Skip to content


Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: delhi and ajmer rent control act 1952 repealed section 28 recovery of possession by manager of a hotel or the owner of a lodging house Sorted by: old Year: 2019 Page 1 of about 1 results (0.230 seconds)

Feb 12 2019 (SC)

International Spirits and Wines Association of India Vs. The State of ...

Court : Supreme Court of India

Decided on : Feb-12-2019

REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL No.9533 OF2018INTERNATIONAL SPIRITS AND WINES ASSOCIATION OF INDIA ....APPELLANT(S) STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS ...RESPONDENT(S) VERSUS JUDGMENT NAVIN SINHA, J.The appellant having been unsuccessful in its challenge to Rule 24(i-eeee) of the Haryana Liquor License Rules 1970 (as amended by the Haryana Liquor License (Amendment) Rules 2017), (hereinafter referred to as the Rules) as being ultra vires the Punjab Excise Act, 1914 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), is in appeal before this Court. The amended Rule provides for a single L-1BF license for the entire State to deal in imported foreign liquor, bottled outside India and imported into the country in a bottled form (i.e. bottled in original). Under challenge is also clause 9.5.1.2 of the State Excise Policy for the year 2017-2018 to that extent, 1 carried forward to the year 2018-2019 also. The procedure for grant of the single license under the a...

Tag this Judgment!

Jul 01 2019 (HC)

Tirupati Buildings and Offices Pvt. Ltd. Vs.reserve Bank of India

Court : Delhi

Decided on : Jul-01-2019

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Judgment reserved on: May 29, 2019 Judgment delivered on: July 01, 2019 + W.P.(C) 3356/2019, CM No.23095/2019 TIRUPATI BUILDINGS AND OFFICES PVT. LTD. Through: Mr. Parag P. Tripathi, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Pulkit Deora, Ms. Mishika Bajpai and Ms. Sylvine Sarmah, Advs. ........ Petitioner versus RESERVE BANK OF INDIA Through: Mr. Suhail Dutt, Sr. Adv. with ..... Respondent Mr. H.S. Parihar, Mr. Kuldeep Parihar, Mr. Azhar Alam, and Mr. Sankalp Goswami, Advs. for RBI. Mr. Arun Aggarwal, Adv. for R2. Mr. Prateek Kushwaha, Adv. for R3. Mr. K.P.S. Kohli, Adv. for R-4 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V. KAMESWAR RAO JUDGMENT V. KAMESWAR RAO, J1 The present petition has been filed by the petitioner with the following prayers: In view of the facts and circumstances mentioned above it is most humbly prayed that this Honble Court may graciously be pleased to: W.P.(C) No.3356/2019 Page 1 of 45 (a) Direct the Respondent No.1 to take a decision on the Assignment pertaini...

Tag this Judgment!

Sep 24 2019 (SC)

Dina Nath (D) by Lrs. Vs. Subhash Chand Saini

Court : Supreme Court of India

Decided on : Sep-24-2019

1 REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO(s). 4563 OF2014DINA NATH (D ) BY LRS & ANR. .APPELLANT(S) VERSUS SUBHASH CHAND SAINI & ORS. .RESPONDENT(S) JUDGMENT Rastogi, J.1. The instant appeal has been filed against the judgment and order dated 10th May, 2011 passed by the High Court of Delhi in Civil Miscellaneous (M) No.44 of 2011 at the instance of the appellants (tenants) under Article 227 of the Constitution of India upholding orders of the Rent Controller striking out defence of the appellants on account of alleged failure to pay the rent.2. The matter earlier was heard by a two Judge Bench of this Court 2 and there was a unanimity on the principles of law that the power to strike out the defence vested in the Rent Controller under Section 15(7) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (hereinafter being referred to as the Act, 1958) is discretionary and not mandatory and it is imperative that every violation in implementation of the directi...

Tag this Judgment!

Jan 07 2019 (HC)

Shobha Aggarwal and Ors. Vs.uoi and Anr.

Court : Delhi

Decided on : Jan-07-2019

..... the 2nd day of june, 1944,- (a) in any case where the rent of such premises has been fixed under the delhi and ajmer-merwar rent control act, 1947 (19 of 1947) or the delhi and ajmer rent control act, 1952 (38 of 1952),- (i) if such rent per annum does not exceed twelve hundred rupees, the rent so fixed; or (ii) if such rent per annum exceeds twelve hundred rupees, the rent so fixed together with fifteen per cent. of such rent; (b) in any other case, the rent calculated on the basis of [(note: subs. by act 57 of 1988, sec.3, for "seven and one-half per ..... .(c) 516/2010 & connected matters page 26 of 66 (f) "lawful increase" means an increase in rent permitted under the provisions of this act; (g) "manager of a hotel" includes any person in charge of the management of the hotel; (h) "owner of a lodging house" means a person who receives or is entitled to receive whether on this own account or on behalf of himself and others or as an agent or a trustee for any other person, any monetary consideration from any person on account of board, and lodging or other services provided in the lodging house; (i) "premises" means any building or part of a building which is, or is intended to be, let separately for use .....

Tag this Judgment!


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organize Client Files //