Court : Punjab and Haryana
Decided on : Mar-22-2004
Reported in : [2004]136STC261(P& H)
..... delhi and ajmer rent control act, 1952, was repealed by the delhi rent control act, 1958. sub-section (2) of section 57 of the delhi rent control act, 1958, contemplated that notwithstanding such repeal, all suits and other proceedings under the said act pending at the commencement of the 1958 act before any court or other authority shall be continued and disposed of in accordance with the provisions of the said act as if the said act had continued in force and this act had not been passed. it was contended that when a repeal is accompanied by a fresh legislation on the same subject, the provisions of the new act ..... as a condition precedent for hearing of appeal. the said order of the learned appellate authority was challenged by the petitioner in appeal before the haryana tax tribunal (for short 'the tribunal'). the learned tribunal dismissed the appeal holding that there is no implied repeal of provisions of section 39(5) of the hgst act and the appeal is to be entertained only under the provisions of section 39(5) of the hgst act. it is the said order which ..... appeal is a vested right as if exists on the date of commencement of lis. the lis can be said to commence under the hgst act on the date when return is filed or is required to be filed. therefore, the provisions of section 39(5) of the hgst act would continue to govern the right of appeal vested in the petitioner which is saved in terms of section 4 of the punjab general clauses act (as applicable to state of haryana).38 .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Decided on : May-18-2004
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 : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Dec-17-2004
Reported in : AIR2005SC648; 2005(80)DRJ(Suppl)518; [2005(2)JCR71(SC)]; JT2005(1)SC1; 2005(1)KLT443(SC); (2005)2SCC271
B.P. Singh, J.1. In this appeal by special leave appellant Nathi Devi is the tenant while respondent Radha Devi Gupta is the landlord who filed an application for the eviction of the appellant on the ground that she required the premises for her bona fide personal need invoking the provisions of Section 14D of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') which, according to her, entitled her to immediate possession of the premises in question being a widow landlady. The appellant filed an affidavit and prayed for leave to defend on the ground that the petition raised many triable issues. The Additional Rent Controller, Delhi by his judgment and order dated 12th November, 1997 after considering the submissions urged before him came to the conclusion that the tenant had failed to make out a case for grant of leave to defend as she had failed to raise any triable issue. He, therefore, allowed the petition under Section 14D of the Act and passed an order of evict...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Aug-25-2004
Reported in : 113(2004)DLT788; 2004(77)DRJ82
O.P. Dwivedi, J.1. The petitioner herein filed a suit for possession/ejectment, arrears of rent and damages/mesne profit against the defendants/respondents alleging therein that premises in question were let out to the respondents/ defendants jointly on monthly rental of Rs. 2500/- vide agreement dated 4.9.77. The tenancy commenced on 1.10.77. Rent was increased from time-to-time @ 10%. For the period from 1.9.98 to 31.8.2001, defendants/respondents paid rent @ 3327/- per month. Then on 28.7.2001 plaintiff served a legal notice on the defendant under Section 6-A read with Section 8 of Delhi Rent Control Act (for short the 'Act') notifying thereby that the rent will be increased by 10% with effect from 1.9.2001. The said legal notice was duly served on the defendants/respondents. Since the monthly rent of the demised premises becomes Rs. 3659/- with effect from 1.9.2001 which is in excess of Rs. 3500/-, the provisions of Delhi Rent Control Act cease to be applicable to the demised premi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Jan-12-2004
Reported in : AIR2004Delhi248; 109(2004)DLT509; 2004(72)DRJ540
RFA No.833/2003 and CM 2088/2003. 1. This is an appeal filed by the appellant against the order passed on an application under Order 12 Rule 6 filed by the appellant. 2. Briefly stating the facts of the case are that the respondent filed a suit for possession with the prayer for a decree of possession in favor of the plaintiff and against the defendants as well as a decree for recovery of arrears of rents and decree for recovery of damages/mesne profits. The appellant filed written statement. Thereafter in view of the written statement filed by the appellants, it seems that the respondent herein filed an application under Order 12 Rule 6 of the CPC praying for decree of recovery of possession on the basis of admissions made by defendants No.1 and 2. 3. Mr. Lonial, learned counsel appearing for the appellant, has contended that the trial court erred in not appreciating that the rent of the premises was Rs. 3,217/- and was not more than Rs. 3,500/- and, thereforee, it was Rent Controller...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Oct-14-2004
Reported in : 114(2004)DLT691
