Court : Delhi
Decided on : Mar-11-1993
Reported in : AIR1993Delhi278
..... act' as appearing in section 57(2) of delhi rent control act. 1958 came up for consideration. the delhi rent control act, 1958 has repealed the delhi and ajmer rent control act, 1952. section 57(2) provides that notwithstanding such repeal, all suits and other proceedings under the said act (1952 act) pending, at the commencement of 1958 act, before any court or other authority shall be continued and disposed of in accordance with the provisions of the said act as if the said act had continued in force and 1958 act had not been passed. the first proviso to section 57(2) provides that any suit or proceeding fixation of standard rent ..... milk co-operatives. the effect of imposition would be the wastage of residual skimmed milk because of its limited shelf life. further the milk is not being lifted in large quantity from co-operatives as is evident fro ..... government of india, to exercise the powers and functions of the controller under the order. the controller shall, subject to the control of the central government, be responsible for the general implementation and control of the provisions of the order. paragraph 12 also states that the controller shall, without prejudice to any other powers ..... applicability when the impugned action is per se arbitrary, perverse and demonstrably irrelevant to the object of the act. as noticed earlier, the impugned orders are per se arbitrary, perverse and are based on irrelevant and extraneous considerations which have no nexus with the object of the act .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Mar-11-1993
Reported in : 1993(25)DRJ514
..... act' as appearing in section 57(2) of delhi p73 rent control act, 1958 came up for consideration. the delhi rent control act, 1958 has repealed the delhi and ajmer rent control act. 1952. section 57(2) provides that notwithstanding such repeal, all suits and other proceedings under the said act (1952 act) pending, at the commencement of 1958 act, before any court or other authority shall be continued and disposed of in accordance with the provisions of the said act as if the said act had continued in force and 1958 act had not been passed. the first proviso to section 57(2) provides that any suit or proceeding for the fixation of standard rent ..... milk cooperatives. the effect of imposition would be the wastage of residual skimmed milk because of its limited shelf life. further the milk is not being lifted in large quantity from cooperatives as is evident from the ..... of india, to exercise the powers and functions of the controller under the order. the controller shall, subject to the control of the central government, be responsible for the general implementation and control of the provisions of the order. paragraph 12 also states that the controller shall, without prejudice to any other ..... applicability when the impugned action is per se arbitrary, perverse and demonstrably irrelevant to the object of the act. as noticed earlier, the impugned orders are per se arbitrary, perverse and are based on irrelevant and extraneous considerations which have no nexus with the object of the act .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Feb-11-1993
Reported in : 49(1993)DLT724; 1993(26)DRJ23; 1993RLR258
Santosh Duggal, J.(1) This is a petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, after the courts of the Addl. Rent Controller as well as the Rent Control Tribunal have held by concurrent judgments that the petitioner, on the facts of the case, was not entitled to the benefit of section 14(2) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1957, (for short 'the Act') and was hit by terms of the proviso thereto.(2) It is an admitted fact that the petitioner, on an earlier occasion, had availed of benefit of section 14 (2) of the Act, and it was admittedly a case of second default. There is no denial of the fact that notice of demand had been served by the landlords/respondents, and received by the petitioner/tenant. There is also no denial of the fact that at the time the notice was received, there had been a default in the payment of rent for preceding three consecutive months. It is also admitted that rent only of one month was sent by money order, after receipt of the notice and during ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : May-28-1993
Reported in : AIR1994Delhi112; 51(1993)DLT334; 1993(27)DRJ144
D.P. Wadhwa, J. (1) By this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioners mainly seek the following reliefs:- 1.Writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the notices issued by the Municipal Corporation of Delhi ('MCD' for short) under section 126 of the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957 (for short 'DMC Act') and those issued by the New Delhi Municipal Committee ('NDMC' for short) under section 67 of the Punjab Municipal Act ('PM Act' for short) as extended to Delhi, on the properties situated within their respective areas; 2.A writ in the nature of direction or order declaring that the words 'be precluded from objecting to any assessment made by the Commissioner in respect of such land or building of which he is the owner or occupier' appearinginsub-section(3)ofsection 131 of the Dmc Act are unconstitutional, arbitrary and against the principles of natural justice; and 3.A writ in the nature of mandamus directing the municipal authorities (MCD and NDMC) to...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Feb-16-1993
Reported in : 1993(25)DRJ556; 1993RLR268
C.M. Nayar, J.(1) Plaintiffs have filed the suit for permanent injunction against the defendant from enforcing any order of re-entry and especially the one passed in June, 1983 and also from interfering with the peaceful use and enjoyment of the suit property.(2) The brief facts of the case are that the plaintiffs are owners of the property bearing No. 54, Motia Khan Dumb Scheme New Delhi, hereinafter referred to as 'the suit premises'. Shri Niyamatullah, plaintiff no.2 is the constituted General Attorney of the plaintiff and is authorised and competent to file the present suit and to sign and verify the plaint.(3) It is alleged in the plaint that by an agreement for lease dated November 22, 1962, the defendant, as the Lesser had agreed to demise the land of the suit premises to one Shri Krishan Chand Ohri and by an agreement of hypothecation dated November 23, 1965, Shri Kishan Chand Ohri had entered into an agreement with one Sardar Joginder Singh for the construction of a multi-stor...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Jan-20-1993
