Court : Delhi
Reported in : (1993)45TTJ(Del)153
ORDERVIMAL GANDHI, J. M. :The grounds of appeal challenging valuation of jewellery not pressed and question of deduction of liabilities of taxes admittedly fully settled by Hon able Supreme Court in the case upheld in CWT vs . Vimlaben Vadilal Mehta : [1984]145ITR11(SC) . We are left with common question relating to valuation of same properties on different valuation dates. By this common order all the appeals are being disposed of.The assessed-HUF on the valuation dates relevant for the asst. yrs. 1976-77 to 1979-80 held the following immovable properties.(1) 229/640 shares in property situated at Municipal 6926 Jaipuria Mills Clock Tower; Subji Mandi, Delhi (also known as Jaipur Spinning Mill). The property with total area measuring 91,640 sq. yds. houses mills, offices, shops, workshops, godowns and some residential quarters. It is a freehold property fully occupied by tenants numbering about 250.(2) Property No. 6943/3 situated at Kohlapur Road, Delhi. The property, comprising of r...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : AIR1979Guj98; (1978)GLR1076
1. The parties to this Second Appeal were married in village Sander District Mehsana according to Hindu rites, some time in the year 1961. The husband contends that they last resided together in Bhavnagar in the month of Dec. 1970 and thereafter his wife deserted him and refused to resume cohabitation. On this ground, he filed a petition No. 39/71 in the court of the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Bhavnagar, under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, hereinafter called 'the Act' for restitution of conjugal rights. The respondent-wife, though served with the summons of the said petition, did not enter appearance and allowed it to be disposed of ex parte. The learned Judge framed issues at Ex. 6 and came to the conclusion that the respondent-wife had, without reasonable excuse, withdrawn from the society of the husband. He, therefore, granted a decree for restitution of conjugal rights under section 9 of the Act on 23rd August, 1971. The certified copy of the judgment in the...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : AIR1955Cal442
G.K. Mitter, J. 1. This is a suit for specific performance of an agreement in writing dated 22-7-1953 executed by the defendant, for possession of a shop room, for compensation in addition to specific performance and for other reliefs. .2. The defendant is a monthly tenant of a shop room in premises No. 2 Lal Bazar Street, Calcutta paying rent of Rs. 110/- per month. He sublet a portion of this shop room to a firm known as National Marble Company at Rs. 60/- per month. By the agreement in suit, the defendant agreed to sublet the whole of the shop room to the plaintiff including the portion occupied by National Marble Company in consideration of Rs. 7,000/- to be paid by the plaintiff to him besides a sum of Rs. 110/-by way of monthly rent. The document provides that the plaintiff is to have no liability for taxes or any charges in respect of the holding. The important clauses of the document wherein the plaintiff is described as the first party and the defendant as the second party are...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : AIR1954Cal520
G.N. Das, J.1. This is an application in revision on behalf of a tenant and is directed against an order passed by Mr. R. C. Dutt Gupta, learned District Judge, Howrah, dated 16-8-1952.2. The facts shortly stated are that on 25-3-1949, the petitioner filed an application for fixation of standard rent in respect of the disputed premises under the provisions of the West Bengal Rent Control (Temporary Provisions) Act, 1948, hereinafter called the 1948 Act. On 9-4-1951, the Rent Controller passed an order fixing the standard rent. It appears from the certified copy of the order of the Rent Controller which was filed in the court below that an application for a certified copy of the order was made on 10-4-1951. The copy was ready for delivery to the petitioner on 20-4-1951. The appeal against the order of the Rent Controller was filed on 15-5-1951. It was duly registered and it came on for hearing before Mr. R. K. Dutt Gupta, learned District Judge, Howrah.At that stage an objection was rai...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
* + IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI RC.Rev. 130/2018, CM APPL.13337-13338/2018 & CM APPL185722018 Judgment reserved on :28.08.2018 Date of decision :27. 09.2019 M/S JAINSON Through: Ms. Neha Kapoor, Advocate versus .....Petitioner SANJAY GUPTA ..... Respondent Through: Mr. Rajat Aneja with Ms. Sonali Chopra, Advocates. CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE ANU MALHOTRA JUDGMENT ANU MALHOTRA, J.1. The petitioner vide this petition assails the impugned order dated 30.1.2018 of the Rent Controller, Patiala House Courts, New Delhi in RC ARC No.39/2017 vide which the eviction petition filed by Sh. Sanjay Gupta, the petitioner thereof and arrayed as the respondent to the present petition seeking eviction of the tenant M/s Jainson i.e., the petitioner to the present petition, from the tenanted premises E-2(Old Municipal No.8250), , Gopinath Building, Middle Circle, Connaught Place, New Delhi admeasuring 550 Sq.ft shown in red in the site plan annexed to the petition on the ground of bona fide re...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1969(2)LC280(SC)
Sikri, J. 1. This appeal by special leave is directed against the judgment of the Circuit Bench of the Punjab High Court, Delhi, accepting the revision under Section 35 of the Delhi and Ajmer Rent Control Act, 1952 (XXXVIII of 1952) here with referred to as the Act, filed by Janendra Kumar Jain, respondent before us, hereinafter called defendant No. 8. By this judgment the High Court set aside the concur rent findings of fact given by the learned Senior Sub-Judge, Delhi, and the learned Sub-Judge, First Class, Delhi, that the All India Jain Digamber Parishad hereinafter referred to as the Parishad had sublet or otherwise parted with the possession of the premises, Rishi Bhawan, let out to it in May 1944 by Maharaj Krishan, appellant before us & hereinafter referred to as the plaintiff. 2. The main complaint of the learned counsel for the appellant is that the High Court was not right in holding that the courts below had misread the evidence in the case, and it had exceeded its powers u...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : 5(1969)DLT90
I.D. Dua, J. (1) Shri Prem Raj has preferred this revision under section 35 of the Delhi Rent Control Act (No. 38 of 1952) against the order of a learned Subordinate Judge Its Class dated 20th April 1961 dismissing the present petitioner's application under section 15 of the aforesaid Act. (2) It appears that in proceedings for ejectment against the present petitioner from the shop in question an eviction decree was made on 6th August, 1956 on the ground that the shop was required for re. building. The landlord undertook to restore back the possession of the shop in question. The shop to be restored was marked 'B' showa in the plan attached with the plaint in eviction proceedings. According to the present petitioner against whom order of eviction was made he delivered the possession o f the shop in his occupation on 15th September 1956 and his grievance which he desires to be redressed in the present proceedings is restoration of possession of the newly built shop. (3) This claim was c...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
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
Reported in : 131(2006)DLT388; 2006(91)DRJ761
Sanjay Kishan Kaul, J.1. The Revision petition is directed against the order passed by the Additional Rent Controller dated 6.12.1999 declining leave to defend the eviction proceedings filed by the respondent/landlord under Section 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act).2. The landlord claimed in the eviction petition that the property in question was originally owned by M/s. M.L. Sanoriya & Sons, HUF consisting of Shri M.L. Sanoriya and his only son Shri Sajjan Sanoriya. Shri Sajjan Sanoria in turn had three sons, Ramakant Sanoriya, the petitioner in the eviction petition, Shri Suresh Kumar Sanoriya and Shri Hemant Sanoriya. All these persons are stated to be residing in various portions of property bearing No. 2/44, Roop Nagar, Delhi. The petitioner, tenant herein is stated to be in occupation of the back side of the first floor labelled as flat No. 2. The premises was stated to be let out for residential purposes and it is stated that,...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : 1981WLN323
S.K. Mal Lodha, J.1. This appeal under Section 19(1) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 (for short 'the Act') is directed against the order dated December 9, 1980 of a learned single Judge of this Court by which he held the appellant guilty for contempt of court and sentenced her to one month's simple imprisonment and further to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- and costs of the application.2. The appellant and respondent will hereinafter be referred as non-applicant and applicant respectively. The applicant instituted a suit for ejectment against the, non-applicant, in regard to shop No. 6 and certain other premises situate on Station Road Jodhpur. The suit was decreed by the Munsif city, Jodhpur on February 5, 1972. An appeal was preferred. The appellant's suit in respect of shop No. 5 was dismissed and for other premises, the decree was maintained on August 28, 1973 by the learned Additional District Judge No. 1, Jodhpur. A second appeal was lodged by the non applicant. In the second appeal ...
Tag this Judgment!