Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Oct-19-1984
Reported in : AIR1985SC4; 1984(2)SCALE650; (1985)1SCC1; [1985]1SCR1025; 1985(17)LC422(SC)
..... the recording of evidence, while holding an inquiry in any proceeding before him. under section 38 an appeal lies to the rent control tribunal from every order made by the controller under the act, and a second appeal from an order made by the tribunal lies to the high court if the appeal involves a substantial question of law.9. on december 1, 1975, the president of india promulgated the delhi rent control (amendment) ordinance, 1975 (ord. no. 24 of 1975). the said ordinance was repealed and replaced by the delhi rent control (amendment) act, 1976 (act no. 18 of 1976). the said amendment act came into force with retrospective effect from december 1, 1975, being the date ..... by this court is directed against the judgment and order of the high court of delhi dismissing the revision petition under section 25b(8) of the delhi rent control act, 1958 (act no. 59 of 1958) (hereinafter for the sake of brevity referred to as 'the act'), filed by the appellant against an order of eviction passed against him by the rent controller, delhi, on an application filed by the respondent on the ground specified in section 14a(1) of the act.2. the appellant was the ten7ant of the respondent in respect of premises situate at 3474, gali kartar singh, subzi mandi, delhi, consisting of one room and two tin sheds at a rent of rs. 10.50 per month excluding .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
Decided on : Sep-20-1984
Reported in : (1985)11ITD472(Mum.)
1. This is an appeal by the ITO against the order of the AAC dated 2-10-1982 in the 1977-78 income-tax assessment proceedings.2. For the assessment year 1977-78, previous year ending 31-3-1977, on 5-10-1977, the assessee filed a return declaring total income of Rs. 29,870. Among the income so declared, the assessee returned income of Rs. 1,047 from the self-occupied flat being Flat No. 71, Chitrakut, Altamount Road, Bombay. The net income from house property at Rs. 1,047 was returned thus:Municipal rateable value as per certificate 4,285Add: One-ninth 476 4,761Less: Municipal taxes at the rate of Rs. 176.58 per month 2,119Less: Half for self-occupation of Rs. 1,800, 2,642 whichever is less--under Section 23(1) 1,321Less: (1) One-sixth repairs 220 1,321 (2) Insurance--Rs. 4.53 per month 54 274Net chargeable income from house property: 1,047 Dealing with this issue, it is seen that the ITO accepted the municipal rateable value at Rs. 4,840 (as disclosed by the assessment order) even tho...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Jammu and Kashmir
Decided on : Mar-23-1984
Reported in : AIR1984J& K56
ORDERV. Khalid, C.J. 1. The tenant of a building against whom proceedings are pending under the J. & K. Houses and Shops Rent Control Act, has filed this writ petition, challenging the validity of Sub-section (4) of Section 12 of the Act and praying that the word 'shall' occurring in that section should be interpreted to mean 'may'. 2. Heard the counsel for the petitioner and that of the 2nd respondent. This writ petition is the finale of the various methods adopted by the petitioner to protract the rent control proceedings pending against him for ejectment He failed to deposit the rent as directed in the rant control suit. Necessary consequences as laid down in Section 12 (4) of the Act followed. I do not think it necessary to go into the further details of the proceedings in the suit since it is not necessary for the disposal of this writ petition. 3. The challenge against Sub-section (4) of Section 12 of the Act is based on its violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. T...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Sep-05-1984
Reported in : AIR1985Delhi106; 1984(7)DRJ255; 1984RLR672
R.N. Aggarwal, J.(1) This second appeal by the tenant M/s. Apparel Trends against the order of the Rent Control Tribunal has arisen in the following circumstances.(2) The tenant took on rent the ground floor and the basement of the industrial premises bearing No. A-21/13, Naraina Industrial Area, Phase Ii, from its owner Shri Som Nath Daiidona by a deed of license dated 21st July 1976. (Shri Dandona has died and he is now represented by his legal heirs). The essential terms of the license are : 'WHEREAS the licensor Shri Som Nath Dandona and the Licensee M/s. Apparel Trends are desirous of giving and taking, being allowed privilege of using ground floor and basement of Industry Building at No A-21/13, Naraina Industrial Area, Phase Ii, New Delhi, and the licensee has approached the Licensor for the grant of requisite license, subject to payment of license fee of Rs. 6000.00 (Rupees six thousand only) per month, for carrying on the trade of making handloom and ready-made garments. Where...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Jun-08-1984
Reported in : 26(1984)DLT464
M.L. Jain, J. (1) Mrs. Birender Amarjit Singh is the owner of premises, a single storeyed house No. 3 South End Lane, New Delhi. These premises were leased to M/s Blackwood Hodge Equipment limited. Ltd., w.e.f. 2-9-1963 for the residence of its directors or employees and the lease continued under her letter dated 5-71968. On 8-4-1970, the Blackwood Hodge changed its name as M/s General Marketing & : (herein the Company). On 25-3-1971 she made a gift of half share in the property in favor of her two daughters Travellen and Uday and son Inder Vijay Singh. (2) Mrs. Singh wanted to construct a multistoreyed building for residential flats on the aforesaid premises. She did not resort to the procedure for obtaining possession of the premises under the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 ; sub-section (l)(g) and sub-section (8) of section 14 and section 20 and in stead entered into an agreement with the Company on 23-7-1971. The features of the said agreement relevant for the present purpose were:- ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Decided on : Jul-19-1984
