Court : Delhi
Decided on : Dec-21-2012
* THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + R. C. Rev. No. 75/2012 Date of Decision:21. 12.2012 TARUN PAHWA ....Petitioner Through: Mr. M.L. Pahwa, Adv. Versus ...Respondent PRADEEP MAKIN Through: Mr. Deepak Gupta, Adv. CORAM: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE M.L. MEHTA M.L. MEHTA, J.1. The present petition has been filed under Sec. 25B (8) of the Delhi Rent Control Act against the order passed by the Ld. Additional Rent Controller, Delhi in Eviction Petition No. 25/2010, decided on 23.11.2011; whereby the Ld. ARC has allowed the application filed by the respondent for leave to defend the eviction petition.2. Briefly stating the facts, the petitioner herein is the landlord of the suit premises i.e. one hall on the ground floor, forming part of property no. 25/8, B-11, Gali No. 7, New Rothak Road, Industrial Area, Anand Parbat, New Delhi 110005. The respondent is a tenant in respect of the suit premises, under the petitioner at a monthly rent of Rs. 638/- excluding other charges. The suit premises were ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Dec-17-2012
Oral Judgment: 1. Rule. Respondents waive service. By consent rule made returnable forthwith. 2] By this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners are praying for a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction calling for the records and proceedings of the case culminating in the eviction order of the appellate authority dated 31st January 2007 and to quash and set aside the (I) Notice of Termination dated 10th/14th February 1995, (ii) the Notice of Eviction dated 19th April 1999 (iii) Order of 2nd respondent and (iv) the order of appellate authority under the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, dated 31st January 2007 in Misc.Appeal No.261 of 2001. 3] The proceedings are under Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971. (for short PPE Act). The petitioner states that it was a Government Company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 and continued to be so till the eviction ord...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Dec-10-2012
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + % CS(OS) No. 2498/2012 10th December, 2012 M/S SAURABH BUILDCON PVT. LTD. ..... Plaintiff Through: Mr. Umesh Shandilya, Adv. versus M/S ASTER TECHNOLOGIES PVT LTD & ANR. ..... Defendants Through: Mr. Pawan Kumar, Adv. CORAM: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA To be referred to the Reporter or not? VALMIKI J.MEHTA, J (ORAL) 1. By this judgment I am decreeing the suit of the plaintiff/landlord filed for possession and mesne profits qua the relief of possession under Order 12 Rule 6 CPC.2. This suit is filed by the plaintiff/landlord for recovery of possession, arrears of rent and mesne profits. The suit premises are 71/5, Shivaji Marg, Najafgarh Road, New Delhi-110015 admeasuring a total of 4156 sq.ft. Plaintiff is the subsequent purchaser of the suit premises and original landlord/erstwhile owner was M/s. Delhi Floorings Pvt. Ltd. Though the plaintiff claims the document of purchase as a Sale Deed dated 29th December, 2009, however, this docum...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Jan-06-2012
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % RSA 186 of 2005 + Date of Decision: 6th January, 2012 # KEWAL KRISHAN JAITELY .....Appellant ! Through: Mr. G.P. Thareja and Mr. Neeraj Chaudhary, Advocates Versus $ ACHARAJ RAM KAPUR and ORS. ....Respondents Through: Respondent no.3. CORAM: * HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE P.K.BHASIN JUDGMENT P.K BHASIN,J: This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 11.03.2005 passed by the learned Additional District Judge as the First Appellate Court whereby the judgment and decree dated 28.03.1998 passed by the Court of Civil Judge in a suit filed by one Shri Achraj Ram Kapur, who died during the pendency of this appeal and is now being represented by his legal heirs, against the appellant herein for a decree of possession and mesne profits in respect of the suit land had been affirmed..2. This being a second appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure was admitted for hearing on the following two RSA 186/2005 Page 1 of 12 substantial questions of...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on : Mar-15-2012
Per Mathew John, J. In this proceeding the main appellants, namely, A.G. Corporation, Coir Cushion Ltd. and Overseas Business Corporation, are three importers who imported thirty two consignments of apparently the same goods declared to be components of Digital Satellite Receiver/ Satellite Receiver/ Receiver DVB Set etc of Chinese origin shipped from Hongkong and also from Chinese Ports. Out of these items the main item was Populated Circuit Boards (PCB). These goods were sold to mainly to M/s Rishav Udyog which was a proprietorship firm of Mr. Kamal Pat Surana, for use in assembling receivers for Direct to Home (DTH) transmission of TV signals. 2. At the time of initial assessment of goods customs suspected undervaluation of the goods. For goods with declared value varying from HK$ 20 to HK $ 30 per piece the customs department loaded the value to values in the Range of HK$ 20.50 to HK$ 42.75 in different consignments. But later the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence did more invest...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Decided on : Jan-20-2012
