Court : Allahabad
Reported in : AIR1997All314
ORDER1. The present revision has been filed by the tenant under S. 25 of Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, 1887 against the judgment and decree dated 16-8-1985 passed by Sri D. C. Srivastava, IVth Additional District Judge, Kanpur in S.C.C. Suit No. 117 of 1982.2. By the decree which is impugned in the present revision, respondent's suit for eviction of the applicant from the accommodation and land in suit, which in the common parlance is called 'petrol pump' and for recovery of damages at the rate of Rs. 500/- per month w.e.f. 1-7-80 till the date of eviction has been decreed with cost.3. For the purpose of effective disposal of the revision, facts of the case which are not disputed may be briefly stated as follows:--M/s. Kailash Motors (hereinafter referred to as 'the landlord') under an agreement dated 4-7-1960 let out the property in suit (hereinafter called 'building') to M/s. Standard Vacuum Oil Company on rent of Rs. 500/- per month for a period of ten years with the liberty to...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
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 : Punjab and Haryana
Reported in : [2004]136STC261(P& H)
Hemant Gupta, J.1. This judgment shall dispose of Civil Writ Petition Nos. 17178, 17188, 17696, 18898, 19073, 19132 and 20031 of 2003, 207 and 4415 of 2004 as all these cases involve similar question of law consequent to enactment of the Haryana Value Added Tax Act, 2003, w.e.f. April 1, 2003. However, for facility of reference, the facts are being taken from Civil Writ Petition No. 17178 of 2003.2. The petitioner is a registered dealer under the Haryana General Sales Tax Act, 1973 (for short 'the HGST Act') and is engaged in the business of purchase of paddy. For the assessment year 1998-99, the Assessing Authority framed the assessment under the HGST Act and raised an additional demand on account of purchase tax calculated under Section 6 of the HGST Act. The petitioner filed appeal along with an application under Section 39(5) of the HGST Act for entertaining the appeal without prior payment of tax on account of financial hardship on March 3, 2003. However, before the appeal filed b...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : 60(1995)DLT136
Arun Kumar, J. 1. The point involved in the present case is in a very narrow compass. It is: Can a plaintiff having withdrawn his suit under Order 23 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure seek revival of the suit through application under Section 151 of the Code? Briefly, the facts are that the appellants filed the petition for eviction of the respondents tenants on the ground contained in Clause (a) to the proviso to Sub-section (1) of Section 14 of the Delhi Rent Control Act onthe ground of non-payment of rent on 2nd September, 1987. On 9th January, 1991, the learned Counsel for the petitioners (appellants herein) made the following statement before the Additional Rent Controller:'Present: Counsel for the petitioners. Statement of Shri S.S. Malhotra for petitionersAs the agreed rate of rent is Rs. 30,000/- p.m., the petition be dismissed as withdrawn.'On the basis of the said statement, the Addl. Rent Controller passed the following order on the same day'In view of the statement of t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : 2001(1)AWC671; (2001)1UPLBEC741
ORDERV. M. Sahai, J.1. In this petition filed by a teacher appointed to short-term vacancy, one of the questions that arises for consideration is whatis the effect of rescission of the Uttar Pradesh Secondary Education Services Commission (Removal of Difficulties) (Second) Order, 1981 (in brief Second Order) by insertion of Section 33E in the Uttar Pradesh Secondary Education Services Selection Boards Act, 1982 (in brief the Act).2. Maharshi Durbasa Inter College, Kakara Dubawal, Allahabad (in brief institution) is a recognised and aided institution. Sri Yaduraj Singh an Assistant Teacher L.T. grade took medical leave from 1.1.1998 to 30.6.1998. The management on 1.1.1998 intimated the District Inspector of Schools (in brief D.I.O.S.) to fill the short-term vacancy. This letter does not appear to have been received by the D.I.O.S. The management notified the vacancy on 7.1.1998 on the notice board and on the same day advertisement was published in newspaper 'Dainik Jagran'. The petitio...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : AIR1993Delhi278
ORDER1. Milk is an essential commodity within the meaning of Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (for short 'the Act'). The Central Government has the power to regulate production, supply, distribution etc. of milk and milk products as provided in S. 3 of the Act. The Central Government as provided in S. 9can also delegate its power to make orders under S. 3 of the Act and direct the powers to be exercised by such officer or authority subordinate to the Central Government or to such State Government or such officer or authority subordinate to a State Government as may be specified in the direction. Section 2(d) provides that 'State Government' in relation to a Union Territory means the Administrator thereof. In the case of Union Territory of Delhi the Central Government by notification dated 9th June, 1978 delegated its powers under S. 3 of the Act to the State Government. By virtue of that delegation the Administrator of Delhi over a period of time has been issuing various orders for main...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : 1993(25)DRJ514
