Court : Delhi
Decided on : Jan-18-2002
Reported in : 2002IIAD(Delhi)261; 95(2002)DLT508; 2002(61)DRJ457; 2002RLR149
Anil Dev Singh, J. 1. This is a writ petition whereby the petitioner primarilychallenges the provisions of Sections 4, 6, 9 of Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 beingviolative of Articles 14, 19(1)(g) and 21 of the Constitution of India. The petitioneralso seeks a direction to the first respondent to rationalise the provisions of DelhiRent Control Act so that the petitioner is assured of receiving reasonable rent for hisproperties let out to the tenants. 2. The petitioner is the owner of a building bearing No. 40-42, Janpath, New Delhi. It is claimed that the said building was completed in the year 1938 at a cost of Rs. 2,50,362.50 and the same was let out to various tenants about 40-50 year ack. The grievance of the petitioner is that under the provisions of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 the rent is pegged at a very low level which is highly unjust, unfair and unreasonable. The petitioner claims that his rights under Articles 14, 19(1)(g) and 21of the Constitution have been abridged by ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Apr-05-2002
Reported in : ILR2002KAR2304; 2003(3)KarLJ505
ORDERR.V. Raveendran, J.1. Respondents 1 to 6 were the petitioners and petitioners 1 and 2 were respondents 1(1) and 1(5) in HRC No. 10568 of 1994, on the file of the Court of Small Causes, Bangalore. Respondents 7 to 13 herein were the respondents 1(2), 1(3), 1(4), 1(7), 1(8), 1(9) and 1(10) respectively in the said eviction petition. For convenience, respondents 1 to 6 will be referred to as 'landlords' and the petitioners 1 and 2 and respondents 7 to 13 will together be referred as 'tenants'.2. The said eviction petition was filed by the landlords against the tenants (the L.Rs of A. Rajagopal who was running Mercury Press in the petition schedule premises) under Section 21(1) proviso (h) of the Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961 (for short, the 'old HRC Act' or 'old Act'). The petition schedule premises is a non-residential premises, measuring more than 14 sq. nits. The said petition was allowed by order dated 17-11-2001 under proviso (h) to Section 21(1) of the said Act. Feeling aggr...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Jun-14-2002
Reported in : 2002(6)BomCR29; (2002)4BOMLR41; 2002(4)MhLj568
V.C. Daga, J. 1. This appeal arises from the Judgment and Decreeof the Addl. District Judge, Mapusa in Regular CivilAppeal No.64/1990 dated 31.1.1996, reversing the Judgmentand Decree passed by the Civil Judge, Sr. Division, atPanaji in Civil Suit No.35/80/C dated 28.9.1990, whereinthe suit for eviction has been found to be notmaintainable, in view of the extension of Rent ControlLegislation to the area in which the suit building issituated.FACTUAL BACKGROUND 2. The factual background of the case can bestated quite shortly.3. The original plaintiff, late Shri DattatrayaWalaulikar vide Agreement dated 2.8.1971 had allowed oneVasudeo Dhempe to use western half portion of the housesituated in Village of Nerul, Bardez, Goa on monthlypayment of Rs.25/- for a period of 36 months on the leaveand licence basis.4. The original licensee, said Shri VasudeoDhempe left for heavenly abode on 2.7.1972. The presentdefendants continued to use and occupy the said house ashis heirs and successors. The de...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Decided on : Dec-04-2002
Reported in : 2003(1)ALD99; 2003(2)ALT707; 2003CriLJ1360
Ar. Lakshmanan, C.J.1. Whether the policy decision taken by the Commissioner of Police, Hyderabad alleged to be in exercise of the provisions of the Hyderabad City Police Act, 1348-F and the Rules made thereunder not to grant or renew any amusement licences to the Bars and Restaurants to conduct singing, music and dance programmes from 25.2.2002 other than Four Star and Five Star Hotels and affirmed by the State of Andhra Pradesh would amount to unreasonable restriction offending the provisions of Article 19(1)(g) and Article 14 of the Constitution of India is the principal question that arises for consideration in these batch of writ petitions filed by various Bars and Restaurants of the Twin Cities of Hyderabad and Secunderabad. 2. In Government of A.P. v. Sri Baldev Sondli. 1975 (2) An.WR 175, a Division Bench of this Court has dealt with a somewhat similar issue involved herein. There the Commissioner of Police rejected the request of a hotel for issue of a place permit for conduct...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on : Dec-24-2002
Reported in : (2003)(160)ELT609TriDel
1. This appeal has been filed by the appellants against the impugned order-in-original dated 2-3-2001 vide which the Commissioner of Central Excise has confirmed the duty, imposed penalties on them and disallowed Modvat credit of various amounts as detailed therein, to them.The facts leading to the filing of the present appeal may briefly be stated as under : 2. On receipt of an intelligence that the appellants were manufacturing and clandestinely clearing video cassettes and TV video games and cartridges without payment of duty, Central Excise officers carried out search of their premises and also of their dealers/distributors on 12-12-91. On conducting physical stock verification of finished excisable goods and goods in respect of Modvat credit was availed, the same were found in excess or short vis-a-vis recorded balance in the statutory records. The unaccounted goods found were 7281 video cassettes involving Central Excise duty of Rs. 4,28,486.85 and the same were seized. It also ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Jan-29-2002
Reported in : 2002(3)ALLMR124; 2002(3)BomCR655
D.B. Bhosale, J.1. The petitioner, by means of this writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeks direction or order calling upon the respondents to forthwith hand over quite, vacant and peaceful possession of the flats referred to in Exhibit-I to the petition. The petitioner has also sought a declaration that the provisions of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, the Bombay Land Requisition Act and the Bombay Government Premises (Eviction) (Amendment) Act, 1996 (the Maharashtra Act XVI of 1997) and/or the Ordinance dated 25th December, 1997, published in the Maharashtra Government Gazette, Extraordinary dated 26th December, 1997, are ultra vires unconstitutional and violative of fundamental rights of the petitioner guaranteed under the Constitution of India. Though the petitioner has prayed for the declaration of the aforesaid provisions unconstitutional, the learned Counsel for the petitioner did not press this prayer. However, we m...
Tag this Judgment!