Court : Delhi
Decided on : May-26-1998
Reported in : 1998VAD(Delhi)137; AIR1998Delhi308; 74(1998)DLT842; ILR1998Delhi367
ORDERArun Kumar, J.1. The basic facts which are necessary to appreciate the controversy in this appeal are that the respondent herein filed a suit for recovery of possession of a portion of premises bearing bungalow No. 2, Ring Road, Lajpat Nagar IV, New Delhi let out to the defendant/appellant in the present appeal vide a duly registered lease deed dated 16th September, 1975, This lease deed was for a period of one year and was extended by another year in September 1976. It is not necessary to give details of the tenancy premises because there is no controversy between the parties on this aspect. With effect from 21st October, 1978, the rent of the devised premises was enhanced from Rs. 2500/- per month to Rs. 3500/- per month. There is no dispute that the month of tenancy is now the English calendar month i.e. from the first day of the month to the last day of the month as per the English calendar.2. By way of amendment of the Delhi Rent Control Act, Section 6A was introduced which g...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Sep-03-1998
Reported in : 77(1999)DLT65
Arun Kumar, J.1. This case provides a good example of abuse of the process of Court by a party to the suit. A simple suit for recovery of possession of a premises located in South Extension Part II, New Delhi after termination of tenancy of the tenant under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act has been successfully dragged on by the tenant for almost ten years and that too without paying a penny towards rent. The premises subject matter of the present appeal comprising three bed rooms with three attached bath rooms, a drawing-cum-dinning room, garrage, servants quarter and courtyard, was let out to the appellant by the respondent on 2nd April, 1985 at a rental of Rs. 3,500/- per month Another servant quarter was let out to the tenant in the year 1986 and the rent was enhanced to Rs. 4,000/- per month. The appellant/tenant continued to pay the rent @ Rs. 4,000/- per month till 31st August, 1988 where after in view of the introduction of Legislation in the Parliament for amendment...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Nov-25-1998
Reported in : 1999(1)ALLMR405; 1999(1)BomCR643; (1999)1BOMLR687; [1999(81)FLR767]; (1999)IILLJ109Bom; 1999(1)MhLj489
ORDERB. N. Srikrishna, J.1. This writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India challenges the Award of the 2nd respondent. First Labour Court, Mumbai, dated 16th April, 1996, made in Reference (IDA) No. 439 of 1986.Facts:2. The petitioner is a foreign Airline Company incorporated under the laws of Saudi Arabia and owned by the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. It is engaged in the transportation of passengers, cargo and mail by air and has offices at various places all over the world including one at Mumbai. The 1st respondent is an ex-employee of the petitioner and the 2nd respondent is the Presiding Officer of the First Labour Court, Mumbai, exercising adjudicatory jurisdiction under the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act')3. The 1st respondent, Mrs. Shehnaz Mudbhatkal, joined the service of the petitioner on 16th November, 1978, as Secretary to the Station Manager. Prior to joining the petitioner's service, she was wor...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Decided on : Jul-17-1998
Reported in : 1998(5)ALD177; 1998(5)ALT78
1. AS No. 1361 of 1985 is filed by the plaintiff, AS 1677 of 1985 by defendants 1, 2 and 3 and AS 1678 of 1985 by defendants 4 to 9.2. All the appeals arise out of the same judgment in OS No.33 of 1984 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Tadepalligudem, and they are, therefore, taken up for disposal by a common order.3. The suit was for partition of the plaint schedule property into fifty shares by metes and bounds and for allotment of 11/50th share to the plaintiff and for mesne profits. The suit was decreed against defendants 1 to 9 and dismissed as against defendant-10, each party to bear its own costs. A preliminary decree was passed for partition of the plaint schedule items 3 to 16 into fifty shares by metes and bounds and allotment of 11/50th share to the plaintiff. The relief for mesne profits was rejected. The plaintiff and defendants 1 to 9 were held to be entitled for the lease amount paid by 10th defendant for the lease of items 1 and 2, the rice mill, according to their ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Decided on : Nov-06-1998
Reported in : (1999)IIILLJ651All; (1999)1UPLBEC463
ORDERShitla Pd. Srivastava, J.1. This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner (Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Limited) against the respondents the Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner and the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner for issuing writ of certiorari to quash the order dated January 14, 1998 passed by the respondent No. 1, copy of which has been filed as Annexure-17 to the writ petition. The second relief sought for is writ of mandamus commanding the respondents not to implement the aforesaid order.2. Annexure-17 to the writ petition is an order passed by the Assistant provident Fund Commissioner, the Sub-Regional Office, Dehradoon, exercising power under Section 7A of the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (hereinafter referred to as Act only). By this order the authority concerned has determined the money due from the petitioner which is a covered Unit under Code No. UP/ 1261, Dehradoon un...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Decided on : Jan-12-1998
