Court : Delhi
Decided on : Apr-19-2005
Reported in : 121(2005)DLT65
A.K. Sikri, J.1. CA No. 1168/2002 is filed by the three applicants who claim that they are the owners of the property bearing Municipal No. 16, Friends Colony (West), New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as 'the demised property'). Smt. Ram Pyari Sethi, their mother and predecessor-in-interest of this property, had granted lease of this property to Bharat Steel Tubes Pvt. Ltd. (now in liquidation) (hereinafter called as 'the company') vide written deed dated 11th June, 1965. The property was meant for personal office of the Managing Director Mr. Raunaq Singh and a guest house. The tenancy commenced from 1st April, 1964 for a period of five years ending on 31st March, 1969. Rent of the demised premises was fixed at Rs. 2,000/- per month. The demised premises were, however, not vacated by the company after the expiry of the contractual period of tenancy.2. Some time in the year 1990, the company became sick and consequently it made reference before the Board for Industrial and Financial Re...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Aug-17-2005
Reported in : 2005(2)ARBLR561(Delhi); 123(2005)DLT532
Vikramajit Sen, J. 1. Should the Court decline to enter upon the controversy of whether an implementable arbitration agreement exists between the parties has yet again arisen like the mythical phoenix from the ashes of litigation. Mr. Rajiv Sawhney, learned Senior counsel for the contesting Defendant has contended that the Court must forthwith refer the parties to arbitration, leaving it to the Arbitral Tribunal to decide upon its own jurisdiction viz. whether the parties before it had agreed to resolve their disputes through arbitration and/or whether the original compact to this effect does not subsist as it had been abandoned and given up or should be deemed to have been given up. In this case I have not been presented with a clean slate on which to write the judgment inasmuch as the controversy between the parties has received jural attention already. Benefitting from the detailed and erudite legal submissions made before me, it is my understanding that if possible or plausible cas...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Apr-21-2005
Reported in : 119(2005)DLT529; 2005(82)DRJ6
O.P. Dwivedi, J.1. By this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner seeks quashing of the order dated 20.4.2001, passed by the Additional Rent Control Tribunal whereby the learned Additional Rent Controller's order dated 30.8.1999, dismissing the standard rent petition of the respondent was set aside and the case and remanded back to the learned ARC for decision afresh in accordance with law after considering the provisions of Section 76(h) of the Transfer of Property Act.2. Briefly narrated, the facts leading to this petition are that the petitioner herein executed a mortgage deed dated 27.2.1973, in favor of the respondent in respect of the space comprising of 2200 sq.ft forming part of the third floor of the building known as 13-29, Block E, Harsha Bhawan, Connaught Place, New Delhi. The property was mortgaged for 25 years against a loan of Rs.3 lakhs. Clause 6 of the mortgage deed stipulated that in the event of mortgage being redeemed by the mortgago...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Apr-21-2005
Reported in : 119(2005)DLT538; 2005(82)DRJ12
O.P. Dwivedi, J.1. This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is directed against order dated 15.2.2005 passed by Shri S.M. Chopra, Additional Rent Control Tribunal whereby tenant's appeal was allowed and the eviction order under section 14(1)(b) of Delhi Rent Control Act (for short the ' Act') passed by learned ARC vide order dated 24.11.2004 in eviction petition No. E-288/2004 was set aside.2. Briefly narrated, facts leading to this petition are that on 3.10.96 the petitioner herein filed an eviction petition under section 14(1)(a)(b) of the Act against New Bank of India through General Manager and Punjab National Bank seeking their eviction from premises K-16, Chaudhary Building, Connaught Circus, New Delhi on the ground of non-payment of rent and sub-letting contemplated under clause (a) and (b) of proviso to sub section (1) of section 14 of the Act. It was alleged in the eviction petition that the demised premises were let out to New Bank of India for commercial ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Sep-30-2005
Reported in : [2006]129CompCas785(Delhi); 124(2005)DLT264; 2005(84)DRJ550; (2005)141PLR66
Vijender Jain, J.1. Aggrieved by the order passed by the learned Company Judge, the present appeal has been filed. By the impugned order, the learned Single Judge disposed of CP No.64/78, Eviction Petition E.No.240/86 and CP No.31/93. In CP No.64/78, winding up order was passed on 3.8.1979. A former director filed CP No.31/93 under Section 391 of the Companies Act, 1956 seeking sanction of the scheme of arrangement propounded therein. On the other hand, the landlord of the premises filed the objection to the said scheme. The Official Liquidator rejected the scheme. The learned Company Judge vide the impugned order dealt with CP No.64/78 in which winding up order dated 3.8.1979 was passed. After winding up of the company, an application was moved before the Company Judge and partial stay was granted on 28.8.1984. The same has also been reproduced in the impugned order by the learned Company Judge.2. Eviction petition (E.No.240/86) was filed by the landlord seeking eviction of the compan...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Oct-03-2005