R.S. Sodhi, J.1. This petition is directed against the order dated 14th January, 2004 of the Additional Rent Control Tribunal (for short 'the Tribunal' ), whereby the learned Tribunal has allowed the landlord to withdraw his suit for eviction under Section 14(i)(g) of the Delhi Rent Control Act.2. The facts of the case are that two petitions were filed by Smt.Krishna Dwivedi under Section 14(i)(g) of the Delhi Rent Control Act against Surinder Kumar and Pawan Kumar with respect to tenanted premises No. 248, Sant Nagar, New Delhi - 65. Both petitions were taken up together and disposed by a common order dated 28th September, 2002, of the Additional Rent Controller (for short 'the Controller'), wherein the Controller has passed an order of eviction directing the landlord to rebuild the premises within four months and in default thereof, to pay Rs.10,000/- per month by way of compensation. Being aggrieved of this order of the Controller, both the parties filed appeals before the Tribunal....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Dec-17-2004
Reported in : 2005(2)ALLMR299; 2005(5)BomCR832
Britto N.A., J.1. These are plaintiffs second appeals.2. The parties hereto shall be referred to in the names as they appear in the cause title of the suits.3. The plaintiff is the owner of a property known as 'Maddem' having land registration No. 29031, Matriz No. 2290 surveyed under No. 114/5 with a house in it, situated in Umtawaddo of Calangute village.4. The plaintiff by virtue of an agreement dated 24-9-1976 let out to defendant No. 1 the said house as per the plan attached with compound at the back of the house and a strip of land which went up to the seashore; on payment of a monthly rent of Rs. 775/-. The lease was for a period of 22 years from 1-4-1976, for the purpose of running a guest house. Considering the nature of the business, it was agreed between the parties that rent would be Rs. 425/- per month for the first year and with a proportionate increase of Rs. 50/- every subsequent year. Clause 9 of the said deed, which is most relevant, reads as follows :-'The lessee sha...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Oct-14-2004
Reported in : (2005)107BOMLR843; 2005(1)MhLj547
R.M.S. Khandeparkar, J.1. Heard the learned Advocates for the parties. Perused the records. Rule. By consent, the rule is made returnable forthwith.2. The petitioners challenge the order dated 24-3-2004 passed by the respondent-BMC and the demand for payment made pursuant to the bills - Exhibits R. S-1 to S-8 annexed to the petition being contrary to the provisions of law, illegal, and in excess of the powers conferred upon the authority under the provisions of law comprised under the Municipal Corporation Act, 1888, hereinafter called as 'the said Act.'3. The facts of the case are that the petitioners are the owners of the property having therein a building by name 'Dalamal Tower', situated in Plot No. 211, Backbay Reclamation, Municipal 'A' Ward No. 1315 (127), Nariman Point, Mumbai. The building comprises of a basement, ground plus fifteen upper floors having two enclosed garages in the basement and 274 units of which 199 are self-occupied by the members of the petitioner-society wh...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Aug-31-2004
Reported in : 2004(7)KarLJ456
ORDERV. Gopala Gowda, J.1. The petitioner-Education Trust has filed this writ petition seeking for issuance of a writ of certiorari quashing the order dated 19-6-2004 passed by the 2nd respondent in No. LND(S) CR 223.97-98 at Annexure-G urging various grounds.2. The case of the petitioner is that 57 acres of land in Sy. No. 225 of Somanahalli was granted permanently and 33 acres of land in the said survey number was leased in its favour for a period of 10 years by the State Government vide Government Order No. RD 153 LBG 62, dated 3-5-1962 for the purpose of development of agriculture along with the Education Activity. Pursuant to the said grant, it has constructed various buildings for the purpose of setting up of Engineering and Diploma Colleges and High Schools. On an earlier occasion, petitioner had filed W.P. No. 26259 of 1991 when under the guise of 'Ashraya Scheme' some people tried to enter the property of the petitioner on the ground that sites have been allotted to them by th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Dec-07-2004
Reported in : 2005(99)ECC523
Sanjay Kishan Kaul, J.1. The petitioners are garment exporters and seek to raise common questions of law. The petitioners are impugning the authority of respondent Apparel Export Promotion Council (for short,' AEPC) to levy penalty for non-utilisation of the quota allotted to respective petitioners. The petitioners also seek to challenge the basis for calculation of the extent of utilization of the export entitlement. 2. The Foreign Trade (Development & Regulation) Act, 1992 (hereinafter to be referred to as, 'the said Act') came into force on 19.06.1992. The object was to provide for development and regulation of foreign trade and inter alias augmenting exports. Section 5 of the said Act provides for the Central Government to formulate and announce the Export and Import Policy from time to time and to amend that Policy. Section 11 stipulates that no exports can be made except in accordance with provisions of the said Act, Rules and Orders made there under as also the Export and Import...
Tag this Judgment!