Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: delhi and ajmer rent control act 1952 repealed section 24 fixing of fair rate Year: 2007 Page 1 of about 2 results (0.059 seconds)

Kamal Kishore Vs. State of Rajasthan

Court : Rajasthan

Reported in : RLW2008(1)Raj192

..... ]4scr647 , while interpreting the provisions of the delhi & ajmer rent control act, 1952 and delhi rent act 1958, the majority view was that the term 'shall have regard to the provisions of this act' means the court shall have regard to the provisions of the new act which makes a provision with the non obstante clause. in that case, the non obstante clause under section 57 of the control act of 1958 while repealing the delhi and ajmer rent control act, 1952 was as follows:57(1) the delhi and ajmer rent control act, 1952, in so far as it is applicable to the union territory of delhi, is hereby repealed.(2) notwithstanding such repeal, all suits and other proceedings under the said act pending, at the commencement of this act, before any court or other authority ..... , large number of suits for increase of rent at exorbitant rate were filed and likewise the provisional rent under section 7 of the old act was also fixed at abnormal high rates. whereas in the new act, the premises which were let out prior to 1.1.1950 have been treated to have been let out on that day and an annual increase of 5% has been provided which is revisable after every ten years. this is a just, reasonable & fair criteria & to put check on monopoly by landlords in increasing rent.19. learned counsel has .....

Chandrakant Amratlal Parekh Vs. Adjudicating Officer,

Court : SEBI Securities and Exchange Board of India or Securities Appellate Tribunal SAT

1. Whether an appeal lies against the communication dated January 22, 2007 sent by the adjudicating officer to the appellant informing the latter his decision to continue with the enquiry under Rule 4(3) of the Securities and Exchange Board of India (Procedure for Holding Inquiry and Imposing Penalties by Adjudicating Officer) Rules, 1995 (hereinafter called the Rules) is the question which arises for our consideration in this appeal. Facts giving rise to this appeal which lie in a narrow compass are these: 2. The Securities and Exchange Board of India (for short the Board) ordered investigations in respect of the irregularities allegedly committed in the Initial Public Offerings (IPOs) during the years 2003 to 2005. The investigation report revealed that a large number of intermediaries and others including the appellant had committed serious irregularities in the IPOs during the relevant period. On the basis of the report, the Board decided to initiate proceedings against the appell...

Fantacy Sales Corporation Vs. Sales Tax Inspector and ors.

Court : Kerala

Reported in : [2007]8STT33; (2007)7VST323(Ker)

K. Balakrishnan Nair J.1. The constitutional validity of Sub-section (16A) of Section 47 of the Kerala Value Added Tax Act, 2003 and the sustainability of two circulars issued by the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes under the said provision are the points, that arise for decision in these writ petitions. Since same points arise for decision in all these writ petitions, they are heard and disposed of by this common judgment. W.P. (C) No. 2844 of 2007 is treated as the main case.W.P. (C) No. 2844 of 2007:2. The petitioner, which is a firm, is a dealer in glass sheets. It is an asses-see on the files of the third respondent, Sales Tax Officer, Manjeri, under the Kerala Value Added Tax Act, 2003 (hereinafter referred to as 'the KVAT Act') and the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956. The fourth respondent, Commissioner of Commercial Taxes issued Circular No. 50 of 2006, in exercise of his powers under Clause (c) of Sub-section (2) of Section 3 read with Sub-section (16A) of Section 47 of the KVAT A...

Sempra Metals Limited (formerly Metallgesellschaft Limited) (Responden ...

Court : House of Lords

LORD HOPE OF CRAIGHEAD My Lords, 1. This is a case about the award of interest. Questions about interest usually arise where the claim is presented as ancillary to a claim for a principal sum for which the court is asked to give judgment for the recovery of a debt or as damages. Less usually they can arise where interest is sought on a principal sum which has been paid before judgment. But in this case interest is the measure of the principal sum itself. 2. The question is how that sum should be measured. It is agreed that the calculation of interest should be the method of measurement for the sum that is to be awarded. But the parties are at issue as to how the interest should be calculated. The choice is between simple interest and compound interest. If simple interest is used, it is agreed that it should be at the rate that is appropriate for the calculation of an award of interest under the statute. If compound interest is used, various methods of calculation are available and the...