COMMON JUDGMENT: (Per SK,J) 1. The Andhra Pradesh Electricity Regulatory Commission entertained a Fuel Surcharge Adjustment (FSA) claim made by the Andhra Pradesh Power Co-ordination Committee on behalf of the four Distributing Companies (DISCOMS) in the State for the financial year 2008-09 and by its proceedings dated 05.06.2010 permitted them to levy FSA charges as indicated therein on all consumers, except LT agricultural consumers, for the four quarters of that financial year. The proceedings dated 05.06.2010 came to be challenged before this Court in a batch of writ petitions by aggrieved consumers. The learned Judge who heard the writ petitions at great length framed the following questions for consideration: 1) Whether the writ petitions are maintainable in view of the availability of an alternative remedy of appeal under Section 111 of the Electricity Act, 2003, against the impugned order passed by the Andhra Pradesh Electricity Regulatory Commission? 2) Whether the Andhra Prad...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Decided on : Jan-20-2012
THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SHRI MADAN B.LOKUR AND THE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE WRIT APPEAL NOS.858 OF 201.AND BATCH 20 01-2012 M/s.Jairaj Ispat Limited, Rep. by its Managing Director, S.K.Goenka and others. A.P. Electricity Regulatory Commission,Rep. by its Secretary,A.P. Singareni Bhavan,Red Hills, Hyderabad and others. Counsel for appellants: Sri C.Kodandaram, learned senior counsel for Sri Challa Gunaranjan, Sri K.Gopal Choudary, Sri C.R.Sridharan, Sri K.V.Upendra Gupta, Sri D.V.Nagarjuna Babu, Sri Dhulipalla VAS Ravi Prasad,Sri K.Raghu Babu. Counsel for respondents : Sri P.Sri Raghuram, Sri D.Prakash Reddy, learned senior counsel representing the DISCOMS. CASES REFERRED:1. AIR 195.SC 66.2) (2010) 4 SCC 49.3) (2010) 8 SCC 68.4) 2010 (257) ELT 3 (SC) 5) (2009) 5 SCC 79.6) (2005) 6 SCC 34.7) (1984) 3 SCC 12.WRIT APPEAL NOS.858, 924, 925, 946, 948, 949, 968, 969, 970, 971, 972, 973, 974, 975, 976, 978, 979, 980, 981, 999, 1006, 1007, 1008, 1012, 1022, 1024, 1025, 1026, 1027, 1029, 1031,...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Dec-05-2012
* THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + C.M. (M.) 1061/2012 Date of Decision:5. 12.2012 MADAN LAL Through: ...Petitioner Mr.R.Rao, Advocate with Mr.Ankur Mahindro, Advocate. Versus SUKHESH CHAND GUPTA Through: ...Respondent CORAM: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE M.L. MEHTA M.L. MEHTA, J.1. This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution is directed against the order dated 30.08.2011 of Addl. Rent Control Tribunal (ARCT), whereby the appeal filed by the petitioner against the judgment dated 30.11.2010 of Rent Controller, New Delhi, was dismissed.2. The petitioner is a tenant in respect of one shop No. 43, Block No. 1, Bengali Mal Market, New Delhi under the respondent. The suit shop came in the exclusive ownership of the respondent vide a partition deed dated 9.6.2000 executed between the co-owners. The petitioner attorned to the respondent and paid him rent for the period from 1.4.1999 to 31.3.2000. The petitioner having failed to pay the rent, thereafter, a demand notice dated 26.4.2002 was i...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Jan-30-2012
Reported in : AIR2012Bom101; 2012(2)ALLMR737; 2012(3)MhLj669
ORDER1. The appellants (original plaintiffs) are the daughters of respondent No.1 (original defendant No.1). Respondent No.2 (original defendant No. 2) is the bank from which respondent No.1 has taken a loan which has not been repaid. Respondent No.2 has initiated proceedings under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (Securitisation Act).2. The appellants have sued to protect the share that they claim in the property mortgaged to the bank by respondent No.1. They claim 2/3rd share therein as coparceners of the Hindu Undivided Family (HUF) consisting of themselves and respondent No.1. As the daughters of respondent No.1 they claim in the capacity as coparcener under the amended Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act 1956 (HSA) which came to be substituted by the Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act 2005 (39 of 1956) which came into effect from 9 September 2005 (HSA).3. Upon the creation of the mortgage in respect of the sui...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Jan-17-2012
VIKRAMAJIT SEN, C.J. 1. This appeal assails the Order of the learned Single Judge dated 08.11.2011 allowing Interlocutory Application No.10 of 2011 in W.P.No.37490/2010 and 40967-41032/2010 and directing the appellant to pay the wages last drawn by the Respondent-Workmen under Section -17-B of the Industrial Disputes Act 1947 (for the short ‘ID Act’), with effect from 30 days after publication of the Award impugned before him. 2. Learned counsel for the Appellant has placed reliance on the Division Bench Judgment rendered by the High Court of Kerala in Commandant, Defence Security –vs- Secretary, 2001 (2) KLT 104. However, we are of the considered opinion that this decision is of no avail to the case proffered by the petitioner/appellant since the Division Bench was seized and placed in the position where the learned Single Judge who had allowed the writ petition filed by the Management in which the remonstration was that the writ petitioner was neither an industry no...
Tag this Judgment!