Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Aug-07-1990
Reported in : AIR1991SC855; [1992]74CompCas482(SC); JT1990(3)SC417; 1990(2)SCALE200; (1990)4SCC406; [1990]3SCR649
..... act overrides the provisions of the delhi rent control act. in that case it has been observed that the scope and object of the public premises act is quite different from that of rent control act and while the public premises act operates in a very limited field in that it applies only to a limited nature of premises belonging only to particular sets of individuals, a particular set of juristic persons like companies, corporations or the central government, whereas the rent control act is of much wider application and it applies to all private premises which do not fall within the limited exceptions indicated in section 2 of the public premises act and the object of the rent control act ..... rent exceeds three thousand and five hundred rupees; or(d) to any premises constructed on or after the commencement of the delhi rent control (amendment) act, 1988, for a period of ten years from the date of completion of such construction.39. chapter ii (sections 4 to 13) contains provisions regarding rent including fixation of standard rent. chapter iii (sections 14 to 25) contains provisions for control of eviction, of tenants. section ..... under the provisions of the public premises act and whether such a person can invoke the protection of the delhi rent control act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as the 'rent control act'). in short, the question is, whether the provisions of the public premises act would override the provisions of the rent control act in relation to premises which fall within .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Decided on : Sep-07-1990
Reported in : AIR1991MP316; 1991(0)MPLJ418
Faizanuddin, J. 1. This Letters Patent Appeal under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent of Madhya Pradesh High Court by the defendants has been directed against the orders passed on 29-6-1990 to 11-7-1990 by the learned single Judge of this Court in Misc. Appeal No. 227 of 1990.2. The facts in brief giving rise to this appeal may be stated thus: The Indian Olympic Association/respondent No. 3, herein, is a Society registered under the Societies Registration Act. It consists of various Federations which are affiliated with the Indian Olympic Association. The Management of the Indian Olympic Association (hereinafter referred to as the 'I.O.A.') is controlled by a duly elected Executive Council in accordance with rules for a term of 4 years. A Special General Meeting may be summoned at any time by the President of I.O.A. at his discretion or it is convened on a written requisition signed by the Presidents and Secretaries of not less than 15 Member-Units within one month from the date of recei...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on : Feb-14-1990
Reported in : (1990)(27)ECC39
1. M/s. Jain Sudh Vanaspati Ltd. had filed the above captioned appeals at serial number 1 and 3, and the Collector of Customs, Bombay, had filed the above captioned appeal at serial number 4 and a cross objection at serial number 2. The Bench vide miscellaneous order No.l35/88-C dated 9th December, 1988, in response to the importer M/s.Jain Sudh Vanaspati Ltd. 's request for the change of the name to M/s.Elephanta Oil & Vanaspati Industries Ltd. had ordered for the change of the name from M/s. Jain Sudh Vanaspati Ltd. to M/s. Elephanta Oil & Vanaspati Industries Ltd. The learned Departmental Representative had no objection to the request of the importer.2. Against Order No. S/10-175/83-A dated 20.12.83 passed by the Collector of Customs, Bombay, M/s. Jain Sudh Vanaspati Ltd. & Another (now Elephanta Oil & Vanaspati Industries Ltd.) had filed a writ petition in the Hon'ble Calcutta High Court and the same was registered as Matter No.1838 of 1983. After the filing of the...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Mar-02-1990
Reported in : 41(1990)DLT347
Santosh Duggal, J.(1) By this petition filed under section 482 Criminal Procedure Code . the petitioners pray for quashing of their prosecution lor offences under sections 276C(1). 277 read with section 278-B of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short 'the Act') initiated on a criminal complaint having been filed by the Income-tax Officer, Central Circle Xiv, New Delhi respondent herein). (2) Petitioner No. I is a partnership firm constituted by petitioners No. 2 to 4 and one other, namely, Smt. V. Panna Lal and as per allegations in the complaint, all of them were in charge and responsible to the firm petitioner No. 1 for the conduct of its business during the period relevant to this case, namely, assessment year 1983-84. The allegation is that in the return filed for the aforesaid assessment year on 28th September 1983, a declaration showing a total loss of Rs. 1,08,167 was filed in the practiced proforma, signed and verified by H. 1. Malhotra, petitioner No. 2 herein, as one of the part...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Decided on : Dec-19-1990
Reported in : (1991)ILLJ163Mad; (1992)IMLJ131
Nainar Sundaram. J.1. This writ appeal is directed against the order of the learned single Judge in W.P. No. 14664 of 1989. The petitioner in the writ petition is the appellant herein. The respondents in the writ petition are the respondents herein. Convenience suggests that wherever it is necessary we adopt the nomenclature assigned to the parties in the writ petition, while discussing the relevant aspects in this judgment of ours. The petitioner filed the writ petition putting forth the following prayer : 'For the reasons stated in the accompanying affidavit, the petitioner herein prays that this Honourable Court may be pleased to call for the records relating to the Circular of the third-respondent bearing. No. Per. 59, dated 12th October 1989 including the said circular and quash the same by issue of writ of certiorarified mandamus or any other appropriate writ of like nature under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and consequentially direct the respondents not to make deduc...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Decided on : Dec-19-1990
