Court : Delhi
Reported in : 1971RLR81
..... considered the provisions of the delhi rent control act, 1958 simplicities relating to the fixation of standard rent in manmohan chawla v. jaswant singh. his lordship pointed outthat the standard rent could be fixed only on an application made to the controller and that too within the period of limitation as provided by section 12 of the act. this decision was affirmed by the suprem court in m. m. chawla v. sethi 1969 rent control journal 130. the scheme of the act was stated to be entirely inconsistent with standard rent being determined otherwise than by order of the controller. the prohibition against recovery of rent in excess of the standard rent is said to apply only from the date on which the standard rent is determined by order of the controller and not before that. the ..... cases where the letting is subsequent to the act, within two years from the date of the letting. the controller could entertain an application even after the period of two years if he is satisfied that the applicant was prevented by sufficient cause from filing the application in time. section 13 provides for refund of rent, premium etc. not recoverable under the act, that is to say, in cases where any sum has been paid, whether before or after the commencement of the act, in contravention of any of the provisions of the rent act, 1958 or even the earlier delhi & ajmer rent control act of 1952, which the rent act of 1958 had repealed under section 57. an application for such refund, however, could .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : 5(1969)DLT539
S.K. Kapur, J.(1) The question in this appeal turns mainly on the interpretation of section 12 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958. The tenant filed a petition for the fixation of standard rent of the premises in question. The premises were let out to the tenant on 2nd March, 1963, and the petition was filed on 19th July, 1966, that is, after the expiry of more than two years from the date of letting. The landlord objected to the maintainability of the petition on the ground that it had been beyond the time prescribed by section 12 of the said Act. The tenant then made an application for condensation of delay under the proviso to section 12. Two grounds were set up in the said application- (1) The tenant met with an accident on 31-8-1964 and he was advised complete physical and mental rest for two years : and (2) he was under a bona fide impression that application for the fixation of standard rent could be filed within two years after the completion of five years from the date of the ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
$~ * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Reserved on:-05.11.2019. Date of Decision:-"28.11.2019 + W.P.(C) 5168/2005 & CM No.47971/2019 1. AIRPORTS AUTHORITY OF INDIA ........ Petitioner Through: Mr.Vaibhav Kalra with Ms.Neha Bhatnagar & Mr.Varun Kalra, Advs. A.S. YADAV & ORS versus ........ RESPONDENTS Through: Dr.Kedar Nath Tripathy with Mr.Satish Yadav, Advs. CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE REKHA PALLI REKHA PALLI, J The present writ petition preferred by the Airports Authority of India JUDGMENT assails the award dated 08.11.2004 passed by the learned Labour Court-II, New Delhi as also the corrigendum dated 07.02.2005 passed by the respondent no.13. Under the impugned award the learned Labour Court has, after coming to the conclusion that the respondents were employees of the petitioner and had been illegally terminated w.e.f. 31.05.1993, directed the petitioner to reinstate them with 10% backwages from the date of their termination.2. The petitioner is a statutory body created under ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
$~ * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Reserved on:20. h November, 2019 Pronounced on:27. h November, 2019 + WP (C) 12233/2019 and CM Nos. 50006, 50007/2019 % M/S SUMAT PERSHAD AND SONS AND ANR. ..... Petitioners Through: Mr. Krishnan Venugopal, Sr. Adv. with Dr. Sushil Gupta, Mr. Kamal Mehta and Mr. Manan Verma, Advs. versus COMMISSIONER CUSTOMS (EXPORT) AND ANR. ........ RESPONDENTS Through: Ms. Sonu Bhatnagar, Sr. Standing Counsel with Mr. Vaibhav and Ms. Anushree Narain, Advs. for R-1 Mr. Abhay Prakash Sahay, CGSC with Mr. Rahul Kulhari, Adv. for R-2 Joshi CORAM: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C. HARI SHANKAR JUDGMENT C. HARI SHANKAR, J.1. This writ petition, at the instance of the petitioner M/s Sumat Pershad & Sons, impugns Order-in-Original No.06/2019/Sunil Tated/Commr/Exp/ICD/TKD, dated 11th October, 2019, issued by the Commissioner of Customs (Export) (hereinafter referred to as the Commissioner), whereby WP (C) 12233/2019 Page 1 of 19 Facts 2. (i) Customs...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
