, 1995, in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in : [1995]1SCR256 (State of Bihar v. Sachidanand Kumar Prasad Sinha). In Kamla Palace (supra) this Court held proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 3-A of the Uttar Pradesh Entertainment & Betting Tax Act, 1979 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') and the Government Orders issued thereunder as ultra vires.2. Short facts are, Uttar Pradesh Legislature by way of Uttar Pradesh Entertainment & Betting Tax (Amendment) Act, 1992 (U.P. Act No. 14 of 1992), published on 11th April, 1992, introduced amendment in Section 3-A of the Act, which authorised the proprietor of a Cinema to realise an extra charge of twenty-five paise per ticket for admission to be utilised for maintenance of the cinema premises. But by proviso excluded the ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Decided on : Dec-19-1996
Reported in : (1997)1UPLBEC594
B.M. Lal, B. Kumar and M. Katju, JJ.1. For the reasons recorded separately this court unanimously holds that the impugned Presidential Proclamation dated 17-10-1996 reimposing Presidential Rule under Article 356 of the Constitution of India in the State of Utter Pradesh subsequently approved by the Parliament is unconstitutional, issued in colourable excercise of powers and is based on wholly irrelevant and extraneous grounds and therefore, cannot be allowed to stand, consequently the same is hereby quashed.2. However, to avoid any constitutional dead-lock or crisis resultant to the quashing of aforesaid Proclamation, we direct, by applying the doctrine of prospective overruling, that this judgment shall come into operation with effect from 26-12-1996.B.M. Lal, J.1. The judgment delivered in Writ Petition Mo. 3129 (MB) of 1996, shall govern disposal of all the six writ petitions filed in the shape of Public Interest Litigation challenging the constitutional validity of the Proclamation...
Tag this Judgment!