Reported in : (1984)2MLJ310
ORDERS. Nainar Sundaram, J.1. Certain facts are necessary for the purpose of dealing with the question raised in this writ petition. The first respondent on the basis that he is the landlord within the meaning of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control)Act 1960 (Tamil Nadu Act 18 of 1960), hereinafter referred to as the Rent Control Act filed H.R.C. No. 1533 of 1978 for eviction of the petitioners under the Rent Control Act. One of the grounds urged for eviction was wilful default in the payment of rents. The first respondent took out M.P. No. l806 of 1978 under Section 11(3) of the Rent Control Act to stop further proceedings in H.R.C., if the petitioners herein, the respondents in H.R.C. No. 1533 of 1978, did not deposit the arrears of rent. The Controller under the Rent Control Act directed the deposit within a stipulated time. Obviously, the arrears of rent were not deposited and M.P. No. 1806 of 1978 was allowed and consequently an order of eviction was passed in H.R.C. N...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Decided on : Jun-25-1984
Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. NRDC - 467 U.S. 837 (1984) U.S. Supreme Court Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. NRDC, 467 U.S. 837 (1984) Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. No. 82-1005 Argued February 29, 1984 Decided June 25, 1984 * 467 U.S. 837 CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT Syllabus The Clean Air Act Amendments of 1977 impose certain requirements on States that have not achieved the national air quality standards established by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) pursuant to earlier legislation, including the requirement that such "nonattainment" States establish a permit program regulating "new or modified major stationary sources" of air pollution. Generally, a permit may not be issued for such sources unless stringent conditions are met. EPA regulations promulgated in 1981 to implement the permit requirement allow a State to adopt a plantwide definition of the term "stationary source," under whic...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Decided on : May-01-1984
Reported in : AIR1985P& H287
R.N. Mittal, J.1. Briefly the facts are that the petitioner is a Public Limited Company and is manufacturing steel ingots and other alloy and mild steels. It is the owner of property No. B. XXX/939 located at Focal point, Ludhiana which is in its self-occupation. No part of the building has been let out to anyone. The Municipal Corporation (hereinafter called 'the Corporation') in 1973-74 assessed the rateable value of the building at Rs. 1,25,460/- on which the amount of tax came to Rs. 15,795/-. From 1975 to 1977 the Corporation maintained the same rateable value of the building and assessed the same amount of tax as was done by it in 1973-74. In 1977-78 the rateable value of the building was proposed to be enhanced to Rs. 2,29,997/- by the Corporation. The petitioner filed objections against the proposed rateable value. It is alleged that the matter was compromised between the parties and the building was assessed at rateable value of Rs. 1,30,000/-.2. In the year 1980-81 the petiti...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Nov-13-1984
Reported in : AIR1985Bom134; 1985(1)BomCR406; (1983)86BOMLR678; 1985MhLJ80
ORDER1. This original defendants' revision is directed against the order quantifying the liability of mesne profits. The Appeal Court quantified the same in the sum of Rs.400/- per month from the date of the decree till the date of the delivery of possession. The quantification from the date of the suit till the date of the order was at the rate of Rs.60.75 per month.2. In this Court Mr. Gumaste submitted that this quantification at the rate of Rs.400/- from the date of the order till the date of the delivery of possession is contrary to law. In the submission of learned Counsel the mesne profits could not be charged more than the standard rent or the statutory rent fixed by the provisions of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947. Reliance is placed on the decision of the Delhi High Court reported in the case of Hindustan Steel (Pvt.) Ltd., v. Smt. Usha Rani Gupta : AIR1969Delhi59 , and the decision of Privy Council in the case of Gurudas Kundu Choudhary v. ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on : Mar-21-1984
Reported in : (1984)(18)ELT657TriDel
1. This is a revision petition filed before the Government of India (now transferred to this Tribunal under Section 35P of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944) against order-in-appeal No. 113-B of 1981 dated 28-2-1981 passed by the Central Board of Excise & Customs, New Delhi.2. M/s. Oriental Talc. Products Pvt. Ltd. (hereinafter called the appellants) have two units - one at Banswara and Anr. at Udaipur (Rajasthan). Their main business is to grind 'Soap Stone' into powder known as 'Soap stone powder' in their mills-"Three Roller Raymond Grinding Mills" and to sell the same to be used as "filler" in various industries such as Paper, Textile, Paints, Ceramics, Plastics, etc.Power is used for the purpose of grinding.3. For their unit at Banswara, the appellants had not obtained any excise licence, nor paid any excise duty on the goods cleared by them from that unit and as such the Central Excise (Preventive) Party, Udaipur visited the factory premises of the appellants at Banswar...
Tag this Judgment!