Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 17 (1.21 seconds)
Documents citing The West Coast Paper Mills Ltd. vs Asha Kapoor on 6 February, 2009

Kanwal Sethi vs . Ranjana Aggarwal on 8 June, 2023

46. Again, in the case of Lalit Madhan vs Pramod Kalra on 10 January, 2014, the Hon'ble Delhi High court referred to the judgment of West Coast Paper Mills Ltd. Vs. Asha Kapoor (2007) 97 DRJ 548, Inder Vijay Singh Vs. NDMC (1995) Rajdhani Law Reporter 254, Sewa International Fashions Vs. Smt. Suman Kathpalia 82 (1999) DLT 104, Standard Pharmaceuticals Ltd. Vs. Gyan Chand Jain 97 (2002) DLT 290 and Annick Chaymotty @ Devayani Vs. Prem Mohini Mehra 95 (2002) DLT 312 and held that the consistent view of the Delhi High court needs to be followed which is that maintenance charges are to be considered as part of rent.
Delhi District Court Cites 29 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

M/S Desein Pvt. Ltd. vs M/S Indian Institute Of Planning And ... on 17 April, 2013

In case of West Coast (supra )also the facts are materially different as it was observed in the case referred in the Arbitration Clause that those disputes and differences which relates to the constructions, meaning, operation or effect to the said lease agreement or breach thereof settled by arbitration and Court found that not a single dispute mentioned in the application touching the interpretation, meaning, operations or effect of the lease agreement. Court did decide in the said case as to whether such a clause contained in the arbitration agreement should be looked into or not. The Court merely dismissed the application under Section 8 of the Act by holding that the disputes are outside the scope and ambit of Arbitration Clause as contained in the lease agreement.
Delhi High Court Cites 15 - Cited by 0 - M Singh - Full Document

Lalit Madhan vs Pramod Kalra on 10 January, 2014

(i) West Coast Paper Mills Ltd. Vs. Asha Kapoor (2007) 97 DRJ 548 where a Division Bench of this Court held, that the word „rent‟ included not only what is originally described as rent in the Agreement but also those payments which are made for amenities provided by the landlord under the Agreement and rent includes all payments agreed to be paid by the tenant to his landlord for use and occupation not only of the building but also for furnishing, electrical installations and other amenities; the payment towards maintenance charges of the premises rented out and also for providing amenities to RFA No.350/2013 Page 5 of 15 the tenant, is rent; accordingly, the charges payable in that case by the tenant to the landlord for furniture and fixtures were held to be part of rent and the premises were thus held to be outside the purview of the Rent Act;
Delhi High Court Cites 12 - Cited by 5 - R S Endlaw - Full Document

Addl. District Judge­Ii vs Brief Facts on 23 May, 2011

13. On the other hand, Ld. counsel for the plaintiff/non­applicant has contended that for the applicability of Section 8 of the Act, suit must be in respect of 'matter' which parties agreed to refer and within the ambit of arbitration agreement. Words "a matter indicates entire subject of the suit should be subject to Arbitration Agreement. Bifurcation of suit is not maintainable", in this regard he has relied upon "Sukanya Holdings Pvt. Ltd. V. Jayesh H. Pandya & Anr. III (2003) SLT 194, Yogi CS No. 802/10 Page no. 13 of 21 Agarwal V. M/s Inspiration Clothes & U & Ors. AIR 2009 Supreme Court 1098, West Coast Paper Mills Ltd. V. Asha Kapoor 157 (2009) DLT 696". It has been further contended that once the applicant/defendant has filed written statement their right to file present application is waived off and stands closed and therefore, this application is not maintainable per se, in this regard he has relied upon "Rashtriya Ispat Nigam Ltd. & anr. V. Verma Transport Co. (2006) 7 SCC 275". It has been further contended that defendant no. 1/applicant has also moved a counter claim and by filing of counter claim applicant/defendant no. 1 has necessarily submitted himself to the jurisdiction of this court, so applicant/defendant no. 1 could not be allowed to approbate or reprobate. So by filing counter claim defendant no. 1 /applicant himself submit to the jurisdiction of this court so this application is liable to be dismissed.
Delhi District Court Cites 17 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Sh. Raj Kumar vs Sh. Vijay (Since Dead) on 20 September, 2012

10. So far the rate of rent is concerned, It is admitted case of the respondent that the rate of rent of the tenanted premises was Rs. 625/- per month and it is also admitted fact that the legal notice Exh. PW1/10 was duly served upon the respondent and even duly replied by the respondents through their advocates vide Exh. PW1/10. By way of legal notice Exh. PW1/10, the rent was enhanced to Rs. 687.50/- per month w.e.f January 2004. It has been held by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in E-74/11 Raj Kumar Vs. Vijay 7/11 West Coast Paper Mills Ltd. Vs. Asha Kapoor, 2007 (97) DRJ 548 that service of legal notice is sufficient to increase 10% rent. As such, rate of rent between the parties stands proved.
Delhi District Court Cites 10 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Mr. Rahul Chakarvarty vs Mrs. Nisha Khan on 28 August, 2014

In West Coast Paper Mills Ltd. Vs. Asha Kapoor, (2007) 97 DRJ 548 it was held that rent includes not only what is described in the rent agreement, but also those payments which are made for amenities provided by the landlord and rent includes all payments agreed to be paid by the tenant to his landlord for use and occupation not only of the building, but also for furnishing, electrical installations and other amenities.
Delhi District Court Cites 22 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Smt. Surender Kaur vs Sh. Agyakar Singh (Senior Citizen) on 24 October, 2013

14.The arguments advanced by the Counsel for the appellant/ defendant are also devoid of any merits. The judgment relied upon by the Counsel for the defendant clearly stipulates that there can be a unilateral enhancement of rent if there is contractual or statutory provision for increase of the same. Section 6­A of the Delhi Rent Control Act is one such statutory provision which allows unilateral enhancement of rent by 10% after every three years by giving notice of one month to the tenant. The rent stands increased after the expiry of 30 days from the date when the notice is given. This is was so held in West Coast Paper Mills Ltd. vs. Asha Kapoor 2007(97) DRJ 548 . Therefore, it is not correct to say that the respondent could not have increased the rent unless consented by the appellant. Once, the notice u/S 6­A of DRC Act has been issued to the tenant for enhancement of rent, the tenant is legally bound to pay the enhanced rent.
Delhi District Court Cites 16 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Sh. K.K. Khanna vs Sh. Rajinder Kumar Malik on 26 September, 2012

8. The other material fact is rate of rent of the tenanted premises. It is not disputed fact between the parties that the rate of rent of the tenanted premises was initially Rs. 100/- per month, which has been enhanced to Rs. 110/- per month after enhancement @ 10 % rent. Even the document Mark 'A' is also proving the rate of rent of the tenanted premises in Clause 1 & 2 of the rent agreement. In the WS, the respondents have admitted that they have been paying the rent @ Rs. 110/- per month which also proved that the rate of rent of the tenanted premises was initially Rs. 100/- per month. The legal notice Ex. PW1/5 has been admitted by the respondents and the same is containing a clause of enhancement of rent @ 10 %. It has been held by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in West Coast Paper Mills Ltd. V. Asha Kapoor, (2007) 97 DRJ 548 that the service of legal notice is sufficient to enhance rent @ 10 % under Section 6A & 8 of DRC Act. After the service of legal notice, the rent of the tenanted premises stood enhanced to Rs. 110/- per month. As such, last paid rent of tenanted premises was Rs. 110/- per month and it stands proved.
Delhi District Court Cites 15 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1   2 Next