Reported in : 49(1993)DLT491; 1993(25)DRJ92
Arun Kumar, J.(1) This is a suit for possession of Property No.11, Communality Centre, Basant Lok, Vasant Vihar, New Delhi. The tenant has not been paying any rent for years. It neither wants to vacate the premises nor it wants to pay anything towards rent. It claims that these privileges are conferred on it by the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act,1985. The case is a glaring example of abuse of the provisions of the said Act. (2) Vide lease deed dated 25th November,1981, the defendant company took on lease the suit property comprising of ground floor, first floor, basement, loft and mezzanine floor and projector on a monthly rent of Rs.29,686.00 . The lease deed is dated 25th November,1981 and was registered with the Sub-Registrar, New Delhi onllthMarch,1982. The plaintiff has filed the plan of the property comprised in the tenancy of the defendant. The lease deed was initially for a period of three years w.e.f. 1st March, 1982 and contained an option for the defendan...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Dec-06-1993
Reported in : 1994IAD(Delhi)284; 1994(28)DRJ358
B.N. Kirpal, J. (1) The challenge in this writ petition is to the appointment of Estate Officer under the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, by the Ministry of Industry, Union of India. (2) The petitioners are associations whose members had been allotted sheds by the DSIDC. According to the respondents requisite payments having not been made proceedings were initiated under the Pp Act for eviction of the petitioners. The contention of the petitioners is that under Section 3 of the Pp Act it is only the Ministry of Urban Development, which can appoint Estate Office but in the present case the appointment by the notifications dated 5th January, 1993 and 13th 0ctober, 1977 had been done by the Ministry of Industry with regard to the sheds which are owned/acquired or hired by Dsidc Ltd. (3) In support of the aforesaid contention learned counsel for the petitioners submits that under Article 77(3) of the Constitution Allocation of Business Rules had been framed. Accor...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Decided on : Sep-08-1993
Reported in : (1994)48ITD1(Delhi)
1. While Revenue is in appeal, assessee is in cross objection for assessment years 1973-74 and 1974-75. Several common issues have been raised both in the appeals and the cross objections preferred by the assessee. Therefore, these are combined together and disposed of by this order.2. One of the issues relates to the valuation of a factory building held by M/s. Amritsar Swadeshi Woollen Mills. Assessee is a joint Hindu family and a partner in M/s. Amritsar Swadeshi Woollen Mills. According to WTO, the valuation of the factory building shown in the balance-sheet of the partnership firm at Rs. 3,79,178 was a case of under-valuation. Land occupied by the factory building was taken at Rs. 12,334 while the value of the building was shown at Rs. 3,79,178. Thus the total value of the building shown at Rs. 3,91,512 was considered an under-valuation by the WTO. He, therefore, referred to the Valuation Cell the valuation of the factory building of the said partnership concern. Valuation Cell p...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : May-05-1993
Reported in : [1995]83CompCas663(Delhi); 1994CriLJ1699; 51(1993)DLT133; 1993(26)DRJ379; 1995(50)ECC131
R.L. Gupta, J.1. After remaining unsuccessful before the learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (ACMM) and the learned Additional Sessions Judge, (ASJ), New Delhi, the petitioner has approached his court for grant of bail. 2. The brief facts appearing for the prosecution of the petitioner by the Enforcement Directorate under the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 ('FERA' for short) are that during the course of enquiries under the FERA, the Department came to know that the petitioner was collecting payments in India on behalf of one Keith Fair Brother (Keith for short) of Eastern Suburbs Ltd. of the United Kingdom and had been receiving communications in this regard from him. He introduced him to U. K. Paints Industries, New Delhi, and received payments in the form of drafts on behalf of Eastern Suburbs from U.K. Paints and handed the same over to Keith. It is further alleged that there are four drafts dated october 12, 1991, of the Punjab and Sind Bank, New Delhi, favorin...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Feb-08-1993
Reported in : AIR1993Delhi201; 50(1993)DLT68; 1993(25)DRJ382; 1993RLR228
Santosh Duggal, J.(1) The petitioner is tenant in a portion of property No.8, Jamna Road, Civil Lines, Delhi under respondents No. 1 and 2, by means of a registered lease deed. dated 25.3.1983. The order which has given rise to the present revision petition under section 25B(8) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958, (for short 'the Act'), was passed by .the Additional Rent Controller dismissing the application filed by the petitioner for leave to contest the eviction petition, instituted by respondent No. I, Suit. Chand Rani, invoking provisions of section 14D of the Act, wherein respondent No.2, was imp leaded as second respondent. (2) The Additional Rent Controller, consequential to dismissal of application for leave to defend, passed an eviction order under section 14D read with section 25B of the Act by means of the impugned order dated 24.9.1992. (3) The correctness of this order has been assailed in the present revision petition on the contention that the petition under section 14-...
Tag this Judgment!