Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 9 of 9 (0.55 seconds)
Documents citing International Airport Authority Of ... vs Municipal Corporation Of Delhi And Ors. on 8 January, 1991

The Central Ware Housing Corporation vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 2 March, 2023

In the aforesaid judgment this Court has relied 5/19 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP(MD)No.7953 of 2010 on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Hotel Corporation of India Vs State and Others, reported in AIR 2001 Jammu and Kashmir Page 36 and in the International Airport Authority of India Vs Municipal Corporation of Delhi AIR 1991 Delhi page 302 and held that the plaintiff (Central Ware Housing Corporation) does not come within the purview of the building of Central Government and therefore, the defendant is empowered to levy taxes upon the plaintiff. The petitioner Corporation has not preferred any appeal against the said judgment and the same has attained finality. Therefore, the plea of the petitioner that they are Government of India undertaking and they are exempted from paying tax is not sustainable in law. The petitioner is only an undertaking and therefore, the building does not belong to the Government of India and therefore, the petitioner is liable to pay the property tax.
Madras High Court Cites 10 - Cited by 0 - B Pugalendhi - Full Document

M/S. Airports Authority Of India vs The Special Commissioner & ... on 27 July, 2021

In the case of International Airport Authority Vs. Municipal Corporation of Delhi, reported in AIR 1991 Delhi 302, the Hon'ble Division Bench of the Delhi High Court categorically considered the similar issue and held that the property in question namely, terminal II of Indira Gandhi International Airport is not the property of the Central Government and is the property of the Authority, and the respondent Corporation is 14/18 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ W.P.Nos.11311 to 11313 of 2008 and W.P.No.28441 of 2017 entitled to levy and realize taxes from the petitioner under Section 113 of the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act. The Delhi High Court also took a same view that a contention was sought to be raised that the municipal tax could not be levied on the property of the company by virtue of Art. 285(1) of the Constitution because the company was owned by the Government. It was held by the Supreme Court that merely because the entire share capital was subscribed by the Government of India, it did not mean that the company did not own the property in question. It was held that the company was a separate legal entity.
Madras High Court Cites 11 - Cited by 1 - S M Subramaniam - Full Document

The Food Corporation Of India vs The Angamali Municipality And Anr., ... on 25 March, 1994

In International Airport Authority of India v. Municipal Corporation, AIR 1991 Delhi 302, a view similar to that of the Orissa High Court in Paradip Port Trust case (AIR 1990 Orissa 145) was taken in relation to properties of the Central Government which had vested in the International Airport Authority of India under the International Airport Authority Act, 1971.
Kerala High Court Cites 36 - Cited by 1 - Full Document

Municipal Corporation Of Delhi vs North Delhi Power Ltd. on 25 July, 2005

19. Learned Counsel for MCD contended that in view of the judgment in the International Airport Authority case, the respondent NDPL is liable to pay property tax. That judgment was concerned with the interpretation of the expression "vesting" under Section 12(1)(a) of the International Airports Authority Act. The property, before vesting in the Authority, had vested with the Central Government. Hence, the Authority claimed benefit of Section 119(1) of the MCD Act. The Court repelled the contention, and held that by virtue of Section 12(1)(a), whatever had vested with the Central Government, vested with the Authority; hence it could not claim exemption from taxation. As would be evident from the facts, and the provisions of law, the property itself vested with the Authority, a statutory corporation. Hence, there was no question of application of Section 119(1) of the Act.
Delhi High Court Cites 25 - Cited by 1 - S R Bhat - Full Document

Smt Ishmali Devi & Ors vs Delhi Development Authority & Ors on 24 August, 2009

International Airport Authority of India Vs. MCD ILR 1991 (2) Delhi 265 para 28 was cited to canvas that entry in Khasra Girdawri of the ownership of Central Government is not reliable. It was contended that even though in 1937 Pilanji was included in the revenue estate of Arakhpur Bagh CS(OS)1075/2000 Page 11 of 30 Mochi but at the time of alleged acquisition it formed a separate revenue estate;
Delhi High Court Cites 39 - Cited by 15 - R S Endlaw - Full Document

Indian Statistical Institute vs South Delhi Municipal Corporation ... on 14 March, 2016

While the Division Bench of this Court in International Airport Authority of India supra had answered the said question in the negative, i.e. in favour of MCD, Calcutta High Court had taken a contrary view; a Single Judge of the High Court of Bombay also (in International Airports Authority of India Vs. State of Maharashtra MANU/MH/0668/1984) had taken the same view as Calcutta High Court. Supreme Court held that IAAI is a statutory corporation distinct from the Central Government and that the properties of the Union vested in IAAI cannot be said to have been vested in it only for proper management and after such vesting ceased to be properties of UOI for the purposes of Article 285. It was reasoned (i) that power to carry on a business is an incident of proprietory power;
Delhi High Court Cites 52 - Cited by 0 - R S Endlaw - Full Document

The Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited vs Commissioner on 29 July, 2022

23.The High Court of Delhi in International Airport Authority of India vs. Municipal Corporation of Delhi and others reported in AIR 1991 Delhi 302, held that the property owned by the Union Government Company or a statutory Corporation, which has a corporate personality of its own, cannot be said to be the property of the Government of India and therefore, it https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 16/20 W.P.(MD)Nos.3554 to 3561 of 2011 is liable to State or Municipal Taxation.
Madras High Court Cites 9 - Cited by 0 - N Kumar - Full Document

The Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited vs Commissioner on 29 July, 2022

23.The High Court of Delhi in International Airport Authority of India vs. Municipal Corporation of Delhi and others reported in AIR 1991 Delhi 302, held that the property owned by the Union Government Company or a statutory Corporation, which has a corporate personality of its own, cannot be said to be the property of the Government of India and therefore, it https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 16/22 W.P.(MD)Nos.3554 to 3561 of 2011 is liable to State or Municipal Taxation.
Madras High Court Cites 9 - Cited by 0 - N Kumar - Full Document

Oil And Natural Gas Corpn Ltd vs Palavasana Gram Panchayat & 3 on 29 January, 2008

5. Ms Calla, learned AGP has supported the stand of the Gram Panchayat and submitted that the petitioner is liable to pay the property tax being levied by the Gram Panchayat. Reliance is placed on the decision of a Division Bench of the Delhi High Court in International Airport Authority of India Vs. Municipal Corporation of Delhi, AIR 1991 Delhi 302, wherein the Court upheld the levy of property tax by the Municipal Corporation of Delhi on the property of the International Airports Authority of India which is a statutory Corporation established under the International Airports Authority Act, 1971.
Gujarat High Court Cites 6 - Cited by 0 - M S Shah - Full Document
1