Reported in : (1992)1MLJ131
Nainar Sundaram, J.This writ appeal is directed against the order of the learned single Judge in W.P. No. 14664 of 1989. The petitioner in the writ petition is the appellant herein. The respondents in the writ petition are the respondents herein. Convenience suggests that wherever it is necessary we adopt the nomenclature assigned to the parties in the writ petition, while discussing the relevant aspects in this judgment of ours. The petitioner filed the writ petition putting forth the following prayer:For the reasons stated in the accompanying affidavit, the petitioner herein prays that this Honourable Court may be pleaded to call for the records relating to the Circular of the third-respondent bearing No. PER. 59, dated 1210.1989 including the said Circular and quash the same by issue of writ of certiorarified mandamus or any other appropriate writ or like nature under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents not to make deduction of one day's ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Decided on : Mar-08-1990
Reported in : AIR1990Ker330
ORDERK.P. Radhakrishna Menon, J. 1. The Rent Controller allowed the application of the respondents/landlords under Sections 11(2) and 11(3) of The Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965, for short The Act and ordered eviction of the petitioner from the building; but only on the ground of bona fide need. This order was rendered on 31-7-1989. Thereupon the petitioner filed R.C.A.11/89 before the Appellate Authority namely, the Subordinate Judge, Thodupuzha on 16-10-1989. This Appeal was well within the prescribed time. On 17-10-1989 the petitioner moved an application for of stay execution of the order of eviction. On the request of the respondents, the said application was posted to 21-10-1989 to enable them to file their objection. The hearing was adjourned to 24-10-1989. In the meantime on 26-9-1989, the Notification conferring on the District Judge the powers of Appellate Authority was published in the Gazette. Pursuant to the Notification, the High Court issued an Offic...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Sep-18-1990
Reported in : 1991(51)ELT329(Bom)
Pendse, J.1. The controversy in this petition stands concluded by two decisions of this Court in B. K. Paper Mills Pvt. Ltd. v. U.O.I. : 1984(18)ELT701(Bom) and in Central India Spg., Wvg. & Mfg. Co. Ltd. v. U.O.I. 1987 (30) E.L.T. 217. In view of these two decisions, both the counsel state that the present petition is liable to be dismissed.2. Mr. Thakkar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners, submitted that as regards demand notice dated October 16, 1980, by which the Superintendent of Central Excise, Kalyan demanded a sum of Rs. 4,37,318.22, the order passed by the Asstt. Collector confirming the demand cannot be sustained. The learned counsel urged that the demand notice dated October 16, 1980 was issued in exercise of powers conferred under Rule 10 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 and the duty demanded was short levy for period commencing from May 1, 1980 to September 30, 1980. It was urged that Rule 10 was repealed on November 17, 1980 and was substituted by Se...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Decided on : Aug-03-1990
Reported in : AIR1991Cal152
ORDERS.S. GANGULY, J.1. This is a defendant's appeal from the judgment and decree passed by the learned Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Calcutta in Ejectment Suit No. 524 of 1972.2. The suit was filed by M/s. Calcutta Vyapar Pratisthan Ltd., the plaintiff-respondent No. 1 as the landlords for eviction of Miss D. Ennis, the monthly tenant from a shop room forming part of premises No. 3, Russell Street, Calcutta wherein she had been running a fashionable hairdressing saloon. The grounds were (1) default in payment of rent since August 1966; (2) making additions and alterations to the shop room without the consent of the respondent No. 1 and (3) subletting, assigning and transferring the entire shop room without consent of the respondent No. 1. The suit was filed after service of notice under S. 13(6) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956.3. The suit was contested by one Mr. J.S.Ardeshar, as the constituted attorney of the appellant. In the written statement filed by him he denied ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Nov-26-1990
Reported in : ILR1991KAR3164; 1991(2)KarLJ230
K.A. Swami, J. 1. Defendants 1 and 2 have preferred this Appeal against the Judgment and decree dated 18-8-1983 passed by the learned XVI Additional City Civil Judge, Bangalore City in O.S. No. 1884 of 1980. 2. Though the suit in question was originally filed in the Civil Judge's Court, Bangalore City on 26-10-1977 as O.S. No. 770/1977, but on the establishment of City Civil Court, it statutorily stood transferred to the City Civil Court and was numbered as O.S. No. 1884/1980. 2.1. The trial Court (City Civil Court) has decreed the suit in the following terms: 'After contest, it is ordered and decreed that: the defendants-1 and 2 are directed to vacate and deliver the vacant possession of the suit schedule premises to the plaintiff's within three months from today. It is further ordered and decreed that the defendants-1 and 2 do pay to the plaintiff a sum of Rs. 5,800-00 (Rupees five thousand eight hundred only) together with Court costs and current interest thereon at 6% p.a. from th...
Tag this Judgment!