$~ * % IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Judgement Reserved:26. h July, 2019 Judgement Pronounced:25. November, 2019 + W.P.(C) 2130/2014 TATA COMMUNICATIONS LTD ... Petitioner Through : Mr.Dhruv Mehta, Sr.Adv. with Mr.Ajit Warrier, Mr.Aditya Nayyar and Mr.Varun Byreddy, Advs. versus UOI AND ORS. Through : Mr.Jaswinder Singh, Adv. for R-1 and ... RESPONDENTS Jain, Advocate R-6. Mr.Yeeshu LAC/L&B. Mr.Sanjay Poddar, Sr.Adv. with Mr.B.L.Wali, Adv. for DMRC/R-5. for CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.S. SISTANI HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL G.S. SISTANI, J.1. The present writ petition had been originally filed by the... Petitioner under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India primarily seeking the following reliefs: the Notification a. Issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order, or direction in the nature of, striking down and quashing bearing no.F9/11/L&B/LA/MRTS/9786, dated 13.09.2013 issued under Section 4 read with Section 17(1) and 17(4) of t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
$~ * + IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Reserved on:24. h October, 2019 Decided on:8. h November, 2019 W.P.(C) 3327/2018 U. C. SHARMA ........ Petitioner Through: Mr. Amit Singh Chauhan and Mr. Hemant Chauhan, Advocate along with the... Petitioner versus UNION OF INDIA AND ANR. ........ RESPONDENTS Through: Mr. Dev. P. Bhardwaj, CGSC for UOI with Ms. Anubha Bhardwaj and Mr. Jatin Teotia, Advocates CORAM: JUSTICE S. MURALIDHAR JUSTICE TALWANT SINGH JUDGMENT Dr. S. Muralidhar, J.:1. The present petition is directed against an order dated 15th September, 2017 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), Principal Bench in C.P. No.52/2017 in O.A. No.285/2008 filed by the... Petitioner as well as an order dated 15th November, 2017 passed by the CAT dismissing the... Petitioners Review Application No.238/2017. The... Petitioner has sought specific directions to the... RESPONDENTS to pay the... Petitioner interest at 12% per annum on a sum of Rs.1,19,220/- being the pay of the....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI $~ * % Reserved on:01. t November, 2019 Decided on :05. h November, 2019 + RFA1912019 and CM APPL No.10858/2019 MOHD AZIZ Through : Mr.Diwan Advocate. ..... Appellant Chauhan, Singh RIYAZUDDIN versus Through : Mr.Vimal Puggal, Advocate. ..... Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE YOGESH KHANNA YOGESH KHANNA, J.1. This appeal is preferred by the appellant/plaintiff against the judgment and decree dated 01.12.2018 passed by the learned Additional District Judge/Central District, Pilot Court, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi (hereinafter referred as the learned Trial Court) in CS No.1923/2018 whereby the suit of the appellant was dismissed after trail.2. The brief facts which culminated into filing of this appeal are the appellant had filed a Civil Suit for recovery of Rs.4.00 Lac with interest against the respondent stating inter alia the respondent is landlord/owner of the two shops on the ground floor, forming part of the property bearing No.A-8/62, DDA ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
$~ * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Reserved on:30. h September, 2019 Decided on:21. t October, 2019 W.P.(C) 1881/1996 S. S. RANA UNION OF INDIA & ORS. ....Petitioner Through: Mr. Prakash Gautam with Mr. Vivek Ojha and Mr. Neeraj Kumar, Advocates. versus .....Respondents Through: Ms. Abha Malhotra, Senior Counsel. CORAM: JUSTICE S. MURALIDHAR JUSTICE TALWANT SINGH Dr. S. Muralidhar, J.: JUDGMENT1 The challenge in the present petition is to the charge-sheets dated 31st January, 1994 and 14th January, 1995, and the consequent General Security Force Court (GSFC) proceedings ending in the findings and sentence of dismissal from service awarded on 31st May, 1995 and the subsequent order dated 24th April, 1996 of the Central Government rejecting the representation of the... Petitioner, but commuting the said sentence of dismissal from service to that of compulsory retirement.2. The background facts are that the... Petitioner was, in the year 1990, working as a Quarter Master of the ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Judgment delivered on:10. 10.2019 + W.P.(C) 2079/2018 SHRI SAURABH TRIPATHY versus ........ Petitioner COMPETITION COMMISSION OF INDIA & ANR. ....... RESPONDENTS Advocates who appeared in this case: For the... Petitioner: Mr Gourab Banerji, Senior Advocate with Mr Saurav Agrawal, Mr Anirudha Agarwala, Mr Anshuman Chowdhury, Ms Raka Chatterjee and Mr S.P. Mukherjee, Advocates. For the... RESPONDENTS: Ms Purnima Singh and Ms Shibani Khuntia, Advocates for R-1. Mr Rajshekhar Rao, Mr Ram Kumar, Mr Vinayak Mehrotra and Mr Dhruv Dikshit, Advocates for R-2. CORAM HONBLE MR JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU JUDGMENT VIBHU BAKHRU, J1 The petitioner has filed the present petition impugning an order dated 16.02.2017 passed by the Competition Commission of India (hereafter CCI) in Case No.63/2014, whereby CCI had concluded that a case of contravention of the provisions of Section 4 of the Competition Act, 2002 (hereafter the Act) was established against respondent no.2...
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!