Reported in : 124(2005)DLT51; 2005(85)DRJ632
ORDERS AND LEGAL PROVISIONSOrders of Supreme Court38. The relevant orders of the Supreme Court are reproduced below:Supreme Court Order dated 02nd December, 2000I.A. No. 355 in WP(C) NO. 1699/1987'The applicants are eligible squatters. They have filed this application praying that they may not be obstructed from carrying on their business at Lal Mandir, New Lajpat Rai Market, Delhi till final allotment of alternative site is made. Learned counsel for the MCD submits that this is a non-squatting area. When this is a non-squatting area, neither temporary arrangement or permanent arrangement can be made. The applicants are thereforee given two weeks time to vacate from the place where they are recently squatting and in the meantime if it is not possible to make any final allotment of alternative site according to that, the MCD will make a temporary provision in a non-prohibited squatting area till regular final allotment is made. As and when the said temporary space, in the non-prohibited...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Aug-08-2005
Reported in : 123(2005)DLT20; 2005(84)DRJ110
Vikramajit Sen, J.1. The question that arises in these writ petitions is whether the Central Academy Senior Secondary School, Delhi, the Management of which was taken-over under Section 20 of the Delhi School Education Act, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as `the DSE Act') by Orders dated 3.7.1996 passed by the Lt. Governor, NCT of Delhi must perforce now be handed back to the Body from which it was taken-over. The situation has been considerably complicated by the fact that there is a controversy as to who is truly representative of erstwhile Body which was managing the Central Academy Senior Secondary School.2. It is common ground that a Trust in the name and style of Children's Education Trust of India had been established by two brothers, namely, Shri S.N. Chaturvedi and Shri H.N. Chaturvedi, but these brothers have now fallen out and have initiated litigation against each other. Each of them asserts that he is the proper person to represent the Trust and the Management Committee of ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Mar-22-2005
Reported in : 119(2005)DLT376; 2005(83)DRJ412
B.C. Patel, C.J.1. Admit.2. Learned counsel for the respondents waives service of notice on behalf of the respondents.3. The matter is taken up for final disposal at this stage at the request of learned counsel for the parties.4. The present appeals are preferred against the Orders made by learned Single Judge in WP (C) Nos. 17804-08/2004 and WP (C) Nos. 17791-803/2004 on 19.11.20045. The dispute has had a chequered history. Thus, it is necessary to set out the facts in that behalf.6. The claim of the squatters / hawkers carrying on business activity in the area within the administrative control of the Municipal Corporation of Delhi came to be considered in Saudan Singh v. N.D.M.C. and Ors., : [1992]2SCR243 . The petitioners in the said petition were persons claiming a right to trade on the pavement situated within the areas under the control of MCD and NDMC in different parts of the city of Delhi. This judgment was a equator to the Constitution Bench judgment in Sodan Singh v. New Del...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Dec-15-2005
Reported in : 126(2006)DLT191; 2006(86)DRJ157
Madan B. Lokur, J.1. The controversy in this batch of appeals is rather narrow and although we agree with the final direction given by the learned Single Judge remanding the matter back to the assessing authority to re-determine the rateable value of the properties in question, we are of the view that on the legal aspects, there has been an error committed by the learned Single Judge which needs to be rectified.2. LPA No. 413 of 2003 [arising out of WP (C) No. 7152 of 2001] was taken up as the main case and the facts pertaining to only this appeal are discussed.3. The admitted position is that the property owned by the respondent that is, Jawahar Vyapar Bhawan in Tolstoy Marg was constructed after 1st December, 1988 on which date the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (the Rent Act) was amended. In terms of Section 3(d) of the Rent Act, it was not to apply to such premises for a period of ten years from the date of completion of construction.4. It was stated before us by learned counsel for ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Decided on : Jun-22-2005
Reported in : (2005)96TTJ(Delhi)1
1. All these cross appeals and cross objection in respect of the three assesses are directed against the orders of the learned CIT (Appeals) in the respective cases. Since common issues are involved in all these appeals, they were heard together and are being disposed of by this consolidated order, for the sake of convenience.1.1. These matters were fixed before the Division Benches but at the instance of the assesses and in the light of the importance of the issues involved, a request was made to the Hon'ble President to refer the matter to a Special Bench Under Section 255(4) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act). The President, I.T.A.T after considering the facts and circumstances of the case, decided to constitute a Special Bench.The following question was referred to the Special Bench: "Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances, the revenues earned by the appellant from supply of equipment and software to Indian Telecom Operators were taxable in India?" 2. It may be relevant...
Tag this Judgment!