Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Oct-07-1999
Reported in : AIR1999SC3923; [2000]99CompCas383(SC); JT1999(8)SC66; 1999(6)SCALE441; (1999)9SCC334; [1999]Supp3SCR461
ORDERD.P. Wadhwa, J.The Facts:1. These three appeals raise three different questions relating to the construction and interpretation of Section 85 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (the 'new Act' for short) which contains repeal and saving provision of the three Acts, namely, the Arbitration (Protocol and Convention) Act, 1937, the Arbitration Act, 1940 (the 'old Act' for short) the Foreign Awards (Recognition and Enforcement) Act, 1961 (the 'Foreign Awards Act' for short).2. This Section 85 of the new Act we reproduce at the outset:85. Repeal and saving - (1) The Arbitration (Protocol and Convention) Act, 1937 (6 of 1937), the Arbitration Act, 1940 (10 of 1940) and the Foreign Awards (Recognition and Enforcement) Act 1961 (45 of 1961) are hereby repealed.(2) Notwithstanding such repeal, -(a) the provisions of the said enactments shall apply in relation to arbitral proceedings which commenced before this Act came into force unless otherwise agreed by the parties but this Ac...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Mar-11-1999
Reported in : AIR1999Delhi257; [1998(79)FLR954]
ORDERAnil Dev Singh, J.1. In this public interest writ petition the petitioner, Common Cause, a society registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860, seeks a direction to the first and the second respondents, Union of India through the Secretary, Ministry of Urban Affairs and Employment, and the Union of India through the Secretary, Ministry of Law, Justice and Company Affairs respectively, to issue a notification in the official gazette notifying the date on which the Delhi Rent Act, 1995 (Act No. 33 of 1995) (for short 'the new Rent Act') shall come into force. The facts lie in a narrow compass. 2. Home is an eternal quest of all mankind. Law which encourages construction of houses to meet one of the basic demands of habitat is the paramount requirement in this country. Realizing this need and voicing its concern regarding the acute shortage of housing, the Supreme Court in Prabhakaran Nair etc., v. State of Tamil Nadu and Others, , expressed the necessity for a national hou...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Mar-11-1999
Reported in : 1999IIAD(Delhi)689; 78(1999)DLT638
CWP No. 1495/97:Anil Dev Singh, J.1. In this public interest writ petition the petitioner. Common Cause, a Society registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860, seeks a direction to the first and the second respondents, Union of India through the Secretary, Ministry of Urban Affairs and Employment, and the Union of India through the Secretary, Ministry of Law, Justice and Company Affairs respectively, to issue a notification in the Official Gazette notifying the date on which the Delhi Rent Act, 1995 (Act No. 33 of 1995) (for short 'the new Rent Act') shall come into force. The facts lie in a narrow compass.2. Home is an eternal quest of all mankind. Law which encourages construction of houses to meet one of the basic demands of habitat is the paramount requirement in this country. Realizing this need and voicing its concern regarding the acute shortage of housing, the Supreme Court in Prabhakaran Nair etc. etc. v. State of Tamil Nadu and Others : [1988]1SCR1 , expressed the n...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Aug-13-1999
Reported in : 81(1999)DLT275; 1999(50)DRJ854
Vijender Jain, J.1. Aggrieved by the order passed by the Rent Control Tribunal allowing the appeal of the respondent under Section 14 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, the present appeal has been filed by the appellant. Originally, the petition was filed under Section14(1)(b), (c), (h) and (k) of the Delhi Rent Control Act. That petition was dismissed by the Additional Rent Controller on 23rd April, 1994. The eviction petition was filed somewhere in 1983 by the respondent against the present appellant. Aggrieved by the said order, the respondent filed an appeal before the Rent Control Tribunal limiting their prayer only under Clause (h) of Section 14(1) of the Delhi Rent Control Act. Mr. Warrier, learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the premises were being used for commercial purposes right from the inception of the tenancy and, thereforee, no order could have been passed under Section 14(1)(h) of the Delhi Rent Control Act. In support of his contention he has cited Dr. G...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Decided on : Jul-19-1999
Reported in : (1999)3MLJ511
ORDERS.S. Subramani, J.1. Tenant who failed before the Authorities below is challenging the concurrent findings against her. She has been directed to be evicted by Rent Controller on the ground that she has committed wilful default in paying rent. Though she preferred an appeal before the Appellate Authority, the same was also not fruitful. Hence, the revision under Section 25 of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act.2. Since the respondent has entered appearance by filing caveat, I heard him also at the time when the Revision came up for admission.3. Respondent's mother filed R.C.O.P.No. 1911 of 1994, on the file of XVI Judge, Court of Small Causes, Madras, for eviction of the petitioner herein, on the ground that she has committed default in paying rent from November, 1991. Pending eviction proceedings she died, and the case is further prosecuted by her son, respondent herein.4. It is averred in the petition that the petitioner herein was a tenant in respect of a shop...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Mar-10-1999