Reported in : 85(1998)CLT240
ORDERPradipta Ray, J.1. The present petitioner as plaintiff filed O.S. No. 12/80-I in the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Puri against the opp. parlies. The suit was filed on March 18, 1980 and was valued at Rs. 7,7 00/-. In the said suit petitioner filed an application under Order 39, Rules 1 and 2 of the Civil Procedure Code which was registered as Misc. Case No. 103 of 1981. By judgment and order dated October 8, 1985 the trial Court allowed the said application in part and restrained the opp. parties from receiving dry bhog from the pilgrims and other devotees on the pretext of offering the same to the deities. The trial Court, however, refused to prohibit payment of Dakshina to the opp. parties. Against the said interim order present opp. parties I and 2 filed Misc. Appeal No. 70/98 of 1985/86 in the Court of District Judge, Puri. By judgment and order dated November 4, 1994 Second Additional District Judge, Puri passed the following order :'The defendants 1 to 4(a) in T. S. 12/80...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT
Decided on : Oct-15-1998
1. In this appeal filed by the assessee against the order of the CIT(A), grounds No. 1 & 15 are of general nature, whereas ground No. 14 is merely a summary of a number of other grounds. As such, these grounds do not require any separate attention.In ground No. 2, the assessee contends that the CIT(A), erred in upholding the disallowance of Rs. 3,006 being subscription fees paid to the Clubs by the Company. The AO found out that as per the report under Section 44AB, the auditors had pointed out that the assessee had incurred above expenditure on Clubs. The disallowance was made on the basis of the said audit report. In the first appellate order, the CIT(A) mentions that the amount pertains to the subscription fee of the President and the Vice-President of the assessee Company to various Clubs. He upheld the disallowance.The amount being small, must be relating to the subscription fees and cannot include actual expenses towards entertainment by being cost of food or drinks etc. Fol...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Patna
Decided on : Jul-21-1998
Aftab Alam, J. 1. The petitioner seeks, on various grounds, quashing of the proceedings for acquisition of a piece of her land under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). The subject of acquisition is a piece of land, 9.28 acres in area, forming part of survey plot Nos. 17 and 18 (with a total area of 13.98 acres) and situate at villages Ashikpur and Mugraura on the road connecting Jamalpur to Munger. The land was required for the construction of Block-cum-Circle Office, Jamalpur.2. The facts of the case are brief and can be stated thus. On a requisition made by the District Development Officer, Munger, vide his letter No.650, dated 29-3-1984 a land acquisition proceeding was started by the District Land Acquisition Officer. Munger. There is some confusion concerning the date of publication of the notification under Section 4 of the Act. In para 4 of the counter-affidavit, it is staled that, 'the notification under Section 4 of the L...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Dec-03-1998
Reported in : 1999IAD(Delhi)581; 77(1999)DLT242; 1999(48)DRJ108
ORDERC.M. Nayar, J.1.This judgment will dispose of Civil Revision Petition Nos. 900/94 and 18/97. The first petition arises out of the judgment dated September 5, 1994 passed by Shri N.K. Goel, Addl. Rent Controller, Delhi by which an application of the petitioner for leave to defend was dismissed and an order of eviction was passed in favor of the respondent in respect of the tenanted premises. The second petition, Civil Revision 18/97 challenges the order dated November 8, 1996 dismissing an application of the petitioner for staying the proceedings under Section 14(1)(d) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') in view of the pendency of the first petition in this Court. The respondent filed an eviction petition against the petitioner under Section 14(1)(e) read with Section 25B of the Act in respect of the tenant-ed premises. Summons in the prescribed proforma were issued to the petitioner and an application under Section 25B(5) for leave to defend ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Feb-20-1998
Reported in : 1998IIAD(Delhi)302; 72(1998)DLT166; 1998(44)DRJ789
ORDERManmohan Sarin, J.1. Petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 1.8.1996, passed by the learned Additional Rent controller under Section 15(1) of the Delhi Rent Control Act (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') in Eviction Petition No.199/95, directing the petitioner to deposit arrears of rent at the rate of Rs.825/- per month with effect from 1.3.1993 up to March 1995 and at the rate of Rs.907.50 per month with effect from April 1995. There is a further direction to continue to deposit the rent at the rate of Rs.907.50 per month by the 15th of following month. The appeal preferred by the petitioner against the order dated 1.8.1996 was dismissed by the learned Rent Control Tribunal vide order dated 9.1.1997.2. By the present petition, filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, petitioner challenges the above orders dated 1.8.1996 passed by the learned Additional Rent Controller and Order dated 9.1.1997, passed by the learned Rent Control Tribunal, dismissing the appeal...
Tag this Judgment!