Court : Delhi
Decided on : Aug-25-2004
Reported in : 113(2004)DLT788; 2004(77)DRJ82
O.P. Dwivedi, J.1. The petitioner herein filed a suit for possession/ejectment, arrears of rent and damages/mesne profit against the defendants/respondents alleging therein that premises in question were let out to the respondents/ defendants jointly on monthly rental of Rs. 2500/- vide agreement dated 4.9.77. The tenancy commenced on 1.10.77. Rent was increased from time-to-time @ 10%. For the period from 1.9.98 to 31.8.2001, defendants/respondents paid rent @ 3327/- per month. Then on 28.7.2001 plaintiff served a legal notice on the defendant under Section 6-A read with Section 8 of Delhi Rent Control Act (for short the 'Act') notifying thereby that the rent will be increased by 10% with effect from 1.9.2001. The said legal notice was duly served on the defendants/respondents. Since the monthly rent of the demised premises becomes Rs. 3659/- with effect from 1.9.2001 which is in excess of Rs. 3500/-, the provisions of Delhi Rent Control Act cease to be applicable to the demised premi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Jan-12-2004
Reported in : AIR2004Delhi248; 109(2004)DLT509; 2004(72)DRJ540
RFA No.833/2003 and CM 2088/2003. 1. This is an appeal filed by the appellant against the order passed on an application under Order 12 Rule 6 filed by the appellant. 2. Briefly stating the facts of the case are that the respondent filed a suit for possession with the prayer for a decree of possession in favor of the plaintiff and against the defendants as well as a decree for recovery of arrears of rents and decree for recovery of damages/mesne profits. The appellant filed written statement. Thereafter in view of the written statement filed by the appellants, it seems that the respondent herein filed an application under Order 12 Rule 6 of the CPC praying for decree of recovery of possession on the basis of admissions made by defendants No.1 and 2. 3. Mr. Lonial, learned counsel appearing for the appellant, has contended that the trial court erred in not appreciating that the rent of the premises was Rs. 3,217/- and was not more than Rs. 3,500/- and, thereforee, it was Rent Controller...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Oct-14-2004
Reported in : 114(2004)DLT691
R.S. Sodhi, J.1. This petition is directed against the order dated 14th January, 2004 of the Additional Rent Control Tribunal (for short 'the Tribunal' ), whereby the learned Tribunal has allowed the landlord to withdraw his suit for eviction under Section 14(i)(g) of the Delhi Rent Control Act.2. The facts of the case are that two petitions were filed by Smt.Krishna Dwivedi under Section 14(i)(g) of the Delhi Rent Control Act against Surinder Kumar and Pawan Kumar with respect to tenanted premises No. 248, Sant Nagar, New Delhi - 65. Both petitions were taken up together and disposed by a common order dated 28th September, 2002, of the Additional Rent Controller (for short 'the Controller'), wherein the Controller has passed an order of eviction directing the landlord to rebuild the premises within four months and in default thereof, to pay Rs.10,000/- per month by way of compensation. Being aggrieved of this order of the Controller, both the parties filed appeals before the Tribunal....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Aug-16-2004
Reported in : 113(2004)DLT424; 2004(76)DRJ412
Sanjay Kishan Kaul, J. 1. The petitioner is a perpetual lessee of premises bearing Office No. 2, First Floor and Servant Quarter 113 and 115, Atma Ram Mansion (Scindia House), Connaught Circus, Janpath, New Delhi which was given on lease to respondent No.1, a nationalised bank. The petitioner terminated the lease vide a legal notice dated 17.8.1991 issued under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act. The notice was replied to by respondent No.1, the bank on 8.9.1991 alleging that the premises in question are covered by the provisions of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as 'the PP Act') and claiming that the provisions of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rent Act') are not applicable. Respondent No.1 thus refused to vacate the premises.2. The petitioner thereafter issued a notice dated 13.9.1991 to respondent No.2, Secretary, Ministry of Finance asking for the appointment of an Estate Office...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Sep-28-2004
Reported in : 114(2004)DLT310; 2004(77)DRJ266
Mukul Mudgal, J. 1. The primary question arising in this application and the suit is whether an unwilling lessee can be directed by an interlocutory order to continue as a lessee beyond November 2005 on the ground that the lease deed upon renewal provided starting in November 2005 that the lessee was continue up to a particular period i.e. November 2011 until the expiry of the renewal period of the lease. The lease with the 1st defendant was initially for 9 years commencing from 1996 and provided for a renewal for six years i.e. up to 2011. There is a further plea of the plaintiff that it took a loan of Rs. 1,71,50,000/-, which was payable to the defendant No.1 with interest by the defendant by adjusting lease rentals up to November 2011. The lease rentals up to November 2011 were sufficient to pay the entire amount loaned by the defendant No.1 to the plaintiff. The defendant No.1 at the request of the plaintiff agreed to pay the lease money directly to defendant No. 2 upon the entire ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Dec-07-2004