Reported in : 1999(49)DRJ342
Usha Mehra, J.1. Property bearing No.D-922, New Friends Colony, New Delhi was let out to respondent No.1 i.e. M/s International Amusements Ltd. (in short IAL) on a monthly rent of Rs.7,000/- vide registered lease deed dated 1st April,1987. On expiry of the lease period, petitioner herein let out the property to respondent No.1 vide registered lease deed dated 1st April,1990 on a monthly rent of Rs.16,500/-. Respondent No.2 Shri Sharat Chander Dass was the Director of respondent No.1. Hewas in occupation of the suit premises on account of being the Director of respondent No. 1. The petitioner wanted possession of the suit premises, thereforee, filed a suit against respondent No. 1 after the expiry of the lease period. Decree of possession was passed in her favor and against respondent No.1, its servants, agents and employees etc. vide decree dated 26th May,1993. Pursuance to that decree petitioner filed execution proceedings and obtained warrants of possession. Respondent No.2 filed obj...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Mar-15-1999
Reported in : 2000(2)BomCR293
ORDERB.N. Srikrishna, J.1. These two petitions are in the nature of public interest litigation, the first at the instance of a journalist from Pune and the second at the instance of a Corporator of Pune Municipal Corporation. These petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution broadly challenge the action of the first respondent, the State of Maharashtra and the Commissioner of Pune Municipal Corporation (hereinafter referred to as 'P.M.C') in grantingbuilding permission to respondent Nos. 7 and 8 for construction of a building on Final Plot No. 110, Erandwana, Pune. The petitions also allege that the action of the Commissioner of P.M.C. was at the behest of respondent No. 5 who was the Chief Minister of the Government of Maharashtra at the material time and contrary to the provisions of the Maharashtra Regional And Town Planning Act, 1966, (hereinafter referred to as 'the M.R.T.P. Act'). It is contended that the said buildings permission is not only illegal, but also vitiated as it ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Decided on : Jul-26-1999
Reported in : 1999(2)CTC741
ORDERJudgement pronounced by V. Kanagaraj, J.1. The above appeal is preferred under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent challenging the judgment and decree dated 30.6.1995 made in A.S.No. 249 of 1989 by the single Judge of the appellate forum of this Court allowing the above appeal preferred by the respondent herein against the judgment and decree dated 5.4.1988 made in O.S.No. 4 of 1987 by the Court of Additional District Judge, Pondicherry at Karaikal thereby dismissing the suit filed by the respondent herein praying 'for the recovery of possession of the suit property from the defendant, who is the appellant before us. 2. The respondent herein has filed the suit before the trial Court contending that on.7.4.1980 he purchased a building site and for the purpose of constructing the building, he entered into Ex.A.1 agreement deed dated 20.3.1995 with the appellant thereby agreeing, on certain terms and conditions, to construct a shop structure in an extent of 16' x 17' and to lease out the...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Decided on : Aug-24-1999
Reported in : AIR2000P& H88; (1999)123PLR718
ORDERV.S. Aggarwal, J.1. The present revision petition has been filed by Om Parkash, hereinafter described as 'the petitioner' directed against the order of the learned Rent Controller, Sirsa, dated 25-5-1993 and of the learned Appellate Authority, Sirsa dated 7-10-1996. By virtue of the impugned order, the learned Rent Controller had passed an order of eviction against the petitioner. The appeal filed by the petitioner was dismissed.2. The relevant facts are that the respondent-landlord Kailash Chander had filedeviction petition under Section 13 of theHaryana Urban (Control of Rent & Eviction)Act, 1973 (for short 'the Act') alleging thatthe petitioner is a tenant in the suit premisesand respondent No. 2, son of the petitioner,is a sub-tenant therein. It was asserted thatthe property as mentioned above has beensublet without the consent of the respondent-landlord. That is the sole ground ofeviction surviving for purposes of the presentrevision petition. By way of elucidation, itwas add...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Decided on : Apr-15-1999
Reported in : 1999(2)CTC145
ORDER1. The plaintiffs in 6.S.No. 569 of 1979 on the filed of the VI Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai, who have succeeded before the trial court and lost before the first appellate court are the appellants in this second appeal.2. This second appeal is directed against the judgment and decree of thelearned VII Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai dated 10.7.1997 madein A.S.No. 44 of 1997 in reversing the judgment and decree dated 20thSeptember, 1996 made in O.S.No. 569 of 1979 on the file of the trial court. Atthe time of admission, the following two substantial questions of law wereframed by this Courts:-(i) Whether the lease granted in favour of the 1st respondent stoodterminated on the expiry of the period of the lease as stated in the lawyer'snotice Ex.A.7 dated 12.10.1978 whether on such termination, the appellantsbecame entitled to the reliefs claimed in the suit? (ii) Assuming without conceding that there was a valid renewal of thelease as claimed by the 1st res...
Tag this Judgment!