Y.K. Sabharwal, J. (1) Milk is an essential commodity within the meaning of Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (for short 'the Act'). The Central Government has the power to regulate production, supply, distribution etc of milk and milk products as provided in Section 3 of the Act The Central Government as provided in Section 5 can also delegate its power to make orders under Section 3 of the Act and direct the powers to be exercised by such officer or authority subordinate to the Central Government or to such State Government or such officer or authority subordinate to a State Government as may be specified in the direction. Section 2(d) provides that 'State Government' in relation to a Union Territory means the Administrator thereof. .In the case of Union Territory of Delhi the Central Government by notification dated 9th June, 1978 delegated its powers under Section 3 of the Act to the State Government. By virtue of that delegation the Administrator of Delhi over a period of time has b...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : 2004(3)CHN447,2005(30)PTC140(Cal)
Asok Kumar Ganguly, J.1. The appellant is aggrieved by an order dated 11th February, 2004 passed by the learned Judge of the first Court refusing to grant injunction on its application (G. A. No. 2709 in C. S. No. 213 of 2003) filed alleging infringement of its design registered under No. 183322. The appellant's prayer for ad interim injunction was refused by another learned Judge on 18th August, 2003 and His Lordship directed the matter to be considered upon affidavits.2. In respect of its design, the appellant obtained a certificate of registration on 2th January, 2001, from the Comptroller General of Patents, Designs and Trade Mark, and the certificate is dated 28th August, 2000, and numbered 183322. Admittedly the certificate was granted under the provisions of the Designs Act, 1911 (hereinafter referred to as 'old Act') and the Designs Rule, 1933. The design was in respect of figured glass and it was stated in the certificate that the design will subsist for 5 years from the date ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
* HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + RC.S.A. 12/2002 & C.M. No.16924/2011 Decided on : May 27, 2015 M/S BHARAT INSULATION COMPANY ..... Appellant Through: Mr. H.L. Tiku, Senior Advocate with Ms. Yashmeet Kaur, Advocate. versus DR.SURAJ PARKASH & ORS.1 Through: ..... Respondents Mr. Gaurav Sarin, Ms.Charul Sarin, Ms. Veera Angrish & Mr. Ajitesh K. Kir, Advocates. CORAM: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE V.K. SHALI V.K. SHALI, J.1. This is a regular second appeal (rent) filed by the appellant against the judgment dated 06.02.2002 passed by the Additional Rent Control Tribunal in RCA No.883/1996 titled M/s Bharat Insulation Company Thane (State of Maharashtra) & Ors. vs. Dr.Suraj Prakash and Ors by virtue of which the learned Addl. Rent Control Tribunal (ARCT for short) has upheld the judgment of eviction dated 01.10.1996, passed 1 Vide Order dated 30.04.2009 Ms. Shahnaz Parveen has been substituted as Respondent No.1, but no amended memo of parties is on record. against the appellant by the Addl. Rent ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2008SC3148; 2008(3)ALD147(SC); 2008(56)BLJR1811; 148(2008)DLT705(SC); JT2008(5)SC376; 2008(6)SCALE325; (2008)5SCC287; 2008(3)ICC326; 2008(3)Supreme37; 2008AIRSCW3324; 2008AIRSCW3324; 2008(3)ICC326; 2008(3)Supreme37
G.S. Singhvi, J.1. Whether Section 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (for short 'the 1958 Act') is ultra vires the doctrine of equality enshrined in Article 14 of the Constitution of India is the question which arises for determination in these appeals. 2. For the sake of convenience, we have noted the facts from Civil Appeal No. 1897 of 2003:(i) On August 18, 1953, Delhi Improvement Trust leased out a plot of land measuring 184 sq. yards situated at Basti Reghar, Block 'R', Khasra Nos.2942/1820 to 2943/1820 to Shri Jagat Singh son of Pt. Ram Kishan. In terms of Clause 4(c) of the lease deed, the lessee was prohibited from using the land and building (to be constructed over it) for any purpose other than residence, with a stipulation that in case of breach of this condition, the lease shall become void.(ii) After constructing the building, the lessee inducted Shri Jai Narain Sharma and Dr. Ms. Tara Motihar, as tenants in two portions of the building, who started using the re...
Tag this Judgment!