Reported in : 2005(99)ECC523
Sanjay Kishan Kaul, J.1. The petitioners are garment exporters and seek to raise common questions of law. The petitioners are impugning the authority of respondent Apparel Export Promotion Council (for short,' AEPC) to levy penalty for non-utilisation of the quota allotted to respective petitioners. The petitioners also seek to challenge the basis for calculation of the extent of utilization of the export entitlement. 2. The Foreign Trade (Development & Regulation) Act, 1992 (hereinafter to be referred to as, 'the said Act') came into force on 19.06.1992. The object was to provide for development and regulation of foreign trade and inter alias augmenting exports. Section 5 of the said Act provides for the Central Government to formulate and announce the Export and Import Policy from time to time and to amend that Policy. Section 11 stipulates that no exports can be made except in accordance with provisions of the said Act, Rules and Orders made there under as also the Export and Import...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Dec-07-2004
Reported in : 2006(193)ELT264(Del)
Sanjay Kishan Kaul, J.1. The petitioners are garment exporters and seek to raise common questions of law. The petitioners are impugning the authority of respondent Apparel Export Promotion Council (for short 'AEPC') to levy penalty for nonutilisation of the quota allotted to respective petitioners. The petitioners also seek to challenge the basis for calculation of the extent of utilization of the export entitlement. 2. The Foreign Trade (Development & Regulation) Act, 1992 (hereinafter to be referred to as, 'the said Act') came into force on 19-6-1992. The object was to provide for development and regulation of foreign trade and inter alias augmenting exports. Section 5 of the said Act provides for the Central Government to formulate and announce the Export and Import Policy from time to time and to amend that Policy. Section 11 stipulates that no exports can be made except in accordance with provisions of the said Act, Rules and Orders made there under as also the Export and Import P...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Nov-10-2004
Reported in : 115(2004)DLT333
Pradeep Nandrajog, J.1. Prayers made in the petition are as under:-'(a) issue a writ of prohibition, or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, restraining respondents No.1, 2 and 3 from displacing/dispossessing the members of the petitioner association from half of the space already occupied and in their possession on the auction-platforms at the Okhla Fruit and Vegetable Mandi;(b) issue a writ of prohibition, or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, restraining the respondents no.1, 2 and 3 from enforcing and implementing the Agenda Item No.7 as contained in the minutes of the meeting of the Market Committee held on 23.8.2001 or any other similar resolution/agenda item;(c) issue a writ of certiorari or any other writ, order or direction in the nature thereof, quashing and setting aside the resolution of the respondent No.2 at Agenda Item No.7 as decided in the minutes of the Market Committee meeting held on 23.8.2001;(d) issue a writ of mandamus, or in the nature th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Oct-11-2004
Reported in : [2005]92ITD120(Delhi)
ORDERSinghal, JM Various issues are involved in this appeal. However, for the sake of convenience, we shall first take up some legal issues.2. First such issue relates to various disallowances under section 43B aggregating Rs. 230,73,57,062 read with the provisions of section 145A. The assessing officer noted that the following amounts were not debited to Profit and Loss account but the assessed had claimed deduction for the same under section 43B on the plea of actual payment:1.PLA Balances (i) Excise Duty on vehicles 3,19,41,668 (ii) R & D cess on vehicles 8,41,460 (iii) Excise duty on spare parts 6,76,0752. Custom duty paid on imports for export purposes for which exports has not been made 22,46,88,4643. Custom duty paid on import of components for which export has been made. 31,79,98,4074. Excise Duty paid and (CVD) paid on purchase of Components to be adjusted against excise duty Payable on finished products i.e. balance of RG 23-A Part-II. 69,93,00,4285. Custom duty (CVD) paid to...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Decided on : Oct-11-2004
Reported in : (2005)92ITD119(Delhi)
1. Various issues are involved in this appeal, However, for the sake of convenience, we shall first take up some legal issues.2. First such issue relates to various disallowances under Section 43B aggregating Rs. 2,30,73,57,062 read with the provisions of Section 145A. The AO noted that the following amounts were not debited to P&L a/c but the assessee had claimed deduction for the same under Section 43B on the plea of actual payment : (i) Excise duty on vehicles 3,19,41,665 (ii) R&D cess on vehicles 8,41,460 (iii) Excise duty on spare parts 6,76,0752. Customs duty paid on imports for export purposes for 22,46,88,464 which exports has not been made3. Custom duty paid on import of components for which 31,79,98,407 export has been made.4. Excise duty paid and (CVD) paid on purchase of 69,93,00,428 components to be adjusted against excise duty payable on finished products, i.e., balance of RG 23-A Part-II.5. Custom duty (CVD) paid to be adjusted against excise 8,39,13,307 duty pa...
Tag this Judgment!