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!Court : Delhi
Reported in : ILR1977Delhi139; 1977RLR549
Yogeshwar Dayal, J.(1) This appeal has been placed before the Division Bench in view of order of reference to a larger bench dated 6th October, 1972, passed by T. P. S. Chawla, J., and raises a question as to the procedure the Controller ought to follow before passing order under section 15 of the Delhi Rent Control Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). (2) The respondent-landlord instituted proceedings for eviction under the Act against the appellant, the tenant. One of the grounds on which eviction was sought was that the tenant was in arrears in the payment of the rent. The case of the respondent-landlord in the eviction application was that the construction of the premises in question was completed on 13-3-1964 and the appellant is the first tenant in the said premises and that the premises were let out on 27-4-1964. It was further averred that the tenant was irregular in paying the rent and he has not paid the rent regularly since 26-11-1967. After 26-11-1967, the appellant,...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : 2004IAD(Delhi)357; 107(2003)DLT58; 2003(71)DRJ81
Dalveer Bhandari, J.1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and decree passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge dated 8.8.2002.2. Brief facts which are necessary to dispose of this appeal are recapitulated as under.3. respondent Bani Jagtiani Trust is a public charitable trust. The property A-60, Kailash Colony, New Delhi is the property of the trust. First floor of the said property besides a garage and a servant quarter was let out to the appellant by the trust at a monthly rental of Rs. 3, 000/- in the year 1980. 4. By resorting to Section 6A of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 the rent could be increased by 10%. Section 6A reads as under:'6A. Revision of Rent .-- Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, the standard rent, or where no standard rent is fixed under the provisions of this Act, in respect of any premises, the rent agreed upon between the landlord and the tenant, may be increased by ten per cent, every three yeaRs. '5. The respondent gave notice on 14.1.19...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : ILR1970Delhi210
Jagjit Singh, J.(1) Messrs Karan Chand Prem Chand Private Limited known as Sarabhai Chemicals are occupying as tenants a portion of the ground floor, including a loft. of building No. 12. Block No. 3. Asaf Ali Road. New Delhi. At first rent was being paid at the rate of Rs. 1,250.00 per month besides house-tax and actual charges for water and electricity. With effect from February 1. 1958, the rent was increased to Rs. 1,750.00 per month. House-tax and actual charges for water and electricity were in addition to that. (2) On January 4. 1961. Sarabhai Chemicals applied, under section 9 of the Delhi Rent Control Act. 1958 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') for fixation of standard rent. At that time the premises belonged to Sardar Bahadur Mohan Singh and his wife. Shrimati Lajwanti. and their son Gurbachan Singh. During the pendency of the proceedings the property was purchased by Messrs Urvinder Estates Private Limited. Afterwards Sardar Bahadur Mohan Singh also died. (3) The new la...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : ILR1990Delhi16; 1990RLR112
Bahri, J.(1) In this civil revision brought under Section 25-B(8) of the Delhi Rent Control Act challenging the eviction order dated December 17, 1986, made by an Additional Rent Controller, on the ground of eviction covered by clause (e) of proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 14 of the Delhi Rent Control Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), a learned Single Judge has made a reference on the question of law to be decided by this Bench. The relevant portion of the reference remembered order is reproduced as follows : 'The learned Additional Rent Controller has relied on a judgment of this Court in 'Food Corporation of India v. Smt. Usha Bhardwaj' 1986(2) Rcj 52(1), for the proposition that the Rent Controller has no power to extend the period of limitation for putting in appearance and filing an application for leave to defend. I have been referred to two contrary judgments of this Court. The first one is by M. L. Jam, J., in Surinder Kumar v. Prem Kumar. 1980 Rlr 621(2), and t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
1 REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURSIDCITON CIVIL APPEAL NO.20913 OF2017(Arising out of S.L.P. (Civil) No.17117 of 2016) ATMA RAM PROPERTIES PVT. LTD. APPELLANT VERSUS THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. RESPONDENT JUDGMENT S.ABDUL NAZEER, J.1. 2. Leave granted. This appeal involves an important question of law as to whether property tax recoverable from the tenant under Section 67(3) of the New Delhi Municipal Council Act, 1994 (for short NDMC Act) as arrears of rent by the landlord/owner can be considered to be forming part of the rent for the purpose of seeking eviction or ejectment of such tenant who defaults in payment of such recoverable tax as rent and when the rent 2 including recoverable tax in respect of the tenanted premises exceeds Rs.3500/- per month, thereby losing protection of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (for short Rent Act).3. The appellant/plaintiff is the owner/landlord of the building known as Atma Ram Mansion (previously known as Scindi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : 2002(4)MPHT360; 2002(3)MPLJ504
S.S. Jha, J.1. This Letters Patent Appeal is filed against the judgment and decree passed in First Appeal No. 10 of 1982 arising out of the judgment and decree dated 19-6-82 passed by Third Additional Judge to the Court of District Judge, Gwalior.2. Objection is raised by the respondents as to maintainability. The appeal was finally heard and decided on 4-9-96 [1997(1) Vidhi Bhasvar 255]. After its decision an application for restoration was filed as some of the respondents were not served and appeal came up for hearing. After restoration of appeal the case was listed again and objection is raised that in view of amendment in Section 100A of Code of Civil Procedure this appeal is not maintainable. This appeal is filed against that order.3. It is to be examined whether the appeal is now maintainable in view of amended Section 100A of Code of Civil Procedure came into force w.e.f. 1st July, 2002. Section 100A is reproduced below:--'100A. No further appeal in certain cases.-- Notwithstand...
Tag this Judgment!